#but it’s a violation of the union agreement and doing that could have gotten me fired had I continued without asking

[theres-whump-in-that-nebula]

Good god I’m so hypervigilant from work and I can’t shut it off

[autismgavemychildvaccines]

Economic downturn, racism and war.

So, normally I’d be in some sort of non-sober state while writing this, and be full of my typical rash wit. But not today. Today I want to talk about what I (and many others) are seeing down the tube.  First, let’s go over the quick run of what’s going on. 1, we’re having concentration camps of both migrants as well as asylum seekers. This is inherently inhumane and a violation of various multiparty agreements that were made post world war 2 to not cock things up like Germany did with the Jews, or more locally relevant, what we did to fuck over the Japanese in the same period.  2, We’re in a trade war with China, who is itself trying to do a hostile takeover of Hong Kong (and don’t kid yourself for a moment, that’s exactly what the fuck that is), which happens to be the 3rd most important economic center in the world by most accounts.  3, Russia is fucking around with our politicians and buying them off to make for easier voter suppression and just bloody hacking the electronic voting machines, which oh by the way, an adequately caffeinated high-school nerd could probably do.  4, And finally, despite not technically being “in a war”, we’re not at peace, either. Hell, we haven’t been for as long as I can remember. Like many people on this website, one of my first memories was 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I vividly remember the latter, as we sat in our living room watching the bombs drop and my mother in hushed tones said “Well.. This is it.” and my stepfather, an Army Ranger at the time, looked tired and said matter of factly “we’ll not be rid of this until you’re a grown man, and even then..”. And he was right.  Now, all of these things seem somewhat not related. Well, I guess I should say the 1st doesn’t exactly line up with the 2nd and 3rd, which have some geopolitical relevance to each other. But let’s take a history trip together, shall we? First, be sure to bring the hairspray, because we’re going into the Reagan-era and just before for a bit.  Imagine if you will the supposed dying throes of the Cold War. Bioweapons program supposedly being shut down, the Soviet Union splitting away, and the Americas? Well they’ve gone through hell, and by no small measure it was due to proxy wars, puppet governments and a complete disregard for “other” people for the sake of borders and protection. Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala and other countries are having civil wars funded by both sides of that iron curtain, causing institutionalized violence, setting the development of these countries back fucking decades, and setting them up to fail.  [Note that when I say “setting the development back”, I do not mean they are in any way lesser to us due to this. In fact, in my wheelhouse of Public Health, they arguably do a better job of handling shit than we could dream of in the US. They’re damn fine people, and in some ways thriving, but to say we didn’t fuck with them would be a disservice. ] Part of this “setting up to fail” strategy was the use of drugs as a means of easy funding, which the U.S. government did wholly support to the point of screwing African Americans (and to a much lesser extent, poor people in general) in particular over by introducing things like Cocaine and Crack to poor neighborhoods (though it should be noted such drugs had been in the realm of public notice for the better part of a century before, just not as accessible).  Funny thing about using drugs to fuel wars. Wars can end. But the demand for drugs by a population that doesn’t have the ability to be treated due to some “moral outrage” against helping addicts? Well, that still remains a very profitable venue. So even after we stopped giving a fuck about any of these countries and their governments gave up the sale of illegal drugs, at least in the open, criminal elements showed up to do what they did best: manufacture and transport drugs to where the best demand was, the United States typically. And to protect this profitable enterprise, these groups would claim territory, claim children as recruits, commit other crimes to support the chain, etc. And these activities still go on today, wherein some cartels and gangs have gotten rich enough to effectively buy off governments and have their own fiefdoms, where those with any ability risk their lives to run. And yet, so many do. Also, it’s important to note that while countries like Mexico are arguably more stable than say, Honduras or El Salvador, they’re still pretty fucked from the radiation of these activities. So these families try to make it to the closest, arguably “most stable” country they can, ironically the one that set the stones for the foundation of where they found themselves. And they are treated as trash, as less than human, as animals. Because we refuse to see our own guilt. We refuse to see what we have done, not centuries ago, but less than 50 years ago. And who is egged on the most to hate these people? Well, if you look at it, it’s the least “most powerful” group that can easily be manipulated: Lower class white groups by a vast majority. Groups who themselves see hardships, certainly, but more than anything know two words: Fear and Authority. They are afraid of the “other”, the “jawb steelin’ immigunts”, the “criminals and rapists” as the person who inhabits the White House calls them. And they respect and adore those who can wield an iron first. Someone they can imagine being, whether it’s a business tycoon of a dictator they see as a near-messiah, who says it’s not their fault they are struggling, and then makes an easy, low effort “solution” for them to point to as to what could cure all those ills which are, at their root, legitimate.  [Note: This by no means excuses any White Supremacist or other racist ideologies. That shit needs to be fixed, and there is no excuse for that.] Let’s take a pause for a moment on that, as it’s significant. Is this the first time this has happened? Heavens no, in fact, many examples exist in history. But one stands out to me above all.  Go back with me again, if you’d be so kind. You feel the warmth of the sun on your face, you can hear the distant waves, and the not so distant hustle and bustle of a city. You smell a mix of salt water infused air with just a hint of smelted metal or gunpowder.  Perhaps you hear some music from The Andrew Sisters crackling out of a radio near an open window. You’re in San Francisco, not too long after the World’s Fair, where the hopes of Utopia were promptly shut off to be dismantled and loaded for the war effort of World War 2. In fact, as you look around, you see the strangest thing. There are clearly Japanese inspired markets and homes all around, but inhabiting them? No Japanese, surely, but the Shoe Shines and markets filled with a vibrant African American community. Some would one day call this the West Coast Harlem. And by their account, it was a wonderful community, of which I have no doubt. However.  Those who lived and worked and loved in these buildings just months prior were put into camps. In Utah, in Nevada, California, Washington. In fact, it pains me a bit to know one such place is but a very hearty stones throw from where I sit writing this. They were put there and made to stay due to risk of espionage, national security, or “for their own safety”. They were told to join the war effort as translators or soldiers, or remain there. The doctors of that community and the nurses too would end up working without pay, saving their own communities with limited supplies and truly working goddamned miracles in these camps to keep people alive, as politicians would brag “For every cent we spend on the Japanese, we spend a whole dollar on our boys out on the front!” That kind of shit sound familiar?  And that African American community? Well, while it was a positive thing for that demographic, certainly, and they had a valid right to be a community, that was by no means organic. The military spread out to places like Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, wherever there were large populations of blacks, whom the whites saw still as highly undesirables, and the military saw as cheap labour.  Well, the military found their people. And those people found cheap, effectively abandoned communities, and were able to live somewhat better than where they came from, all while building warships. However, just like with the previous example, this war wouldn’t last forever. But not just like that previous example, the demand for warships is rather... Specific, in both timing and transferable skills, shall we say? So, this cheap labour was made of a demographic that could be relatively easily discarded without them having enough of a voice to cause waves. And soon enough, the Japanese would return from their internment camps, and let’s just say things were... Tense, between these two groups. Two groups who were, by most accounts, politically undesirable, and if they were fucked, well who would care, right? If it caused generational issues, and exacerbated an economy that would make a good deal of trouble, as long as it’s not the demographic that matters... No worries. It’s not like they even really have good proof of who was really at fault, nor who profited from later real-estate scoop ups and other such economic trends. After all, they moved for the jobs, and the Japanese? Well that was a national security issue.... Don’t you love your country?  While this isn’t analogous to what we are seeing today, I hope you can notice the similar theme. Except this time, the demographic in question has to feel “empowered” in some way, and having who they want voted in anyways due to international meddling is more an afterthought to the “yay, we won!” mentality. And the expendables will have a bit more of a veiled attempt to undercut their work via a trade war with a nation who is admittedly, a scumbag (which we have collectively supported with corporate dollars for decades). This trade war will cause a lot of businesses, farms, and the like to close, making it easier for corporate groups to buy out the competition and profit all the more for it (despite some initial risk due to economic trends). All the while, a different, remarkably innocent group is being blamed and tortured for their “crimes”.   It would not surprise me if in the next 2 years, we will see a recession that will make 2008 look pretty alright. And make no mistake, it will not be due to the president at that time. The gears of the machine have been turned now and in the last year and a half. Likewise, we may well see a war. With who? I do not know. But I most certainly know who will profit from it. And who will die from it, and who will be dehumanized further to be the scapegoat.  We’re in incredibly dangerous times, and we need to be aware of why, if we have any hope of surviving. 

[bimboficationblues]

I'm technically new to all this political stuff, so I hope you can help me out! - How would you briefly explain to someone why capitalism is bad? Why is the US also bad, and how would you respond to someone who claims that it is a "free country" and that we "at least have the freedom of speech and the freedom to protest", etc. I'm very bad with words, I'm just a dumb kid. Sorry for bothering, and thank you. (:

I will answer these questions, but first off, I would say - read, listen, think. Ultimately it’s better if you can develop your own conclusions through a mutual dialogue and learning process with others rather than getting your talking points entirely from others, especially on a social media platform. But if you want resources or recommendations from others, Tumblr can be useful, and I’m happy to provide if you want.

As for answering your questions, it really depends: who is the person you’re talking to, and what do you want out of the conversation? Not everybody has the same interests or concerns or values, and sometimes they’re intractable for whatever reason. So there are other factors that should be taken into account. If you’re just trying to “win” a discussion, I don’t personally think that’s a worthwhile use of time - but if you are trying to convince someone interpersonally or just get better at clarifying your own perspective for the future, that could be valuable.

So, answering your questions under the cut:

How would you briefly explain to someone why capitalism is bad?

A) Capitalism stifles human freedom, and does so in both passive and active forms. This seems counterintuitive because capitalism is peddled as the fulfillment of human freedom (by way of innovation and freedom of choice - Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman have claimed that so-called “economic freedom” is a necessary condition for political freedoms), so bear with me.

Passive forms: In order to live under capitalism, most people have to work - and for that matter, they have to tailor skills and interests to be rewarded on the labor-market. Furthermore, since capitalism is predicated on the principle of private property, some kind of state is necessary to enforce that principle through the law, and the state and law are blatantly forms of social control (see David Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism for more info on this). As a Christian myself, this is the essence of idolatry. The capitalist world-system was made by humans, ostensibly to serve human needs, but is both bad at serving those needs in many ways (for reasons to be explained below) and uses us as the fodder for its self-perpetuation! 

And this generates alienation. There is nothing necessarily “wrong” with depending on other people - humans are social creatures and are themselves influenced by the conditions under which they live no matter what those conditions are. But when your labor and the product of your labor benefits others far better than it sustains you, when you are pushed to view all other people as competitors, when you are subjected to various forms of interpersonal and structural domination (detailed below), this produces quite a bit of psychological distress. (Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism and Deleuze & Guattari’s Capitalism and Schizophrenia touch on these in different ways.)

Active forms: Historically, in order to get people to be wage laborers, they had to be forced to do so - in England, which is generally regarded as the birthplace of capitalist modernity, laws were established to oblige people to work for a certain period and punish them if they didn’t. Similar legislation cropped up in Germany and France. And, of course, there was also the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the abuse and exploitation of indigenous populations throughout the Americas and the Caribbean, the confinement of women to the household for free labor. Though not all contemporary evils are the result of capitalism, they have all been shaped by capitalism. Primordial prejudices and mistreatment of “aliens” has been around for a long time, but anti-black racism and “scientific” racism developed out of the economic functions of slavery and capitalist development; though patriarchy predates capitalism considerably, it has been absorbed and reproduced by capitalism’s dynamics. 

One of the common selling points for capitalism is the voluntary character of the contracts, but again, I don’t think it’s a meaningful choice when your other options are “starve” and “beg.” But let’s grant that people enter into voluntary employment contracts to sustain themselves. Within those contracts, bosses behave like dictators, and this is a pattern of both small businesses and large corporations precisely because they want to get as much work and value out of you as they can in order to make a profit. (Vivek Chibber’s book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, while not about interpersonal domination by capitalists and employers, has a great chapter on the subject - “Capital’s Universalizing Tendency.”)

Now, although the standard of living and wages for American workers has been rising for a long time (only recently stagnating despite the growth in productivity, again the result of the neoliberal turn in the 70s and 80s), we have seen the most brutal forms of exploitation and domination displaced to other places - Southeast Asia, China, India, and Latin America being the most prominent cases. And still, as the article linked above demonstrates, there are lots of forms of interpersonal domination still going on in an American context.

B) Capitalism is anti-democratic. The concentration of wealth into a select few hands, and the associated political and social power that has become attached to greater social wealth, means that wealthier people have greater access to political power and influence. The Koch Brothers are probably the best example of this, though lobbying in general is an expression of this function. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this one because I think it’s the least compelling argument personally even though I agree with it, but it is a popular and common one!

C) Capitalism is also fundamentally irrational. I think this is true in the way that we think about value and the way capitalism generates regular crises, but I’ll just use one example.

The convenient thing about money, as both Locke and Marx point out, is that it is potentially infinite unlike other resources. There is the possibility of limitless growth, of maximum expansion - which is why the capitalist mode of production began in Western Europe and the United States and has since spread around the world. (There is, of course, no such thing as limitless growth for anything, except perhaps cancer.) But capitalism takes this possibility as gospel and as a result, will do anything to maximize growth. 

Sometimes those things are good for working people (farm subsidies enabling cheap food - though without those subsidies there would probably be a famine from capitalists not investing capital in food production). More often they aren’t, whether that’s mistreatment of workers, lowering or stagnating wages, destruction of the environment, or outright warfare. Plus, because there is a limit to natural desires or even luxury desires, capitalists have to constantly concoct new desires for us to latch onto, which is why so much money is sunk into advertising.And this is not merely the result of the ethical whims or personal behaviors of individual capitalists (though those do factor in), but the necessary and logical result of a mode of production that has an internal logic of constant, endless reproduction.

Why is the US also bad? how would you respond to someone who claims that it is a “free country” and that we “at least have the freedom of speech and the freedom to protest”, etc.

This is, paradoxically, an easier argument to make empirically but a harder case to sell because American nationalism and American exceptionalism are pretty ubiquitous, and they’ve only gotten more intractable in the past four or five decades. It really depends on what you mean by “bad,” anyway. On one level, the United States is not that different from any other state historically (since they are usually founded through violence and domination) or contemporarily (since they all act in their own geopolitical interests, and that often means fucking other people over undeservedly).

But, on another level: The United States- were built on indigenous and later African slavery- regularly violated treaties or used duplicitous means to gain access to Native American land for investment and expansion purposes- deployed genocidal tactics and sexual violence against Native Americans throughout the expansion process (especially in California and the Southeast)- fabricated a reason to wage war on Mexico to seize territory from it- botched Reconstruction after the end of formal slavery while still allowing black Americans to be abused and exploited and criminalized en masse- had racial policies that the Nazis found inspirational- engaged in imperialist warfare in the Caribbean at the turn of the century- overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii for economic reasons- nuked a Japanese civilian target (TWICE) when their surrender was already in the cards- used its new hegemony to start launching coups against (mostly democratically elected and socialist-leaning) governments (Iran, Guatemala, Chile)- held the rest of the world in a hostage situation alongside the Soviet Union by threatening nuclear annihilation- waged war on Vietnam after violating the agreement to allow democratic elections and unification to take place- illegally bombed Cambodia and enabled the Khmer Rouge to gain traction- financed Islamist fighters against the Soviet Union that were the precursors of al-Qaeda- engaged in Iran-Contra, basically the shadiest thing in existence, and failed to deliver any real consequences to the people involved - supported and continues to support dictators (Batista, Saddam Hussein, etc.) as well as death squads (right-wing paramilitaries in Latin America)- has the highest incarceration rate in the world- has massively expanded the surveillance and police apparatuses since 9/11- invaded Iraq under false pretenses and let Islamic State develop out of the chaos

This is just a minor selection. And to top it all off, the Constitution of the United States is designed to make government as dysfunctional and anti-democratic as possible. The powers of the President have been perpetually expanding for a long time, and the Supreme Court is such a shamelessly broken, unaccountable institution that I cannot believe we take it seriously. The Supreme Court’s rulings on free speech have been up-and-down, often determined by war and nationalism, and the social backlash and hostility to political protest every time the United States goes to war suggests that even with the freedom of assembly granted by the Constitution, nationalism takes priority over freedoms.

This post is long enough, but if you (or anyone else) want me to elaborate on anything I’ve said here, feel free to ask.

[shirlleycoyle]

The High Price of ‘Making the Numbers’ at the USPS

This article was sent on Tuesday to subscribers of The Mail, Motherboard’s pop-up newsletter about the USPS, election security, and democracy. It is the second in a multi-part series about working conditions at the USPS. Subscribe to get the next edition before it is published here, as well as exclusive articles and the paid zine.

This is Part II of a multi-part series looking at working conditions at the post office. If you missed Part I, click here.

For a brief period, it looked like the post office would finally be changing. On Valentine's Day in 1992, eight union leaders and USPS management signed the Joint Statement on Violence and Behavior in the Workplace (JSOV). Spurred by the Royal Oak shooting we covered last week, the one-page document was much more than the "thoughts and prayers" style platitudes we have since become accustomed to after a mass shooting. Instead, the JSOV declared that "grief and sympathy are not enough. Neither are ritualistic expressions of grave concern or the initiation of investigations, studies, or research projects." 

The statement went on: "This is a time for a candid appraisal of our flaws and not a time for scapegoating, fingerpointing, or procrastination." It affirmed that "every employee at every level of the Postal Service should be treated at all times with dignity, respect, and fairness…'Making the numbers' is not an excuse for the abuse of anyone."

But among the missing signatories was the American Postal Workers Union, one of the biggest and most influential unions representing postal workers. 

Years later, APWU Eastern Region Coordinator Mike Gallagher wrote a position paper to stewards about the continuous problem of workplace violence at the post office. He explained that his union chose not to sign because "quite frankly, we knew that the USPS would apply the principles of the Joint Statement against bargaining unit employees and not against managers." The APWU's position was this statement wouldn't change much, because the causes of workplace violence at the post office were fundamental to how it operated. Even a blanket zero-tolerance policy wouldn't change that.

Over the last few months, I have been interviewing postal workers about what it is like to work for the post office. They express a range of sentiments, from pride to gratitude to frustration and exhaustion. As I have said before, the post office is an impossibly vast and diverse organization that defies simplicity. 

The most common sentiment I hear is postal workers are proud to work for the post office because it is inherently meaningful work. But they also wish it was a more humane place to work, that problems actually got fixed instead of ignored or passed along. Most of all, they wish the USPS was a place where being a good boss or being a good worker actually mattered. There is a maxim at the post office that doing your work well only gets you more work. It was a maxim 30 years ago, and it's still a maxim today. 

I found the most revealing part of this reporting process came when I asked a few of the postal workers I interviewed what they thought of a 1994 Government Accountability Office study, its results succinctly summarized by the title: "U.S. Postal Service: Labor-Management Problems Persist on the Workroom Floor."

The seven postal workers from around the country who volunteered to read the study unanimously agreed the basic characterization of the postal service from 1994 is still accurate. It is an authoritarian, top-down organization in which policy is set by higher-ups who have often never done the work of sorting and delivering mail. The people actually doing the work—or even the people managing the people doing the work—have little to no say in how the work is done. There is a widespread perception that supervisors are not selected based on their management skills. As a result of the basic metrics and incentives upper management creates for both supervisors and workers, an "us vs. them" mentality between labor and management dominates daily routines.

To the question of "have things gotten better since the 'going postal' era?" I received a resounding "no."

"I cannot even begin to tell you how incredulous I was reading this," a 27-year-old mail handler at a processing and distribution facility in Oklahoma wrote in an email. "To know that my same daily complaints and laments were a problem back nearly as far as when I was born—and that they haven’t been resolved in the slightest!!—is so disheartening to me."

Another processing and distribution facility worker from the Pacific Northwest echoed similar sentiments. "That was 10 years before I started, and I have to say overall, No. It has not changed much."

Today's edition of The Mail is going to be about why so little has changed even after the rash of shootings that resulted in dozens of dead and wounded and permanently tarnished the post office's reputation. But it's important to acknowledge this is not just about the post office. Violence—both verbal and physical—in the American workplace was not a new phenomenon when Patrick Sherrill killed 14 coworkers in Edmond, Oklahoma in 1986. The U.S. workplace too often treats workers as little more than extensions of the machines they operate, measuring success and failure by "hitting the numbers," callous to what that sort of treatment does to human minds and bodies. We often think of the post office as a quintessential American institution. Unfortunately, when it comes to how it treats its workers, it is.

In 1994, two different letter carriers filed grievances against supervisors who were allegedly harassing them. The cases were consolidated into one national-level arbitration hearing in 1996. The national-level arbitration was not about the specific harassment allegations, but whether the JSOV, by then four years old, was an enforceable agreement. In other words, could a carrier file a grievance against an abusive manager for violating the JSOV and have that supervisor disciplined, transferred, or even fired? Or was the JSOV just another empty promise from management?

The JSOV itself appears to be quite clear on this question. "Let there be no mistake," the statement concluded, "that we mean what we say and we will enforce our commitment to a workplace where dignity, respect, and fairness are basic human rights, and where those who do not respect those rights are not tolerated."

But by 1996, USPS management didn't see it that way. They argued the JSOV was merely a "pledge" and did not override its right to manage the workforce as they see fit. They said the JSOV was nothing more than an effort to "send a message to stop the violence."

Just as the APWU predicted, management was using the JSOV to punish rank-and-file employees for offenses like cursing at managers while simultaneously arguing the JSOV was nothing more than a toothless document when wielded against abusive supervisors.

The arbitrator sided with labor. "The Joint Statement marked a departure from the past and pointed the way to organizational change," the arbitrator found. "This was a document that evidenced an intent to take action rather than a mere statement of opinions and predictions." 

It's difficult to objectively evaluate the JSOV's effectiveness in curbing workplace violence at the post office. But the broad consensus among postal workers and union stewards I've spoken to is the JSOV is better than nothing but hasn't done much in practice. 

On the one hand, there is some evidence that working conditions at the USPS have gotten better. In 2000, there were 10,553 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints filed against the USPS by employees out of a workforce of 786,516, or a rate of 1.34 percent. By 2018, the latest year for which these statistics were available, there were just 4,081 complaints out of 633,641 workers, or a rate of .64 percent, less than half what it was in 2000. But factors besides working conditions at the USPS—such as the perceived worthiness of filing complaints with the EEOC—can also impact those rates. 

Likewise, grievances that went to arbitration show some tentative signs of progress. Since 1996, when the JSOV became contractually enforceable, there have been 1,195 grievances involving the National Association of Letter Carriers with a JSOV-related complaint, or about 50 per year on average, according to a copy of the grievance database reviewed by Motherboard. Of those, 611 of the complaints were denied by an arbitrator, leaving 584 cases ruled at least in part a violation of the JSOV.

But, again, this data is not capturing the whole picture. These numbers are not the total JSOV-related grievances, just those that reached arbitration for this one union. And although the years with more grievances came prior to 2000—the most was 145 rulings in JSOV cases in 1997—this is probably because workers had this new avenue to file grievances they didn't previously have, so it captures events dating back several years and conflicts that have been stewing for a while. Rulings per year gradually declined until 2008 with a low 14, before rising again to about 35 per year in recent years.

Source: NALC arbitration database obtained by Motherboard

Moreover, some of the rulings detail that postal management continues to look the other way on problem supervisors, a key issue highlighted by the Congressional investigation into the Royal Oak shooting. 

For example, in 2008, an arbitrator found a supervisor in Oakland, CA had "a history of cease and desist orders…at stations throughout the Bay-View Postal District." Management was aware of these previous violations of the JSOV and the history of worker complaints against this one supervisor, but management "failed to take appropriate action." The arbitrator said the supervisor's actions of calling his employees "muthafuckers" and "bitches" was "exactly the type of work place behavior that the JSOV was intended to prevent." The arbitrator ruled the supervisor could no longer be anyone's boss, but only in the Pacific Area region. 

Sometimes, the arbitrators themselves do little more than shuffle off problem supervisors to other locations. In 2009, a supervisor in Gaithersburg, MD repeatedly threatened and harassed workers, which the arbitrator found to be "abusive behavior which holds open the potential for violence." Nevertheless, the arbitrator's ruling was to reassign the supervisor to another nearby post office and receive sensitivity training. 

Also in 2009, a union steward and postal supervisor in Stockton, CA got into a physical altercation when, after an increasingly escalating shouting match, the steward accused the manager of sleeping with the postmaster in order to get her job. The manager then slapped the steward, who restrained the supervisor and left. Despite the police being called and a statement taken, the supervisor received only a written warning while the steward was suspended for 21 days without pay. The arbitrator discovered this was not the first time local management had looked the other way on complaints of this particular supervisor violating the JSOV.

And these are just a few of the examples that have been documented. More often, postal workers and union officials say, violence and harassment in the workplace goes unreported as an accepted part of the job. In 2018, NALC Branch 343's newsletter succinctly summarized just how little has changed since the "Going Postal" era:

It has been my experience that seasoned carriers often times will ignore or shrug off this type of behavior because they have been exposed to it for such a long time. This speaks volumes. Many of these carriers have seen worse and nothing happened. 

Why is the post office such an enduring hotbed of workplace conflict? This is a question I've asked postal workers around the country over the past few months. And the most surprising element of reporting this story, at least to me, is there is absolutely no mystery about it. Everyone knows exactly why the post office is rife with workplace conflict. It's even right there in the JSOV: "making the numbers."

Until recently, Josh Sponsler was a letter carrier in Ohio. He decided to quit the post office despite being a "career" employee with solid pay, good benefits, and a decent pension waiting for him at the end of the road. But he quit because the mounting stress and tension in the workplace took a toll on his mental health. When I asked what it was about the workplace that made it so stressful, Sponsler brought up "the 96."

The 96, officially known as Form 3996, is the form carriers have to fill out if they expect they will have to work overtime to deliver the mail that day. In the morning, when carriers show up for work, they will look over the various types of mail they have to deliver: the pre-sorted mail, the magazines and other "flats," and the packages. If they think work that day will take longer than eight hours and therefore trigger overtime, they reach for the 96. 

But supervisors also have their own opinion about how many hours each route should take. The machines that pre-sort the mail automatically generate statistics about how much mail is going to each route. Those stats are then sent to supervisors each morning. Then, supervisors literally measure each route's unsorted mail with a yardstick. After plugging that number into the same software, the computer generates a final estimate for how long the mail should take to deliver.

Often, Sponsler says, the carrier's estimate will be very different from the computer's. For one, neither the computer programs nor measuring mail by the yard captures the most important factors about how long it takes to deliver mail. For example, what's the weather like? Are there mailers going to every business along the route? Every residential address? Is there road construction along the route?

And the computer's estimate is based on the regular inspection every route gets, where a postal supervisor will literally time with a stopwatch every move the carrier makes to determine how long that route "should" take. This estimate then becomes the baseline for that carrier's route estimates until the next inspection is done. But, for various reasons, that inspection may not be representative of the route year-round.

These two estimates for how long the day's mail will take to deliver is, as Sponsler put it, "the first thing that would cause tension" every day.

The tension is heightened because these estimates, multiplied by the thousands upon thousands of mail routes around the country are, in many ways, the main metric for how the modern post office functions. Supervisors are not given budgets in terms of dollars but in terms of work-hours. The more hours carriers say they'll need to finish their routes, the harder it gets for supervisors to meet their work-hour budgets, which will get them in trouble with their bosses.

The same goes for supervisors overseeing workers who don't deliver mail, such as mail handlers and other workers in processing facilities. In fact, for them it can be even worse, because they never leave the facility and are therefore constantly watched by their bosses. Throughout the JSOV grievances reviewed by Motherboard, workers report supervisors timing their bathroom breaks with stopwatches, looming over them so the workers can "feel their presence" while they work, or filing official warnings if they're too slow on a machine by a matter of seconds.  

When carriers, union stewards, and post office managers talk about "making the numbers," they're talking about these numbers, the work-hour budgets. And they're also talking about the increasingly unreasonable requirements postal management puts on supervisors and postal workers alike, bringing mail to more and more delivery points every year with fewer and fewer workers, relying more and more on overtime that management consistently wants to slash. Talking to postal workers, an analogy that often comes up is that working for the post office feels like working in a pressure cooker. Everyone is being squeezed.

Reaching for the 96 has become an increasingly common occurrence. In August, the USPS Inspector General reported on the agency's soaring overtime costs which it largely attributed to "staffing challenges." Because the post office has consistently cut the number of people it employs even as it delivers to more locations, it relies on overtime to deliver all the mail every day. But, in many ways, keeping employees from filing their 96's is the most important thing a supervisor does from USPS management's perspective, because it saves the post office money. 

Source: USPS OIG

There are, of course, good ways and bad ways for managers to handle this dynamic. Most postal workers I've spoken to said they've had at least one good boss who was reasonable and treated workers with respect. But, they are the exception, not the rule, because doing so requires actively ignoring or competing with the incentives put forward by their bosses. 

For the not so great bosses, they have every incentive to bully workers that take longer to do the job, have routes with the greatest discrepancy between the computerized stats and the carrier's own work pace, or, as is all too often the case, just pick on someone they don't like for whatever reason. And they often do it under the guise of achieving operational efficiency, of hitting the numbers.

Day after day, week after week, month after month, this conflict by design can easily devolve into being about anything other than delivering mail. Mail carriers get frustrated and feel like they're being gaslit into doing a job that cannot be done. They get frustrated being told to do a job in a way they think will be slower while also being told to work faster. Their bosses think they're a liar for saying the work can't be done in eight hours. Supervisors tag carriers who they perceive as constantly asking for unjustified overtime as problem workers who need discipline. 

This dynamic was represented in an extreme but not anomalous way in the Gaithersburg case. The supervisor testified to the arbitrator on the record that he "thinks that Carriers that apply for overtime are 'thieves.'" This view, he added, was the reason he felt empowered to harass carriers who said they would need overtime to finish their rounds. It was also backed up by his postmaster, who expressed similar sentiments.

"You just know there's a very good chance that, by filling this sheet out, you're getting into an argument about time," Sponsler said. And sometimes those arguments get out of hand.

If things haven't gotten any better at the post office, it's fair to wonder: why don't we hear about "going postal" anymore? 

I put this question to Northeastern University Professor James Alan Fox, who has studied mass shootings and workplace violence since the early 1980s. He said shooting trends are more like a "general contagion," in that once they get publicized, a small group of people identify with the shooters and replicate their actions. For example, once the Edmond shooting was covered by the media in 1986, other postal workers started to think that might be a way for them to address their grievances, too. In a situation where these shooters likely saw no way out of their problems, they now had one.

But these trends pass just like any other. "There are fads in crime as there are in other aspects of life," Fox said. "Back in the 80s, the way that postal workers expressed their anger and grievance was with a gun…but that is not part of the culture now."

There is, however, a cohort of postal workers who report regularly higher job satisfaction than everyone else. They're called rural mail carriers. They do the same job as the so-called "city" carriers, even many times out of the same offices with the same supervisors, but for complex historical reasons, they fall under different salary structures. Whereas city carriers are hourly employees that get overtime for working more than eight hours in a day, rural carriers are given an annual salary to deliver the mail however long it takes. As a 1994 Government Accountability Office report put it:

"Rural carriers do not have to negotiate daily with supervisors regarding the time it will take to complete mail sorting or delivery, and their performance is not closely supervised. Rural carriers generally control their own workdays as long as all the mail is delivered on time each day."

I asked Sponsler if he thought putting everyone under the rural carrier structure would solve the workplace issue. He said he had never thought about it before, but he doubted it could ever happen because the entire organization, workers and management alike, have become too addicted to overtime. Many of the workers like the extra money and management won't hire enough people to avoid it. 

Instead, he proposed different solutions, ones I had heard many times before. Abandon the autocratic management structure. Get rid of the computer metrics, or at least drastically curtail how they're used. Empower supervisors to run their post office the best way they see fit, not just follow orders from on high that apply to all the post offices in the area. They're big ideas, but not impossible ones. 

Sponsler ended our interview by saying he didn't really want to quit the post office, but he had to. He liked most of the people he worked with. The carriers really do care about delivering the mail in that cheesy way you always hoped was true but never wanted to ask. It really is true, he said. 

"Even with my experience, it can be a very good place to work," he assured me. But it's a far cry from making sure that experience applies to more than just a select few lucky ones with a good supervisor. "The service needs to work on a lot of stuff to get there."

The High Price of ‘Making the Numbers’ at the USPS syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[danaslewis]

TRUMPS “STRATEGIC INCOHERENCE”. Drawdown of U.S. troops Germany

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/u-s-troop-drawdown-germany-trumps-strategic-incoherence/id1512445640?i=1000477969872

Speaker 1: Ambassador Nichols Burns

Chancellor Merkel all said, we don't want to bring Russia back into the [inaudible]. This open defiance and disagreement with the United States is really unprecedented.

Speaker 2: Dana Lewis - host

Hi everyone. I'm Dana Lewis in London, and welcome to backstory. While you were rightly concerned about police violence in America and trying to cope with a pandemic, don't feel bad if you didn't notice this curve ball, president Trump, just

Speaker 3:Dana

through NATO and specifically Germany, the white house is not so quietly leaking a decision to pull a third of America's 35,000 soldiers out of Germany, and it appears Trump is doing it because well, he's never gotten along well with German chancellor, Angela Merkel. And she just said she wouldn't attend a G seven meeting in June, especially since Trump want to do invite Russian president Putin. But Trump has never gotten along with Merkel, just listened to a small portion of his rent about Germany buying its energy supplies from Russia.

Speaker 4: Trump

But Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they were getting from 60 to 70% of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline. And you tell me if that's appropriate because I think it's not. And I think it's a very bad thing for NATO

Speaker 3: Merkel

and Angela Merkel. Who's clearly frosty towards Trump, took a veiled swipe at him during a speech last year at Harvard

Speaker 5: 1:24

tear down walls of ignorance and narrow mindedness for nothing has to stay as it is,

Speaker 3: Dana - host 

but reducing America's force in Europe and NATO has serious consequences and it sends the wrong message to an aggressive Russia. And to explain all this, you can't hear more eloquent, wiser words from ambassador Nicholas Burns and our second guest, the former commander of U S military in Europe, former Lieutenant general, Ben Hodges. First Nicholas Burns. Our ambassador Nicholas Burns was in the foreign service for 27 years and he was the us ambassador to NATO. And he is currently professor of diplomacy and international politics at Harvard's John F. Kennedy school of government. Thank you for joining us, mr. Ambassador.

Speaker 1: 2:10

It's a pleasure to be with you. Thank you so much.

Speaker 3: 2:13

Ambassador president Trump apparently wants to pull about one third of American troops out of Germany. Good idea. Terrible idea.

Speaker 1: 2:22

Not in the interest of the United States. The American trips are in Germany, obviously to help protect Germany and other European countries, but mainly because it's in the interest of the United States in two respects, it's a way that the United States can, uh, within NATO contain Putin and contain Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. It's also been the jumping off point, uh, for the United States into North Africa. As we say, we help the French try to contain the terrorist threat in places like Mali and Nisha air. And it was a jumping off point for our major Wars that we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan of the extraordinary infrastructure that we have built up with Germany over the last several decades, Ramstein airbase, for instance, being the major air base the United States uses. So this is, um, this is penny wise, pound foolish. It's it's also a part of, in my view of the strategic incoherence of what president Trump is trying to do with Europe. He's been very weak on Europe.

Speaker 3: 3:22

Is this more about his personality than, than strategy? Because he was angry at Angela Merkel for not wanting to attend the G seven. I mean, is this personality or is this him going back to NATO contributions and all of that?

Speaker 1: 3:35

It's not strategic. It appears to be spite he has had it out for Angela Merkel from the beginning of his presidency. I think he's been more critical of her publicly and privately than just about any world leader. He never breathed a word of, uh, of, um, disrespect or disagreement with shisha and ping or Putin or Kim Jong on, but he's been a consistent critic occurs. And he was apparently furious that she decided not to attend, uh, his plan G seven meeting in Washington at a time when, uh, it's difficult for leaders to travel because of the Corona virus. We still have high infection rates here in the United States. And I think, um, for a president of the United States to pull 9,500 American troops out of Germany, because he's upset with a German chancellor is not strategic, it's foolish.

Speaker 3: 4:22

So will Congress allow them to do it?

Speaker 1: 4:25

It's going to be interesting to see. I mean, there is, I think a movement in Congress right now, uh, to assert itself, uh, perhaps to pass a resolution against this decision, uh, or to try to delay it. Congress does hold the purse strings. One of the other reasons why we've expanded the American true presence in Germany just over the last five years was after Putin's annexation of Crimea and his, his placement of Russian troops inside Ukraine in 2014 and 15, the Obama administration and the Trump administration have effectively rebuilt the U S armored presence in Europe that had been hollowed out to fight the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's part of a strategic effort to make deterrent stronger against Putin as he threatens the Baltic States and Poland. And as he, of course, is active illegally in both Georgia and Ukraine. So it's a very important strategic move. Congress in both parties had funded a fairly substantial buildup, multibillion dollar buildup of American armored presence. And now the president is going to counteract that he appears not to have had any major discussions inside the administration with the state and defense departments. And of course, the fact given Donald Trump's record, he didn't let the Germans now ahead of this announcement. This is,

Speaker 3: 5:44

he wants to bring Russia back into the G seven. He talked about doing that. Is that in America's interest right now?

Speaker 1: 5:51

No, I was part of the effort to bring Russia, to expand the [inaudible] to the, to include Russia back in the 1990s, when I was special assistant to president Clinton for Russia and Ukraine affairs. But that was the 1990s when president Yeltsin was in power, we were partners with Russia. Um, potent is an adversary of the entire NATO Alliance. He has a next Crimea, which is at flagrant violation of international law. That's why sanctions were placed by the EU Canada and the United States on Putin. And the idea you'd invite them back to the G seven is anathema to all the other G seven leaders you saw it's extraordinary a week last week when prime minister Trudeau prime minister, Boris Johnson, chancellor Merkel all said, we don't want to bring Russia back into the [inaudible]. This open defiance and disagreement with the United States is really unprecedented in my, uh, 40 years of participation and observation of these events,

Speaker 3: 6:51

dangerous times we live in, I mean, we are seeing a number of treaties that president Trump has walked away from open skies. Uh, and now start, as you know, is supposed to be renewed next year. And it looks like president Trump is saying, we're not going to renew start. And, uh, the Russians are encouraging America to do so. The, I spoke the other day to Rose the Mueller who was the main chief negotiator for the U S and she talked about how, yes, you could bring China in later on, but in the meantime, you need to extend that treaty and not let it expire. We are entering into a new arms race. Does it worry you, when you start adding up all of these treaties we're walking away from and where that leaves us in terms of the dangerous to a nuclear exchange possibly with Russia and others?

Speaker 1: 7:36

Well, I think it's the most dangerous time in terms of nuclear weapons, proliferation and instability. In the last half century, since president Kennedy and president Johnson began arms control with the Soviet union back in the depths of the cold war, I would not blame it, obviously all on president Trump. I think the Russians are largely to blame. They're the ones who violated the intermediate nuclear forces treaty that subsided as you know, uh, more than a year ago. And all of NATO was opposed to that. Uh, the Russians have introduced, um, SU um, supersonic missiles and other strategic

Speaker 6: 8:16

[inaudible].

Speaker 1: 8:16

I played both strategic and intermediate range, um, Accords. And so I think the Russians are at the heart of this problem, but I, I agree that, uh, open skies for the United States to leave that that was very much in our interest start, uh, start renew, start renewal February one, 2021. It's a difficult issue because I think there's an argument to be made that you should, we should seriously consider extending it to provide for stability and strategic nuclear arms. But I do think the Trump administration has a point that China is absent from all of these arms agreements. China's now without any question, a greater military power than Russia, uh, all told. And I think the United States, and I hope Russia, as well as the NATO allies will pressure China to agree to limits on its nuclear program. And so the, the Trump, uh, strategy here is not, uh, irrational. They're trying to convince the Chinese leverage the Chinese, uh, that they have to make. Uh, they have to be part of the arms control regime itself.

Speaker 3: 9:21

Can I just talk to you very briefly, but what's happening in America? Uh, it is, it is troubling everywhere. And, um, how does this allow the U S to preach to others now about human rights and democracy? You mean largely I've spent my career, and I know you spent your career watching other nations and, and, and talking to other nations about the way government should work and democracy should work in America has been that great leader in that. And suddenly now, um, that the shine is off, isn't it. And it's compromising, it's troubling for the rest of the world. And where does it leave America in terms of its diplomacy?

Speaker 1: 10:05

Well, we live in a glass house. Race has been a curse on our history. We've never gotten it right. We've never done right by the African American community, going all the way back to 16, 19 Dana, when the first slave ship arrived in Virginia, and it's been the seminal event, an issue in our history, and I think millions of Americans, and you can see this and those demonstrating and speaking out, feel heartbroken over the murder of George Floyd, the systemic racism, the, the police mistreatment of young African American men. There's so many examples of it and the racism that exists in our society. And until we get a grip on this until we truly make progress, it's going to be difficult for the United States to be as to be totally credible on the issue of human rights. When we lecture the Chinese, as we should, frankly, on their deficiencies, in Hong Kong, on their attitudes, towards Taiwan, on their apparent treatment of the weaker population of shungite province, the Chinese come right back at us with this charge, we'll look at your own house. And so I think we're at a point in American history where our greatest weakness globally are the dysfunctions in Washington, the political dysfunctions, the racism in our country, the, the red blue divide we're at a time we need to heal America so that in part of America can be more effective and honest in our global policy.

Speaker 3: 11:33

Are you confident that you're in a healing process or are you just entering something more dangerous than that?

Speaker 1: 11:39

It's interesting. I, I'm confident that I've never seen the American public more engaged on race than it is right now. Uh, African Americans have always been engaged. They have to be engaged. They're the victims, white Americans taking to the streets and speaking out in a way that I never thought was possible. And I'm old enough to have been 12 in 1968 during the most terrible year in our modern history with the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy and the Vietnam war and, and the violence in our streets. And I think if there is a silver lining in this very dark cloud, it is that people are really standing up here, uh, and holding the government to account and the opposition to what president Trump tried to do, which was to bring the military into the streets to deny the first amendment rights. A peaceful protest is fundamental to the entire history of the country and the idea of America.

Speaker 1: 12:34

It's inspiring to see for former chairs of the joint chiefs of staff, all speak out against what president Trump tried to do. People are standing up, we've just got to keep it going. And I'm going to be very, in a sense partisan by saying, we have to defeat Donald Trump on November 3rd. I'm a advisor to Joe Bob. I've been supporting him for 14 months. And he, I think leadership is the key here in the white house, in, in governor's mansion in city halls, in our communities. We need to take back the America that we love. And that is so important, I think, to the rest of the world, to that democratic human rights oriented America. And that's the one you're talking about Dana. And I think this is, this crisis is the most profound crisis we've faced the racial crisis

Speaker 7: 13:20

best of the burns. Thank you so much for your, your wise thoughts. And it's always an honor to talk to you and thank you very much,

Speaker 1: 13:27

Dana, thank you. Honored to be on your program. Thanks so much.

Speaker 8: 13:34

[inaudible]

Speaker 7: 13:35

all right. Joining me now, Ben Hodges, a Lieutenant general is a retired United States army officer who served as commanding general United States army Europe. And he is currently the purging chair in strategic studies at the center for European policy analysis. And he's talking to us from Frankfurt Germany. So that's important, I think because he understands exactly both sides of the pond on these issues with NATO and troops in Europe. And if I can start off, I mean, president Trump as you're well aware has reportedly ordered the U S military to remove 9,500 troops from Germany. Uh, the move could reduce the U S contingent to 25,000. Can I get your reaction on it?

Speaker 9: 14:15

Well, Dan, first of all, thanks for the opportunity. Even people in the Pentagon and at NATO and other headquarters are referring all questions to the white house, which tells me that, you know, this is not tied to any sort of a strategic analysis, and this is a purely a political calculation. If it's true, then I think it's a colossal mistake, um, because of the damage it does to the cohesion of the Alliance, as well as a significant reduction to actual capability. That's here in Europe

Speaker 7: 14:49

when you're saying it's political, not, I mean, that plays into the idea that president Trump got angry with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and said, fine, you're not coming to the [inaudible]. We're going to take some troops out of Germany and penalize you. I mean, can you imagine an American president making a decision on something structure so strategic as military interests in Europe on the basis that he's just angry about a conference at [inaudible]

Speaker 9: 15:14

the timing of this leaves it open to question. I mean, the fact that you've asked that, and then I've seen that from others as well, um, is a reflection of the, uh, damage relationship between the United States and Germany. The fact that somebody, you know, uh, professional journalists and others would automatically connect chance to America saying she's not coming to the [inaudible] to a response by the American president like that. Uh, I believe that this is something that, um, the former ambassador, uh, Richard Grinnell has been encouraging for several months. Um, I don't know what caused the president to, um, if he said this, I don't know what caused it to happen right now, but certainly, um, the timing, um, is not helpful, uh, with regards to the, uh, uh, relationship now to her credit chancellor miracle. Um, of course, you know, has had pretty, uh, tough measures in place here in Germany, as far as closing down businesses, stopping, uh, gatherings. And so for her to then appear in Washington in a, in a closed group kind of setting, um, you could, you could see that's a difficult position for her. Like it would be for any other, uh, political leader that has imposed restrictive measures. So, um, I think it was, it was almost impossible for her to, to accept the, uh, the invitation.

Speaker 7: 16:38

You're saying that the ambassador Grinnell, the former ambassador was pushing this to draw down American troops in Germany. Why?

Speaker 9: 16:45

Uh, I think, uh, the ambassador, um, has, um, wow from day one, actually, even before he arrived to take office as our ambassador in Germany, he was already advocating for, um, Germany needing to do, um, Germany needs to do a lot more, um, as part of its role inside the Alliance. And for sure, every president has said that our European allies needed to do more, but there was a, a particular, uh, edge, um, to the ambassador's approach, um, that I actually always felt was counterproductive. And so, um, over the last few months he has advocated for this. Um, but it reflected in my view, a misunderstanding or a lack of appreciation for why we have troops in Germany, and they're not here to protect Germans. They're forward stationed, just like us air force. It's based in the UK. It's not there to protect the UK it's forward stationed for our interests.

Speaker 9: 17:49

How, how and our interests, I mean, how does that serve our interests? So, well, number one, our interests are best protected by a strong cohesive Alliance, NATO, uh, not perfect, but still the most successful Alliance in the history of the world. And so, um, our contribution to NATO, whether it's air forces, land forces, Navy, uh, intelligence, missile defense, um, that's our contribution to the collective defense effort of NATO. So you've got 30 nations committed to each other that protects America's interests. Secondly, in a more practical way, um, having bases like Ramstein, for example, in Germany, uh, allows us to project power or to support operations and support presence in Africa in the middle East, uh, the hospital at lunched Hill. Another example of soldiers who were wounded in Afghanistan, Iraq were flowing back into Lonsdale, no telling how many young men and women's lives were saved by having a very large capable medical center here in Germany. Uh, the number of troops that are in Germany about 34,000 army and air force, I mean, that would not fill up half of a major football stadium in America. So we're talking about actually a very small number of people, but they give us infrastructure a footprint that allows us to project power, as well as demonstrate commitment to the rest of the allies.

Speaker 7: 19:16

When you were the commanding general of, of us, uh, army in Europe, obviously

Speaker 9: 19:24

part of what your,

Speaker 7: 19:27

the, the drills you're running, the strategy, you're looking at constantly as a threat from Russia. Um, and I know that you were probably quite involved in dealing with Ukraine as well, and the Russian incursion into Ukraine and the seizure of Crimea. And how important are those troops, uh, in Germany, in our presence in Germany and our contribution to NATO in terms of holding the line, if you want to call it that Eastern Europe against a president poop.

Speaker 9: 19:57

So the deterrence is all about having capability and demonstrating the capability and demonstrating the wheel to use the capability. That's the whole theory of deterrence. Um, and so if you don't have actual capability there, then obviously you don't have determined. So if you don't demonstrate that you have that capability, you don't have effective deterrence. Uh, unlike in the cold war, when I was a Lieutenant a very long time ago, and we had almost 300,000 troops, you know, the expectation was that, uh,

Speaker 7: 20:28

three, sorry, 300,000 troops. And now you're down to 34,000.

Speaker 9: 20:34

Yeah. So basically when I was a Lieutenant, you know, we had 300,000, the mission was to deter the Soviet union, protect American interests and assure America's allies. Uh, today we have about 30,000 troops and the mission is to deter Russia, protect America's interests, and, uh, assure America's allies. So that presence is an important part of that. But unlike during the cold war, when the Soviet union clearly had intentions to, um, conquer, to invade West Germany, we know that from the cold war, starting the plans and so on now, uh, Russia, the Kremlin does not have the capability to do that, but they also don't have the desire to do that. What they want to do is anything they can to undermine the cohesion of the Alliance. So they use cyber, they use disinformation and, uh, frequently they'll talk about the use of nuclear weapons. So to put in the mind of all political leaders, that if they launched a short, quick attack into say, Lithuania or Romania or Estonia, and then they stop and they say, do you really want to get into a nuclear war over Lithuania?

Speaker 9: 21:46

And, and of course, if the Alliance doesn't respond to that and they have effectively wrecked NATO and undermined our life, and they also use, um, what their support for the Assad regime in Syria and Libya, which is only made possible because we have not competed effectively in the black sea, from their basis in Ukraine, that has put more than 3 million refugees on the road, out of Syria, into Turkey and the rest of Europe, which obviously undermines the European union, their support for general haftorah and Olympia. Um, potentially there's another million refugees coming across the Mediterranean into Europe. This is not accidental. This is weaponization of refugees by the Kremlin. So competing in the Ukraine, not in the Ukraine, competing in Ukraine is important because, uh, without Crimea, uh, without Russia's, uh, illegal annexation of Crimea and this bridge, they built across the Kurt Strait, which chokes, uh, Ukrainian ports on Sierra dissolve. Uh, this gives Russia the opportunity to dominate in the black sea and use it as their launching pad for all the malign activity they're conducting in the middle East.

Speaker 7: 23:03

So what do you, how do you analyze the wisdom then a president Trump flirting with the idea of normalizing relations with Russia and maybe even suggesting he could have gone to that [inaudible] meeting with Angela Merkel?

Speaker 9: 23:15

Well, even the, even the European allies that are, that tend to be more open to engagement, uh, with the Kremlin, uh, are, were astounded that the president would offer, uh, an invitation to president Putin to come to the [inaudible]. I mean, then they all said that this was completely unacceptable. And, uh, I, an invitation like that, just like, uh, I proposal to reduce by almost a third American troops in is a gift to the Kremlin that they've done nothing to merit, such a, a reduction or an invitation, if anything, that's continued to kill Ukrainian troops in the Donbass every week, they've continued their disinflation efforts, their cyber attacks and their illegal claims to territorial waters and exclusive economic zone around the Crimea. Um, why in the world would we offer them? Uh, I mean, that's the opposite of the integrate a negotiator.

Speaker 7: 24:19

It's interesting in terms of timing that Russia, because you mentioned the nuclear threat and, you know, as scenario where they might try to seize the Stony or a lot of via Lithuania, Russia has just come out and published its doctrine. Um, not accidentally, they've made it quite known that they might see a limited nuclear exchange or use of a nuclear device in relation to a conflict with NATO. Uh, Trump has said he won't renew the start nuclear treaty. He's abandoned the open skies he's walked away from the inf the intermediate range treaty, uh, th these treaties, I mean, a lot of critics will say steered us away from a nuclear war limited or otherwise. Cause a lot of people don't think he can have a limited exchange anyway, that they have steered us away from a nuclear conflict with Russia. And now we are in a new arms race with SuperDuper missiles and to quote president Trump and other things. Are you worried about the direction that we're heading in and very rapidly? So,

Speaker 9: 25:17

so, uh, I'm worried on a, on a couple of levels first, uh, when it comes to these treaties, all of them have flaws because they're all the result of a compromise and negotiation. So they, all of them will have some flaw, but, um, as you state, uh, the arms control protocols and efforts over the past decades have kept us, even though both sides had thousands of nuclear weapons, we've managed to reduce the, the risk as well as the numbers. I mean, something like 80% reduction in nuclear weapons, overall 90% reduction of nuclear weapons that were based in Europe. This is, this is not inconsequential. Uh, I would much rather that we stay inside treaties as well as international and multilateral organizations and fix them, uh, versus walking away from them. I, I would, I would prefer that the United States lead not leave now. Uh, our allies could behave much better.

Speaker 9: 26:18

Um, Germany, France, UK, others, uh, for example, an inf they knew for years that Russia was in violation of inf of they've known for years, that Russia was in violation of open skies, treaty. Um, those countries instead of criticizing the United States for walking away from them, should have been putting big pressure on the Kremlin to live up to it. And the United States, if we were, uh, had been thinking more strategically should have been working with Germany in particular, uh, to put pressure on the Kremlin. I think Germany is the only country that can actually influence criminal behavior because of its economic power and its leadership inside the European union and the same, by the way, with the Chinese communist party. So a better approach in my view. And it's very difficult obviously, but to work closely with those allies that can bring to bear the right kind of economic leverage on the Kremlin and on the Chinese coming as party. Now, how do you, sorry, I was just gonna say it's, um, I'm not opposed to, uh, the administration's desire to get China, uh, involved in, uh, in the, uh, arms control process. And of course the Chinese coming as party right now has zero incentive and, and zero desire to be a part of it. So, um, there is, there is a strategic challenge for the United States that we can't keep our hands tied here while the Chinese develop unlimited capabilities. Uh, that, that is a concern. And for sure, um,

Speaker 7: 27:57

well, you don't necessarily have to make a choice. Do you, I mean, you could extend start with Russia and then pursue negotiations with China. And that was always if you can comment on it, but that was always, the idea was when you're having 30, 40,000 nuclear weapons on either side of, of the Soviet union and America, you can start talking to people who have nuclear weapons, that number a few hundred. So what you need to do is get the base down to 1500 as president Obama's negotiations data on start to, uh, and then work from there towards a thousand, and then bring in the other, other nuclear powers and try to get them then to sign on to these declarations as well. But you don't have to abandon one to pursue the others.

Speaker 9: 28:38

No, absolutely not. Uh, I've read with you. I'm just saying that, uh, that's the, the challenge is trying to figure out how do you, uh, put pressure on the Chinese while still maintaining or continuing a process. And, and without honestly, without Germany and other countries bringing pressure, I don't, I don't think we're going to be successful.

Speaker 7: 29:01

Ben, I've known you since you were a brigade commander for, for some 20 years now. I think we're getting close to 20 years anyway, and I know the military well, because I've been embedded a number of times and I would not normally ask you a political question cause I know you wouldn't answer it. None of you, when you look at what's going on in America right now, your colleagues never before have they stepped up and stepped out and spoken out against the use of military by the administration, uh, James Maddis to Colin Powell to dozens of commanders now have come out and said the Trump should not deploy the military in the United States. I'd like your comment on that. Why does it go against what

Speaker 9: 29:42

you believe? I assume it does. Yeah, of course. Um, you know, I, uh, I, I keep a copy of the constitution. Uh, I've had this for decades actually. Uh, cause we all would take an oath to the constitution all the time. Every time there's a reenlistment or promotion or it's something that is so ingrained in our fiber from the time you go through your officer training, um, throughout your entire career. So that's why, um, you see, uh, a real, uh, anxiety by officers, including retired officers about, um, what, what we see we, the respect for civilian authority is so ingrained the, the respect for, uh, our fellow citizens and not using force against fellow citizens is so anathema to everybody in the military. And particularly when we understand the difference between national guard and regular army, that there's a reason for that when we grow up in that.

Speaker 9: 30:47

Um, so you can, you can see professional, uh, officers have all the services really wrestled with, with this idea. Um, just like we also hate seeing, you know, uh, monuments in Washington D C being defaced and violence. So there's a, uh, a, uh, it was a struggle. Um, I think that, uh, when, uh, when I think about in 1957, when president Eisenhower deployed soldiers from the three 27th infantry regiment of the a hundred first, now the reason I'm so familiar with this is because the three 27th entry of course is the core of first brigaded on her first. That's my, my regimen. And we have a Memorial and the brigade headquarters there to when our soldiers were sent to little rock Arkansas, um, to, uh, protect nine young black children trying to go into a high school that the governor of Arkansas, um, had used the Arkansas national guard to prevent from happening.

Speaker 9: 31:48

And so president Eisenhower in order to protect these nine young kids, but also because the image of the United States was so terrible, um, as, as race riots were happening, um, the president felt it was appropriate to use the military at that time. And I would completely agree. Um, I've seen nothing in this situation that would warrant the use of the regular, uh, of regular military in a, in any kind of a federal role. I think there's so much more that could be done. And, um, you know, part of the, um, the negative reaction is also because of the language. I mean, when the secretary of defense talks about dominating, battlespace when we're talking about American cities is to everybody. And, and so, um, I'm certainly a, would agree with the, uh, um, criticisms of dramatic Admiral Mullen and others.

Speaker 7: 32:53

What would you have advised the president if you had been with him? And he had said clear Lafayette park, I want to go for a walk. And we were going to use tear gas and rubber bullets to do that

Speaker 9: 33:05

well. Um, first of all, uh, I am very sure that Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs, um, pushed very hard against the president on using the insurrection act and bringing in the regular army. I there's no doubt in my mind that he fought back against that very hard. Um, of course I was not in the room when the decision, when the president says, Hey, let's go walk over to the church. I believe Mark Milley. When he says, um, we thought we were going to visit the guardsmen that were out there, which makes perfect sense. I mean, that's what a commander duck course his chairman. He's not the commander, but that's what a leader does you go see for yourself, the conditions. And especially if the president is turning to you to give advice about using military, it would seem completely inappropriate to, um, go see for yourself what's going on out there.

Speaker 9: 33:57

What the unfortunate part is this turned into this, uh, uh, photo op that was not, uh, impromptu by the president, but I think it was a total surprise to, uh, chairman Millie. Um, and you know, obviously he, he exited the scene immediately. I think in hindsight, they should have been more savvy to what might happen here. And, um, they probably was wrong. Yeah, there's thing that was wrong. Yeah. And nods in hindsight, I think he probably wishes that he, they had, they should have been more attuned to what this president would do. And I guess that this is the point that the president will use the military and he's talked about it so much. And the language coming out of the white house is just not appropriate. And so, um, I think, uh, every officer and you've seen it probably, you know, every one of the services has reminded everybody about our constitutional responsibilities, legal orders. And, um, uh, there's no doubt in my mind that Mark Milley, I've known him for a very long time that there have been some serious, uh, uh, heated debates and pushback by him, uh, on the civilian leadership. And, um, he will, uh, I have great confidence in him and his judgment.

Speaker 7: 35:23

I just pursue it with one last question and then let you and wrap this up. But philosophically, are you not on a short string to the white house and the president or, or philosophically, what is the command chain there in terms responsibility

Speaker 9: 35:38

to the U S military and commanders like yourself? Well, of course I am retired, so I'm never retired. Um, it's in your blood, you never retired, but indeed you are retired. So in the constitution, article one lays out the responsibilities of the Congress. Article two, lays out the responsibilities of the president. That's not an administrative act accident. Article one. So priority is to the legislative branch of government. Article two is where it says the president is commander and chief, but the military has a responsibility to the Congress also. And that's why our, um, Oh, this is to support, defend the constitution of the United States. Now, you know, when that excellent article by Anne Applebaum, where she talks about how do people, uh, how, how do really good people become complicit with behavior? And, you know, there's rationalization and now maybe I can still kind of control it and influence it, or, you know, there's different ways that people try to try to deal with that.

Speaker 9: 36:38

Um, for me, there's no doubt in my mind, I, I would have no problem telling him mr. President, I'm obviously not your guy, cause there's no way I'm going to do that. Now. It's easier for me to say that here in the safety of my retirement, but I am very confident in three years ago, if I had been asked when I was commander of us army, Europe, um, to do something that I knew I'm going to, uh, undermine our constitutional authority and also the credibility of the army, um, as a protector of the people that the America, in fact, I've always bragged to my friends and how you can be sure the American people never worry that the guys with all the guns, the military are going to take matters into their own hands in the United States. And so that's, that's part of the culture in that. No doubt I would have lived up to that

Speaker 2: 37:30

and whatever the consequences would have been Ben hunches, a great pleasure to talk to you, sir. You're, you're the purging chair of strategic studies at the center of European policy analysis. Also fluent in Germany and you're based in Frankfurt. It's a, it's a great gift to be able to get your views on all this, and thanks very much for what you're doing and thanks for the opportunity. And that's another edition of backstory, please, wherever you listen to backstory, subscribe and share I'm Dana Lewis, talk to you soon.

Speaker 8: 38:08

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/u-s-troop-drawdown-germany-trumps-strategic-incoherence/id1512445640?i=1000477969872

Episode is Live

Published: Jun. 14, 2020 @ 3PM Edit

[populistmedia]

US Sate Department Announces End Of New World Order

Tuesday, Secretary Mike Pompeo delivered remarks in Belgium, titled:  Restoring the Role of the Nation-State in the Liberal International Order. https://twitter.com/statedeptspox/status/1069900291238068224 From the Press Release: SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you, Ian, for the kind introduction. Good morning to all of you; thank you for joining me here today. It’s wonderful to be in this beautiful place, to get a chance to make a set of remarks about the very work that you do, the issues that confront the Marshall Fund and confront our region as well. Before I start today with my formal remarks, it would be – I would be enormously remiss if I did not pay a well-deserved tribute to America’s 41st president, George Herbert Walker Bush. He was a – many of you know him. He was an unyielding champion of freedom around the world �� first as a fighter pilot in World War II, later as a congressman. He was the ambassador to the United Nations, and then an envoy to China. He then had the same job I had as the director of the CIA – I did it longer than he did. He was then the vice president under Ronald Reagan. I got to know him some myself. He was a wonderful brother, a father, a grandfather, and a proud American. Indeed, America is the only country he loved more than Texas. (Laughter.) I actually think that he would be delighted for me to be here today at an institution named after a fellow lover of freedom, George Marshall. And he would have been thrilled to see all of you here, such a large crowd gathered who are dedicated to transatlantic bonds, so many decades after they were first forged. The men who rebuilt Western civilization after World War II, like my predecessor Secretary Marshall, knew that only strong U.S. leadership, in concert with our friends and allies, could unite the sovereign nations all around the globe. So we underwrote new institutions to rebuild Europe and Japan, to stabilize currencies, and to facilitate trade. We all co-founded NATO to guarantee security for ourselves and our allies. We entered into treaties to codify Western values of freedom and human rights. Collectively, we convened multilateral organizations to promote peace and cooperation among states. And we worked hard – indeed, tirelessly – to preserve Western ideals because, as President Trump made clear in his Warsaw address, each of those are worth preserving. This American leadership allowed us to enjoy the greatest human flourishing in modern history. We won the Cold War. We won the peace. With no small measure of George H. W. Bush’s effort, we reunited Germany. This is the type of leadership that President Trump is boldly reasserting. After the Cold War ended, we allowed this liberal order to begin to corrode. It failed us in some places, and sometimes it failed you and the rest of the world. Multilateralism has too often become viewed as an end unto itself. The more treaties we sign, the safer we supposedly are. The more bureaucrats we have, the better the job gets done. Was that ever really true? The central question that we face is that – is the question of whether the system as currently configured, as it exists today, and as the world exists today – does it work? Does it work for all the people of the world? Today at the United Nations, peacekeeping missions drag on for decades, no closer to peace. The UN’s climate-related treaties are viewed by some nations as simply a vehicle to redistribute wealth. Anti-Israel bias has been institutionalized. Regional powers collude to vote the likes of Cuba and Venezuela onto the Human Rights Council. The UN was founded as an organization that welcomed peace-loving nations. I ask: Today, does it continue to serve its mission faithfully? In the Western Hemisphere, has enough been done with the Organization of American States to promote its four pillars of democracy, human rights, security, and economic development in a region that includes the likes of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua? In Africa, does the African Union advance the mutual interest of its nation-state members? For the business community, from which I came, consider this: The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were chartered to help rebuild war-torn territories and promote private investment and growth. Today, these institutions often counsel countries who have mismanaged their economic affairs to impose austerity measures that inhibit growth and crowd out private sector actors. Here in Brussels, the European Union and its predecessors have delivered a great deal of prosperity to the entire continent. Europe is America’s single largest trading partner, and we benefit enormously from your success. But Brexit – if nothing else – was a political wake-up call. Is the EU ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats here in Brussels? These are valid questions. This leads to my next point: Bad actors have exploited our lack of leadership for their own gain. This is the poisoned fruit of American retreat. President Trump is determined to reverse that. China’s economic development did not lead to an embrace of democracy and regional stability; it led to more political repression and regional provocations. We welcomed China into the liberal order, but never policed its behavior. China has routinely exploited loopholes in the World Trade Organization rules, imposed market restrictions, forced technology transfers, and stolen intellectual property. And it knows that world opinion is powerless to stop its Orwellian human rights violations. Iran didn’t join the community of nations after the nuclear deal was inked; it spread its newfound riches to terrorists and to dictators. Tehran holds multiple American hostages, and Bob Levinson has been missing there for 11 years. Iran has blatantly disregarded UN Security Council resolutions, lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors about its nuclear program, and evaded UN sanctions. Just this past week, Iran test fired a ballistic missile, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Earlier this year, Tehran used the U.S.-Iran Treaty of Amity to bring baseless claims against the United States before the International Court of Justice – most all of this malign activity during the JCPOA. Russia. Russia hasn’t embraced Western values of freedom and international cooperation. Rather, it has suppressed opposition voices and invaded the sovereign nations of Georgia and of Ukraine. Moscow has also deployed a military-grade nerve agent on foreign soil, right here in Europe, in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention to which it is a party. And as I’ll detail later today, Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty for many years. The list goes on. We have to account for the world order of today in order to chart the way forward. It is what America’s National Security Strategy deemed “principled realism.” I like to think of it as “common sense.” Every nation – every nation – must honestly acknowledge its responsibilities to its citizens and ask if the current international order serves the good of its people as well as it could. And if not, we must ask how we can right it. This is what President Trump is doing. He is returning the United States to its traditional, central leadership role in the world. He sees the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. He knows that nothing can replace the nation-state as the guarantor of democratic freedoms and national interests. He knows, as George H.W. Bush knew, that a safer world has consistently demanded American courage on the world stage. And when we – and when we all of us ignore our responsibilities to the institutions we’ve formed, others will abuse them. Critics in places like Iran and China – who really are undermining the international order – are saying the Trump administration is the reason this system is breaking down. They claim America is acting unilaterally instead of multilaterally, as if every kind of multilateral action is by definition desirable. Even our European friends sometimes say we’re not acting in the world’s interest. This is just plain wrong. Our mission is to reassert our sovereignty, reform the liberal international order, and we want our friends to help us and to exert their sovereignty as well. We aspire to make the international order serve our citizens – not to control them. America intends to lead – now and always. Under President Trump, we are not abandoning international leadership or our friends in the international system. Indeed, quite the contrary. Just look, as one example, at the historic number of countries which have gotten on board our pressure campaign against North Korea. No other nation in the world could have rallied dozens of nations, from every corner of the world, to impose sanctions on the regime in Pyongyang. International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated. When treaties are broken, the violators must be confronted, and the treaties must be fixed or discarded. Words should mean something. Our administration is thus lawfully exiting or renegotiating outdated or harmful treaties, trade agreements, and other international arrangements that do not serve our sovereign interests, or the interests of our allies. We announced our intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, absent better terms for the United States. The current pact would’ve siphoned money from American paychecks and enriched polluters like China. In America, we’ve found a better solution – we think a better solution for the world. We’ve unleashed our energy companies to innovate and compete, and our carbon emissions have declined dramatically. We changed course from the Iran deal, because of, among other things, Tehran’s violent and destabilizing activities, which undermined the spirit of the deal and put the safety of American people and our allies at risk. In its place, we are leading our allies to constrain Iran’s revolutionary ambitions and end Iran’s campaigns of global terrorism. And we needn’t a new bureaucracy to do it. We need to continue to develop a coalition which will achieve that outcome which will keep people in the Middle East, in Europe, and the entire world safe from the threat from Iran. America renegotiated our treaty, NAFTA, to advance the interests of the American worker. President Trump proudly signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement at the G20 this past weekend in Buenos Aires, and on Friday will submit it to the Congress, a body accountable to the American people. The new agreement also includes renegotiation provisions, because no trade agreement is permanently suited to all times. We have encouraged our G20 partners to reform the WTO, and they took a good first step in Buenos Aires this last week. I spoke earlier about the World Bank and the IMF. The Trump Administration is working to refocus these institutions on policies that promote economic prosperity, pushing to halt lending to nations that can already access global capital markets – countries like China – and pressing to reduce taxpayer handouts to development banks that are perfectly capable of raising private capital on their own. We’re also taking leadership, real action to stop rogue international courts, like the International Criminal Court, from trampling on our sovereignty – your sovereignty – and all of our freedoms. The ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor is trying to open an investigation into U.S. personnel in connection with the war in Afghanistan. We will take all necessary steps to protect our people, those of our NATO allies who fight alongside of us inside of Afghanistan from unjust prosecution. Because we know that if it can happen to our people, it can happen to yours too. It is a worthy question: Does the court continue to serve its original intended purpose? The first two years of the Trump administration demonstrate that President Trump is not undermining these institutions, nor is he abandoning American leadership. Quite the opposite. In the finest traditions of our great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for all. We’re supporting institutions that we believe can be improved; institutions that work in American interests – and yours – in service of our shared values. For example, here in Belgium in 1973, banks from 15 countries formed SWIFT to develop common standards for cross-border payments, and it’s now an integral part of our global financial infrastructure. SWIFT recently disconnected sanctioned Iranian banks from its platform because of the unacceptable risk they pose to a system – to the system as a whole. This is an excellent example of American leadership working alongside an international institution to act responsibly. Another example: the Proliferation Security Initiative, formed by 11 nations under the Bush administration to stop trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. It has since grown organically to 105 countries and has undoubtedly made the world safer. And I can’t forget, standing here, one of the most important international institutions of them all – which will continue to thrive with American leadership. My very first trip, within hours of having been sworn in as a secretary of state, I traveled here to visit with our NATO allies. I’ll repeat this morning what I said then – this is an indispensable institution. President Trump wants everyone to pay their fair share so we can deter our enemies and defend people – the people of our countries. To that end, all NATO allies should work to strengthen what is already the greatest military alliance in all of history. Never – never – has an alliance ever been so powerful or so peaceful, and our historic ties must continue. To that end, I’m pleased to announce that I will host my foreign minister colleagues for a meeting in Washington next April, where we will mark NATO’s 70th anniversary. As my remarks come to a close, I want to repeat what George Marshall told the UN General Assembly back near the time of its formation in 1948. He said, quote, “International organizations cannot take the place of national and personal effort or of local and individual imagination; international action cannot replace self-help.” End of quote. Sometimes it’s not popular to buck the status quo, to call out that which we all see but sometimes refuse to speak about. But frankly, too much is at stake for all of us in this room today not to do so. This is the reality that President Trump so viscerally understands. Just as George Marshall’s generation gave life to a new vision for a safe and free world, so we call on you to have the same kind of boldness. Our call is especially urgent – especially urgent in light of the threats we face from powerful countries and actors whose ambition is to reshape the international order in its own illiberal image. Let’s work together. Let’s work together to preserve the free world so that it continues to serve the interests of the people to whom we each are accountable. Let’s do so in a way that creates international organizations that are agile, that respect national sovereignty, that deliver on their stated missions, and that create value for the liberal order and for the world. President Trump understands deeply that when America leads, peace and prosperity almost certainly follow. He knows that if America and our allies here in Europe don’t lead, others will choose to do so. America will, as it has always done, continue to work with our allies around the world towards the peaceful, liberal order each citizen of the world deserves. Thank you for joining me here today. May the Good Lord bless each and every one of you. Thank you. (Applause.) FULL RELEASE Read the full article

[acoolchristianchick]

FRANCE TO OFFER ITS OWN ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PLAN IF U.S. FAILS

FRANCE TO OFFER ITS OWN ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PLAN IF U.S. FAILS

Experts contend that any viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be multilateral in scope, though such a strategy appears unlikely at present.

BY VICTOR CABRERA/THE MEDIA LINE  NOVEMBER 2, 2018 01:49

4 minute read.

> Report: Egyptian negotiators present Hamas, PA reconciliation agreement

> Greenblatt returning to Israel for more peace plan meetings

Share on facebook

Share on twitter

France's President Emmanuel Macron and US President Donald Trump react as they hold a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 73rd United Nations General Assembly in New York, September 24, 2018. (photo credit: CARLOS BARRIA / REUTERS)

French President Emmanuel Macron intends to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a peace plan of his own if the United States fails to do so after the November 6 midterm elections. France relayed its intention to intervene in the process to members of the Israeli parliament last week. In a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late September, US President Donald Trump announced that his administration would unveil a comprehensive peace plan within two to four months. Israeli leaders and the Palestinian Authority have been anxiously awaiting the plan, which as Trump has indicated, will entail ‘tough’ concessions from both sides.

Be the first to know -

Join our Facebook page.

Judy Dempsey, a Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and editor of its Strategic Europe Blog, told The Media Line that “the international community has been watching nervously as the peace process in the Middle East stagnates. If nothing else, Macron’s decision to step into the process raises the pressure to get things going.

“However, Macron’s announcement shows that the European Union hasn’t gotten anywhere with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. EU leaders believed America had to lead the negotiations. They stuck to the two-state solution without trying to implement it and they had no clout over the settlements or the PA,” Dempsey continued.

The EU has not taken a balanced position on the peace process, he explained. “By maintaining such strong support for the PA, while largely ignoring its violations, it has alienated Israel.”

James Moran, a senior Research Fellow at the Center for European Policy Studies and a former European ambassador to Egypt, told The Media Line that while the French “announcement adds political clout to the languishing issue, the substance of any peace plan coming from Macron would be very close to the classical frame of the two-state solution, without much innovation.

“Europeans are trusted by Palestinians. They are not, however, trusted by the Israelis. This is especially true of Netanyahu who, now and since the late ’90s, has not shown himself to be at all prepared to make advancements on the peace front. Instead, he has supported a hardline approach. The only party that can pressure him is the US,” Moran continued.

Trump reportedly echoed that sentiment, indicating that he agrees with Macron who stated that Netanyahu prefers the status quo over making peace.  

Any

plan that would be amenable to both the PA and Israel

would have to come as a concerted international effort, Moran explained. But such cooperation could prove difficult given the differing European and American philosophies regarding the conflict.

“The EU has difficulties, too, because some states are not prepared to put pressure on Israel. The EU is a house divided on this topic,” Moran said.  

Dempsey added that “France thinks that it can compensate for the American slack, but it can’t do it without the rest of the EU. Macron wants to tell the Europeans to stop sleeping on the issue. If he accomplishes this, his next challenge would be to arrange an agreement with the US as any unilateral deal is ill-fated.”Recommended videosPowered by

AnyClip

Netanyahu meets with the president of Chad, November 27, 2018 (GPO)

NOW PLAYING

Netanyahu meets with the president of Chad, November 27, 2018 (GPO)

This Week in 60 seconds: May 17, 2018

This Week in 60 Seconds: June 14, 2018

This week in 60 seconds: December 21, 2017

Former Netanyahu Spokesman Signs Witness Deal In Graft Probe

PM Visits the Munich 1972 Olympic Massacre Memorial, February 18, 2018 (GPO)

Trump Urges Mexico to Send Central American Migrants Home

The long-awaited US peace plan and France’s proposal to intervene comes against the backdrop of shifting American policy toward both sides of the conflict. Seen by the Palestinians as contentious moves were President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital late last year and making good on his campaign promise to relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem last May.

The move triggered a boycott of Trump administration officials by the Palestinian Authority, thereby adding more uncertainty to the resumption of talks.

President Trump’s recent decision to cut funding from UNWRA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency), as well as to other aid packages for the Gaza Strip, has caused outrage among Palestinians.

Ahead of issuing its formal peace plan, the White House has also given contradictory signals as to what it could contain. In September, the president emphatically endorsed a two-state solution to the conflict—two independent states for both peoples.  Hours later, however, he backtracked. “Bottom line: If the Israelis and Palestinians want one state, that’s okay with me. If they want two states, that’s okay with me. I’m happy if they’re happy,” the president said in late September.

Confusion persists regarding the peace plan’s focus and how it will be received by the parties. Analysts are also eagerly anticipating the results of next week’s midterm elections, which could greatly impact the peace process if Democrats gain a majority in Congress.

Jason Greenblatt, special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, will be traveling to Israel for talks in preparation for the unveiling of the long-awaited plan. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly announced that leadership will reject any plan proffered by the Trump administration.  

Analysts believe that the vitriol on the Palestinian side underscores the need for a multilateral approach to the peace process, but doubt Macron has the necessary gravitas or that such a strategy even seems likely at present.

(Victor Cabrera is a student intern in The Media Line’s Press and Policy Student Program)

For more stories go to

themedialine.org

.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

[how2to18]

TRAVIS JEPPESEN HAS been publishing inventive fiction since his early 20s, and writes about art all over the globe for Artforum, Art in America, and a slew of other magazines. His new nonfiction book, See You Again in Pyongyang, chronicles both his personal experiences as a tourist in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and his ambivalent relationship with it as a writer and analyst of culture. After accepting an invitation to accompany his friend, travel writer Tom Masters, to the country several years ago, he has since traveled there four additional times and written extensively about its art and architecture. In 2016, Jeppesen became the first American to ever complete a university program in North Korea, having participated in a month-long intensive Korean language course. That experience, which gave him unprecedented access for an American to the culture and daily life of Pyongyang residents, as well as to other parts of the country on supervised excursions, make up the bulk of the new book.

See You Again in Pyongyang dramatizes a meeting point between an intellect with a passion for getting lost in other cities and landscapes, and an environment that by its very design forbids such a sensibility from ever gaining foothold. What ensues is not a polemic, but rather a romance of antitheses. Jeppesen ultimately accepts this lack of resolution, processing his relationship with the country through a combination of memoir, historical background, and the bringing to light of others’ stories that our own ideologically biased media seldom care to find for themselves.

¤

BEN SHIELDS: Your first novel, Victims, is largely about an apocalyptic cult. In See You Again in Pyongyang, you look past a lot of the clichés that we have about North Korea and their society, but there’s no escaping its cult-like quality. Have cults and cults of personality been lifelong intellectual fascinations for you?

TRAVIS JEPPESEN: It’s safe to say that. And extreme forms of belief and ideology in general. I kind of despise all forms of ideology, but I’m fascinated by the way that people either fall into it, or it can be imposed on them from without. It usually is some toxic combination of the two. I think it threads its way through all of my writing.

I was really interested in the differences you outline between Soviet, Chinese, and Korean communism, especially with regard to Confucianism’s lingering influence. In the Soviet Union, the cult of personality got out of hand, to the point where Stalin at times tried to rein it back. In your view, which is more essential in the Korean system: the propaganda for the party, socialism, and the ideal society, or the deification of the marshal?

I think Kim Jong-il’s contribution to the development of the system was making the party one and the same with the leader. The party is the mother, and the leader the father. You need both to nurture you. The development toward the deification of the leadership came about as a result of Stalin being a big role model for Kim Il-sung. But also because there were these different factions of communists who arrived to establish the early North Korean state. There was a lot of competition between the factions, so it was a way for Kim Il-sung to put an end to that. That kind of extreme despotism — deification — really is an imposition of fear on the populace, because he eliminated all of his enemies one by one. That’s very much how the system evolved and how it became what it is today.

Obviously I have to ask this: what do you make of the North and South Korean peace talks, the looming Trump-Kim summit, and the call in some quarters for Trump to win the Nobel?

I hate to say it, but I think Kim Jong-un is the one who has kind of engineered all this, whether or not you agree with his methods. He did it by terrorizing the world for much of the last year. But look, I think what’s happening is really a great thing. It looks like they’re going to announce an official end to the Korean War, which is amazing for people on both sides of the divide. Let us not forget that the North Koreans have also been living under the threat of nuclear annihilation for decades now. We love to say in the Western media how flippant and manipulative they are and how they never stick to any of the agreements that they sign. But it was actually the United States who first violated the armistice agreement they signed by installing nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula in 1958. Nobody talks about that in the Western media.

I had no idea before reading your book that that was the case.

Yeah, very few people are aware of this. This is not to defend the regime, because of course I think it’s terrible. But fact is fact. They have been putting up for years with these military exercises on their border conducted by the United States and South Korea. The United States would never put up with that, an enemy nation conducting military exercises on their borders. But the North Koreans have had to sit and watch that with their binoculars year after year after year. They’re a really small, weak, kind of powerless nation. They did what they had to do by developing these nuclear weapons.

You blame a lot of what’s happened in North Korea recently on President Bush’s aggression toward them, which makes a lot of sense. But at the same time, Trump has been more aggressive, at least in his rhetoric, than any president ever toward the DPRK. Why, then, do you think that peace talks and at least the promise to denuclearize are happening now?

A lot of it has to do with the increase of sanctions. Kim Jong-un’s policy for the last few years has been known as the byungjin policy, which is the simultaneous development of both the military and the economy. There’s this whole class of rich people that didn’t really exist before. [Jong-un] is protecting them, and they’re protecting him. It’s kind of a two-way street. Were a horrible financial crisis to happen again in North Korea, it could be potentially disastrous internally for his regime. And some experts say that, yeah, the North Koreans are kind of scared shitless of Trump because his rhetoric has been so wild. It’s weird because I obviously am not a big Trump supporter. I think he’s a sociopath more than anything. But having said that, if he does manage to normalize diplomatic relations with North Korea, he’ll have done something really amazing that no US president has done. The South Koreans are being very coy. [President] Moon Jae-in is being all like, “Oh, it’s all because of Trump.” He knows how susceptible to flattery Trump is. The United States and South Korean economies are so intertwined that if Trump flippantly tries to turn against the South Koreans, it could completely bungle the whole process. Just as Moon Jae-in is using flattery as a means, I think we can probably expect the North Koreans to do something quite similar. And it could lead to very good things. 

You include in the book a powerful story of a North Korean defector in the South, whom you call Un Ju, who left her home city of Wonsan at the age of 18 to follow her mother to the South. How were you able to connect with as many defectors as you did?

When I was in Seoul, I volunteered with an organization called Teach North Korean Refugees. But they’re rather strict. They say at the outset, if you volunteer with us you can’t use this to do outside research. I had other ways. Un Ju was a friend of a friend, the filmmaker Kim Kyung-Mook, a South Korean queer filmmaker. Two of his roommates had been North Korean defectors, which is highly unusual. Mook is certainly very different. He’s a great artist and is a person of great powers of empathy. He introduced me to Un Ju. It was great talking to her because I felt like a lot of the North Korean defectors one encounters, especially in the media, go through almost this reverse brainwashing process where they can only say bad things about North Korea. She actually had a lot of good things to say about North Korea and a lot of bad things to say about her experiences in the South. I wanted to show that this isn’t such a black-and-white issue the way that mainstream media makes it out to be.

Near the end of the book there’s this rather awkward exchange between Comrade Kim, your friend from the Korean State Travel Company, and one of the other guys on the program, Alexandre. Kim, with some suspicion, essentially asks, “Why are you so interested in our country? What is all of this to you?” Yet you are sitting right there, not being asked the same question. Why do you think you didn’t get that feedback from him?

Alexandre is kind of freaking out because he feels like he hasn’t been able to pierce below the surface. He wants to come back on a student visa, not on a tourist, because then he’ll be able to do things, then he’ll be able to go somewhere without a guide. Maybe then he can find the answer. But the whole point that I kind of reach is, no, this is what it is. You’re not going to see anything that we haven’t seen, basically. It’s this kind of Zen moment that I reach that allows me to sit back detachedly and observe what’s going on there in that scene. Alexandre comes from this classic liberal arts tradition. “Oh, I’m interested in North Korea because I want to expand the limits of myself and learn a new language. I’m in the midst of my education, so I’m discovering myself!” This concept is completely foreign to them. They don’t have the language to understand it. So that scene was a showdown between two universes of perception, really. 

Also toward the end, you talk about that feeling of not belonging to a society just as you’re about to leave it. In my experience that often happens after extended stays, where it feels like you’ve gotten lost, but the last three or four days you realize it’s at least partly a fantasy. That can be a painful feeling if you’ve fallen in love with another society or culture. But North Korea is not a conventional place to develop an attachment. What specific emotions accompany the realization of not belonging in the DPRK?

One of the underlying themes of this book is, what are the limits of empathy? To what extent can we identify or have an empathetic identification with the Other? For one thing, their ideology is so race-based, which means I could never belong there. But I developed a certain affection for the people that deepened as my understanding of the society and how things function deepened. The book ends with these open-ended questions like, what is love? What is empathy? This sort of identification with someone who believes in something so highly bizarre and so specific — is it possible? To what extent do any of them really believe in this ideology and to what extent is it forced on them? I think art should ask these kinds of questions rather than just providing a list of hypothetical answers.

In one of the early scenes, you’re at the window of your hotel room in Pyongyang, contemplating your affection for the city, which has grown and accumulated at that point over four visits. Intellectual interest in a society cannot fully explain one’s attachment to it. Have you thought about why North Korea has become so personally significant to you, beyond merely a subject of study?

It’s my spiritual homeland — my soul is the gulag! Just kidding. I don’t know. I think this is why I kept going back and why I wrote the book. It’s an attempt to answer that question. I like to be free and be able to wander the streets of a strange city and have the classic romantic experience. But when I go there it’s kind of like putting yourself into prison and trying to recreate that experience in the outside world. I think what’s drawn me to it is its ineffability and the fact that it’s a mystery, an enigma, something I can never quite unravel. It’s the same reason I’ve fallen in love with people over the years whom I can’t figure out and who are very mysterious to me. There’s this lingering mystery that keeps me drawn to them. It’s an affliction when it happens.

Yes, it’s like a disease.

I’m a diseased mind. I fully embrace that.

¤

Ben Shields is a Brooklyn-based writer who has written for the Paris Review, Bookforum, and other magazines.

¤

Author image by Jason Harrell.

Banner image by (stephan).

The post Pyongyang Torch Song appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books https://ift.tt/2tH3nR8 via IFTTT

[terryhbrister1-blog]

Separation vs. Legal Separation in Utah Divorce lawyer Salt Lake City Utah 801-676-7309 Divorce Attorney

Separation versus Legal Splitting up in Utah Legal Separation attorney West Jordan UT 801-676-7308 Divorce Lawyer This post outlines Divorce vs Legal Separation in Utah. Divorce and also Lawful Splitting up typically work together, but they are not the very same point. Depending upon your individual circumstance as well as relationship with your partner, one alternative may be better for you compared to the other. Understanding the vital differences can assist you decide what is best for you. Separation Separation is the legal dissolution of a marriage by means of the court system. After divorce, both parties could legitimately remarry. However, there are some legal rights as well as advantages of marriage that will be lost in divorce. These might include tax obligation advantages, medical insurance (consisting of dental and also vision), some forms of life insurance, government benefits, etc. To know just what the details lawful consequences of separation would certainly be for you, consulting a Utah lawyer is your finest option. Divorce requires a complete and also full department and splitting up of all properties and also resources, which could be pricey as well as could call for substantial amounts of time. If you want weding someone else, or that is something you assume you could intend to carry out in the future, you certainly should get divorced. You don't want to devote bigamy and also remain in violation of Utah's criminal regulations. Hence, separation could be the best choice for you if the partnership between you as well as your spouse is unsalvageable or if there are other severe situations that create you to feel that separation is the correct and sensible activity to take. Lawful Separation separation vs legal splitting up in utah Lawful separation is a court order that specifies the civil liberties and also tasks of a couple who is living apart, however still wishes to continue to be lawfully wed. It may continue on to a divorce decree later, yet this is not always the situation. Commonly, lawful splitting up enables each celebration to keep the lawful benefits of marriage, since it does not lawfully dissolve the marital union. However, there are still issues in relation to divide maintenance, and youngster safekeeping as well as child/spousal assistance that need to be established either between the events via negotiation or arbitration or inevitably with court. In addition, all financial obligations gotten by each spouse after splitting up will certainly still be dealt with as joint debt. Legal Separation might be the right option for you if the scenarios of your partnership make you want to avoid divorce. However, it is very important to seek advice from a legal representative about your choices and also just what is finest for your situation. So, Lawful Separation versus Divorce-- Just how Do I Know Just what the most effective Selection Is? Every circumstance as well as relationship is various. There are plenty of psychological and also material investments as well as commitments lodged in marital relationship, and these things take time and also help to effectively arrange through during the procedures of splitting up as well as separation. If you are considering lawful separation instead of divorce, interaction is the crucial element. We recommend reserving time to rest throughout a table and going over the scenario. Often having a frank conversation concerning exactly what is taking place and also how to fix the conflict as well as issues could be a huge progression to getting a splitting up agreement noted out. We understand that feelings play a role as well as it could be as well difficult to do. If that holds true, you should check out arbitration. If you can not truly connect well with your spouse anymore, or if they shut down at the thought of getting points fixed; then, the next action should be to call us to talk about moving on. One of the major factors we see individuals looking for a lawful splitting up rather than a separation is for medical insurance policy. If you obtain divorced, your ex-spouse (ex-husband or ex-wife) can not be on your medical insurance plan. If neither of you plan on remarrying soon, this is an alternative to keep the other event on your insurance coverage. An additional factor we see for lawful splitting up is because the events are older as well as they have no objective of obtaining divorced-- definition, they recognize they are not obtaining remarried, so they do not want to get separated. One last factor that is common is for spiritual reasons. Some people think that divorce is a wrong under their faiths therefore, a legal separation is favored for that pair so they do not harm their partnership with God. All these as well as various other reasons are valid and important. You ought to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of divorce versus lawful separation in your certain situation and exactly what you get to will be the ideal option for you. Transforming a Lawful Separation into a Separation in Utah. divorce vs separation in Utah. Once a legal separation order has been authorized by a court in Utah; you could later on transform that order of splitting up right into a separation mandate in the future. You should speak to a family members law lawyer or our office and also we could file a movement to transform the order to a separation decree. Your spouse may object as well as can do so. If an argument is filed with the court; after that, a hearing will likely be held by the court. We need to show that the court has territory and also premises to provide a separation. The majority of do not oppose the conversion from a lawful splitting up to a separation when the time comes. Also if your spouse does contest the conversion from a splitting up order to a separation mandate; as long as you meet the jurisdiction as well as premises for separation and also the documentation is in order, the court will approve the divorce. There is no law in Utah that requires you to remain married to your spouse. A separation based upon difference of opinions is constantly allowed. Final thought Divorce or Legal Splitting up is never a pleasurable procedure. They are generally uncomfortable and also hard. Nonetheless, it might be needed as well as the very best choice you could make, relying on your situation. If you are enduring, it is time to finish the suffering. If you understand inside that splitting up or separation is appropriate for you; you ought to follow your inner guide and also let it guide you. There is no reason to experience any more than you currently have. In spite of every little thing, it is possible to find out of this excruciating as well as unpleasant circumstance successfully. Finding out more concerning separation and also lawful splitting up is necessary in determining exactly what the very best path for you to take is. There are a lot of factors as well as steps to take in both procedures as well as it is very important to be familiar with exactly what both divorce and separation involve. We are more than pleased in order to help you overcome these tight spots, and also could aid you in finding out just what options are the best for your and also your certain scenarios. To learn more regarding divorce and separation, a totally free preliminary appointment is your following ideal step. Obtain the details and legal responses you are seeking. Our office : 8833 So. Redwood Rd, WJ, Utah 84088- Call Me When you're ready 801-676-5507.

This episode is for Orem Utah citizens who want a Family Law Attorney in Utah. Come Back Soon If you live in West Jordan, Holladay, South Jordan, Bingham Canyon, Pepperwood, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake City, Sandy, Midvale, Riverton, Draper, Copperton, Magna, Alpine, Lehi, Tooele, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Woods Cross, Lindon, Centerville, Orem, Park City, Farmington, Provo, Kaysville, Layton, Syracuse, Clearfield, Hill AFB, or Grantsville we are here to assist you with your estate plan. West Jordan SEO You Better call the best Salt Lake City Divorce Lawyer today.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 876-5875

Ascent Law LLC

4.7 stars - based on 45 reviews

http://www.LawyerDivorceUtah.com #UtahDivorceAttorney

[christine4ortiz-blog]

​Divorce versus Legal Splitting up in Utah. Divorce lawyer Salt Lake City UT 801-676-5506 Divorce Attorney

Divorce versus Legal Splitting up in Utah. This letter explains Divorce vs Legal Separation in Utah. Divorce as well as Legal Splitting up commonly go together, however they are not the exact same thing. Relying on your individual circumstance as well as relationship with your spouse, one alternative may be better for you compared to the various other. Comprehending the vital distinctions could assist you decide just what is finest for you. Separation Separation is the lawful dissolution of a marriage through the court system. After separation, both parties can lawfully remarry. Nevertheless, there are some civil liberties and also benefits of marital relationship that will be shed in divorce. These might consist of tax advantages, medical insurance (consisting of dental as well as vision), some types of life insurance, government advantages, etc. To understand just what the details legal consequences of divorce would be for you, speaking with a Utah attorney is your finest alternative. Separation entails a full as well as total department and also splitting up of all properties and also sources, which can be pricey and also may need considerable amounts of time. If you are interested in weding somebody else, or that is something you think you could intend to do in the future, you surely should obtain separated. You don't wish to dedicate polygamy as well as remain in violation of Utah's criminal legislations. Therefore, divorce may be the best selection for you if the partnership between you as well as your partner is unsalvageable or if there are other severe conditions that create you to feel that separation is the correct and also sensible action to take. Legal Splitting up separation vs lawful separation in utah Legal separation is a court order that specifies the civil liberties and obligations of a married couple that is living apart, but still wants to remain legitimately married. It might continue on to a separation mandate later on, yet this is not constantly the situation. Typically, legal separation allows each event to maintain the lawful advantages of marriage, due to the fact that it does not legitimately liquify the marriage union. Nevertheless, there are still problems in relation to divide maintenance, and also child custodianship as well as child/spousal support that have to be established either between the events through arrangement or mediation or inevitably with court. In addition, all financial obligations gotten by each partner after splitting up will certainly still be treated as joint debt. Legal Splitting up could be the right choice for you if the situations of your connection make you intend to stay clear of divorce. Nevertheless, it is essential to get in touch with an attorney regarding your alternatives as well as what is best for your circumstance. So, Lawful Separation versus Divorce-- Exactly how Do I Know Exactly what the most effective Option Is? Every situation and partnership is various. There are plenty of emotional as well as material financial investments and commitments lodged in marriage, and these things take some time as well as assistance to adequately sort with during the procedures of separation and separation. If you are thinking about lawful separation rather than divorce, communication is the crucial aspect. We advise reserving some time to sit throughout a table and also going over the scenario. Often having a frank chat regarding exactly what is taking place and ways to settle the problem as well as problems could be a significant step forward to obtaining a separation agreement noted out. We comprehend that emotions contribute and it might be as well hard to do. If that holds true, you should look at mediation. If you can't actually communicate well with your spouse anymore, or if they close down at the idea of getting things solved; then, the following step should be to call us to discuss progressing. Among the major factors we see people seeking a lawful separation instead of a divorce is for clinical insurance coverage. If you obtain separated, your ex-spouse (ex-husband or ex-wife) can not be on your medical insurance policy. If neither of you mean on remarrying soon, this is a choice to keep the various other party on your insurance coverage. An additional reason we see for legal separation is since the celebrations are older as well as they have no objective of getting separated-- significance, they understand they are not obtaining remarried, so they do not intend to get divorced. One last reason that is common is for religious factors. Some people believe that separation is a wrong under their religious beliefs and so, a lawful separation is chosen for that couple so they do not harm their partnership with God. All these and also other reasons are valid as well as crucial. You should consider the pros and cons of divorce versus lawful separation in your specific scenario and exactly what you arrive at will certainly be the ideal choice for you. Transforming a Legal Separation into a Divorce in Utah. divorce vs separation in Utah. When a lawful splitting up order has been authorized by a court in Utah; you can later transform that order of separation into a divorce decree in the future. You must contact a household regulation lawyer or our office and also we could submit a motion to transform the order to a separation mandate. Your partner might object and has the right to do so. If an argument is submitted with the court; after that, a hearing will likely be held by the court. We need to show that the court has jurisdiction and premises to give a separation. Most do not dispute the conversion from a legal separation to a divorce when the time comes. Also if your spouse does dispute the conversion from a separation order to a divorce decree; as long as you fulfill the jurisdiction and also premises for divorce and also the paperwork is in order, the court will certainly grant the divorce. There is no regulation in Utah that compels you to remain wed to your spouse. A divorce based on irreconcilable differences is constantly permitted. Conclusion Separation or Legal Separation is never a satisfying process. They are often uncomfortable as well as difficult. Nonetheless, it might be needed and even the best choice you could make, depending on your scenario. If you are enduring, it is time to finish the suffering. If you recognize inside that separation or separation is appropriate for you; you must follow your inner voice and let it guide you. There is no reason to endure anymore compared to you already have. In spite of everything, it is feasible to find from this unpleasant and also undesirable scenario effectively. Discovering more concerning divorce and legal splitting up is important in identifying just what the very best course for you to take is. There are a great deal of factors and also actions to take in both processes and also it is essential to be accustomed to exactly what both separation and separation entail. We are more than satisfied in order to help you resolve these difficult situations, and could assist you in determining just what choices are the very best for your and also your particular circumstances. To learn more about separation and separation, a totally free preliminary assessment is your next ideal step. Get the info as well as lawful responses you are seeking. Our address : 8833 So. Redwood Road, WJ, UT 84088- Call Me When you're ready 801-676-5507.

This episode is for Park City Utah married couples who need a Bankruptcy Lawyer in Utah. Come Back Soon If you live in West Jordan, Holladay, South Jordan, Bingham Canyon, Pepperwood, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake City, Sandy, Midvale, Riverton, Draper, Copperton, Magna, Alpine, Lehi, Tooele, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Woods Cross, Lindon, Centerville, Orem, Park City, Farmington, Provo, Kaysville, Layton, Syracuse, Clearfield, Hill AFB, or Grantsville we are here to assist you with your estate plan. West Jordan SEO Make sure you call the top Salt Lake City Divorce Lawyer today.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 876-5875

Ascent Law LLC

4.7 stars - based on 45 reviews

http://www.ascentlawfirm.com #MikeAnderson

[gailldiaz1-blog]

Separation versus Legal Splitting up in Utah. Legal Separation attorney Draper UT 801-676-5507 Divorce Lawyer

Separation vs. Legal Splitting up in Utah. This message tells you Divorce vs Legal Separation in Utah. Divorce as well as Lawful Splitting up normally work together, however they are not the very same thing. Depending on your individual situation and also relationship with your partner, one choice may be better for you than the various other. Understanding the essential differences could assist you choose what is finest for you. Separation Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marital relationship using the court system. After separation, both celebrations could legitimately remarry. Nonetheless, there are some legal rights and also benefits of marriage that will be shed in divorce. These could include tax obligation benefits, medical insurance (consisting of oral and vision), some forms of life insurance, federal government benefits, etc. To know what the particular legal consequences of divorce would be for you, getting in touch with a Utah attorney is your ideal alternative. Divorce involves a complete as well as full department and also splitting up of all assets as well as sources, which can be pricey as well as may call for substantial quantities of time. If you are interested in weding somebody else, or that is something you believe you could intend to carry out in the future, you undoubtedly should obtain separated. You do not wish to dedicate bigamy as well as remain in violation of Utah's criminal laws. Therefore, separation might be the appropriate selection for you if the connection in between you and your partner is unsalvageable or if there are various other extreme scenarios that cause you to really feel that divorce is the correct as well as prudent activity to take. Lawful Separation divorce vs legal splitting up in utah Lawful splitting up is a court order that defines the civil liberties as well as responsibilities of a married couple who is living apart, but still desires to remain legally married. It could advance to a divorce mandate later, yet this is not constantly the instance. Often, lawful splitting up enables each party to retain the lawful benefits of marriage, since it does not legally liquify the marriage union. However, there are still problems in regards to separate upkeep, as well as child custodianship and also child/spousal support that need to be determined either in between the celebrations by means of negotiation or mediation or eventually with court. In addition, all debts gotten by each spouse after separation will still be dealt with as joint debt. Lawful Splitting up may be the ideal selection for you if the situations of your relationship make you want to stay clear of separation. Nevertheless, it is very important to speak with an attorney about your choices and also exactly what is best for your situation. So, Lawful Splitting up versus Separation-- Exactly how Do I Know Exactly what the most effective Selection Is? Every situation as well as partnership is various. There are countless emotional and also worldly financial investments and also commitments lodged in marriage, and these things require time as well as help to properly arrange via during the procedures of splitting up and also separation. If you are taking into consideration legal separation rather than divorce, communication is the key factor. We recommend reserving some time to rest across a table and also going over the situation. Sometimes having an honest chat about exactly what is taking place as well as how you can fix the dispute and problems can be a huge progression to getting a splitting up agreement detailed out. We recognize that emotions play a role and also it may be as well tough to do. If that's the case, you must check out arbitration. If you can not actually interact well with your spouse anymore, or if they shut down at the thought of obtaining things settled; then, the next step needs to be to call us to discuss moving forward. One of the main reasons we see individuals looking for a lawful splitting up as opposed to a separation is for medical insurance policy. If you get separated, your ex-spouse (ex-husband or ex-wife) can not get on your medical insurance policy. If neither of you mean on remarrying soon, this is a choice to maintain the various other celebration on your insurance plan. One more factor we see for legal splitting up is due to the fact that the events are older and also they have no purpose of obtaining divorced-- definition, they recognize they are not obtaining remarried, so they do not wish to obtain separated. One last reason that prevails is for spiritual factors. Some individuals think that separation is a sin under their religious beliefs and so, a lawful splitting up is liked for that couple so they do not impair their connection with God. Every one of these and also other reasons stand and essential. You should consider the pros and cons of separation versus lawful splitting up in your particular circumstance and also what you reach will be the appropriate choice for you. Turning a Lawful Separation right into a Separation in Utah. divorce vs separation in Utah. As soon as a legal separation order has been authorized by a court in Utah; you could later convert that order of separation into a divorce mandate in the future. You should get in touch with a family members regulation lawyer or our office as well as we can file an activity to transform the order to a separation mandate. Your partner may object as well as deserves to do so. If an argument is filed with the court; after that, a hearing will likely be held by the court. We have to show that the court has jurisdiction and grounds to give a divorce. A lot of do not object to the conversion from a lawful separation to a separation when the moment comes. Also if your partner does dispute the conversion from a separation order to a divorce decree; as long as you fulfill the territory as well as premises for separation and the documents is in order, the court will grant the divorce. There is no law in Utah that forces you to remain married to your spouse. A divorce based upon difference of opinions is constantly permitted. Conclusion Separation or Lawful Separation is never ever a satisfying procedure. They are often uncomfortable and also difficult. Nevertheless, it might be needed or even the most effective decision you can make, depending on your circumstance. If you are experiencing, it is time to end the suffering. If you recognize inside that separation or separation is right for you; you must follow your inner guide as well as let it lead you. There is no need to suffer anymore than you already have. In spite of whatever, it is possible to find from this painful as well as unpleasant scenario successfully. Learning more regarding divorce and lawful splitting up is necessary in figuring out exactly what the best path for you to take is. There are a great deal of variables and also steps to take in both procedures and it is very important to be aware of what both separation and separation entail. We are more than pleased in order to help you overcome these difficult situations, and could aid you in finding out just what choices are the very best for your and also your certain conditions. For additional information concerning separation and also separation, a complimentary initial consultation is your following ideal action. Get the info and also legal solutions you are looking for. Our office : 8833 S Redwood Road, WJ, Utah 84088- Call Me When you're ready 801-676-7308.

This episode is for Syracuse UT married couples who need a Custody Lawyer in Utah. Thank you! If you live in West Jordan, Holladay, South Jordan, Bingham Canyon, Pepperwood, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake City, Sandy, Midvale, Riverton, Draper, Copperton, Magna, Alpine, Lehi, Tooele, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Woods Cross, Lindon, Centerville, Orem, Park City, Farmington, Provo, Kaysville, Layton, Syracuse, Clearfield, Hill AFB, or Grantsville we are here to assist you with your estate plan. West Jordan SEO Be Sure you contact the best Salt Lake City Divorce Lawyer now.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 876-5875

Ascent Law LLC

4.7 stars - based on 45 reviews

http://www.LawyerDivorceUtah.com #DivorceUtah

[robertjones235-blog]

​Divorce vs. Legal Splitting up in Utah. Divorce lawyer Tooele UT 801-676-7309 Divorce Attorney

Divorce attorney Magna Utah 876-5875 Divorce Lawyer Divorce versus Legal Splitting up in Utah. This message explains Divorce vs Legal Separation in Utah. Divorce and also Lawful Separation typically work together, but they are not the exact same point. Depending upon your individual situation as well as connection with your spouse, one choice may be better for you compared to the various other. Comprehending the key differences can assist you determine exactly what is finest for you. Divorce Separation is the lawful dissolution of a marital relationship by means of the court system. After divorce, both parties could lawfully remarry. Nevertheless, there are some rights and advantages of marital relationship that will be lost in divorce. These might consist of tax advantages, health insurance (including oral as well as vision), some types of life insurance policy, government benefits, etc. To understand just what the specific lawful repercussions of separation would be for you, getting in touch with a Utah lawyer is your ideal option. Divorce entails a complete and total division and separation of all assets and also resources, which can be pricey as well as may require comprehensive amounts of time. If you have an interest in weding another person, or that is something you believe you could want to carry out in the future, you certainly have to obtain separated. You don't intend to devote polygamy and also remain in violation of Utah's criminal laws. Thus, divorce may be the appropriate choice for you if the connection in between you and also your partner is unsalvageable or if there are other severe conditions that trigger you to really feel that divorce is the proper as well as prudent activity to take. Lawful Separation separation vs legal splitting up in utah Lawful separation is a court order that defines the legal rights and also duties of a couple who is living apart, however still desires to continue to be lawfully wed. It might advance to a divorce mandate later, but this is not always the case. Frequently, legal splitting up permits each party to keep the lawful benefits of marital relationship, since it does not legitimately liquify the marriage union. Nevertheless, there are still concerns in relation to separate upkeep, and child custodianship and also child/spousal assistance that must be determined either in between the events by means of arrangement or mediation or inevitably through court. Additionally, all financial obligations gotten by each partner after splitting up will certainly still be dealt with as joint financial debt. Legal Separation might be the appropriate selection for you if the circumstances of your connection make you want to stay clear of separation. Nevertheless, it is very important to speak with a legal representative concerning your choices and also exactly what is best for your scenario. So, Lawful Separation versus Separation-- Exactly how Do I Know Just what the very best Option Is? Every circumstance and relationship is various. There are many psychological as well as worldly financial investments and also dedications set in marital relationship, and also these things require time and also help to sufficiently arrange via throughout the processes of separation and also divorce. If you are considering legal splitting up as opposed to separation, communication is the vital factor. We recommend reserving time to rest throughout a table and also talking about the circumstance. Often having a frank conversation about what is going on and the best ways to settle the conflict and issues could be a massive advance to obtaining a separation agreement provided out. We recognize that feelings contribute and also it could be too tough to do. If that's the case, you should take a look at arbitration. If you can not actually connect well with your spouse anymore, or if they close down at the idea of getting things fixed; after that, the following action should be to call us to discuss moving forward. One of the primary reasons we see individuals looking for a lawful separation rather than a separation is for clinical insurance. If you obtain separated, your ex-spouse (ex-husband or ex-wife) could not get on your health insurance plan. If neither of you mean on remarrying quickly, this is an alternative to keep the other party on your insurance coverage. An additional factor we see for legal splitting up is due to the fact that the celebrations are older as well as they have no intention of getting separated-- definition, they recognize they are not obtaining remarried, so they don't want to get separated. One last factor that is common is for spiritual reasons. Some individuals think that divorce is a sin under their religions therefore, a legal splitting up is preferred for that pair so they do not harm their partnership with God. Every one of these and various other reasons stand and also essential. You need to evaluate the pros and cons of separation versus lawful separation in your specific scenario and also exactly what you reach will be the best choice for you. Turning a Lawful Splitting up into a Separation in Utah. divorce vs separation in Utah. As soon as a legal splitting up order has been signed by a court in Utah; you could later on transform that order of separation right into a divorce mandate in the future. You must contact a household law attorney or our office as well as we could submit an activity to convert the order to a divorce decree. Your spouse might object and also has the right to do so. If an argument is submitted with the court; after that, a hearing will likely be held by the court. We have to reveal that the court has jurisdiction and grounds to grant a separation. A lot of do not dispute the conversion from a legal separation to a separation when the moment comes. Also if your partner does oppose the conversion from a splitting up order to a divorce decree; as long as you fulfill the jurisdiction as well as premises for divorce and also the documents is in order, the court will give the divorce. There is no law in Utah that requires you to remain wed to your partner. A divorce based upon difference of opinions is constantly allowed. Conclusion Separation or Legal Splitting up is never ever an enjoyable process. They are often unpleasant as well as difficult. Nevertheless, it may be essential or even the best decision you could make, depending on your scenario. If you are enduring, it is time to end the suffering. If you know inside that splitting up or separation is appropriate for you; you need to follow your inner guide as well as allow it assist you. There is no need to experience anymore than you already have. In spite of every little thing, it is feasible to find out of this unpleasant as well as undesirable circumstance effectively. Learning more regarding divorce and lawful splitting up is important in identifying what the most effective course for you to take is. There are a lot of aspects and also actions to take in both processes as well as it is important to be accustomed to just what both divorce and also splitting up require. We are more than satisfied to assist you resolve these difficult situations, and could assist you in figuring out what options are the best for your and your particular situations. For additional information about separation as well as splitting up, a totally free initial consultation is your following best step. Obtain the info and also legal answers you are seeking. Our address : 8833 S Redwood Rd, WJ, UT 84088- Call Me When you're ready 801-676-5507.

This video is for Provo Utah married couples who need a Bankruptcy Attorney in Utah. Come Back Soon If you live in West Jordan, Holladay, South Jordan, Bingham Canyon, Pepperwood, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake City, Sandy, Midvale, Riverton, Draper, Copperton, Magna, Alpine, Lehi, Tooele, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Woods Cross, Lindon, Centerville, Orem, Park City, Farmington, Provo, Kaysville, Layton, Syracuse, Clearfield, Hill AFB, or Grantsville we are here to assist you with your estate plan. West Jordan SEO Make sure you call the top Salt Lake City Divorce Lawyer now.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 876-5875

Ascent Law LLC

4.7 stars - based on 45 reviews

http://www.LawyerDivorceUtah.com #MikeAnderson

[alexandrabennett079-blog]

​Divorce vs. Legal Splitting up in Utah. Legal Separation lawyer Sandy UT 801-676-5507 Divorce Lawyer

Divorce versus Legal Separation in Utah. This website explains Divorce vs Legal Separation in Utah. Separation as well as Lawful Splitting up usually go together, but they are not the same point. Depending upon your personal scenario as well as partnership with your partner, one alternative may be better for you compared to the various other. Recognizing the key differences can help you determine exactly what is best for you. Separation Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marital relationship using the court system. After divorce, both events can legally remarry. Nonetheless, there are some legal rights and also benefits of marital relationship that will certainly be shed in separation. These might consist of tax obligation advantages, health insurance (consisting of oral and also vision), some forms of life insurance policy, government benefits, etc. To know what the particular lawful effects of divorce would be for you, seeking advice from a Utah attorney is your best option. Divorce entails a full and full division and also separation of all properties as well as sources, which can be costly as well as may need extensive amounts of time. If you want marrying someone else, or that is something you assume you could want to perform in the future, you surely need to get separated. You don't wish to dedicate bigamy and also remain in violation of Utah's criminal laws. Thus, divorce could be the appropriate option for you if the relationship between you and also your spouse is unsalvageable or if there are various other severe situations that create you to really feel that separation is the appropriate as well as sensible action to take. Legal Splitting up divorce vs lawful separation in utah Legal splitting up is a court order that specifies the rights and obligations of a married couple who is living apart, but still wishes to remain lawfully wed. It might advance to a separation mandate later on, but this is not always the case. Commonly, lawful splitting up enables each event to retain the legal advantages of marriage, since it does not lawfully liquify the marital union. Nonetheless, there are still concerns in regards to separate maintenance, and kid safekeeping and also child/spousal assistance that have to be determined either in between the celebrations using arrangement or arbitration or inevitably with court. In addition, all financial obligations gotten by each partner after splitting up will still be dealt with as joint financial debt. Lawful Separation may be the right selection for you if the circumstances of your relationship make you intend to avoid divorce. Nonetheless, it is very important to consult an attorney regarding your choices and what is best for your situation. So, Legal Separation versus Separation-- Just how Do I Know Exactly what the very best Option Is? Every scenario and relationship is various. There are countless emotional and also worldly investments and also dedications lodged in marriage, and these things take some time as well as assistance to adequately arrange via during the procedures of splitting up as well as divorce. If you are thinking about legal separation instead of separation, interaction is the key variable. We suggest setting aside some time to sit across a table and also discussing the situation. In some cases having an honest chat regarding what is taking place and how to solve the problem as well as problems could be a massive step forward to getting a separation agreement noted out. We recognize that emotions contribute as well as it may be also tough to do. If that holds true, you should check out mediation. If you can't really interact well with your spouse anymore, or if they close down at the thought of getting points dealt with; then, the next action needs to be to call us to speak about moving on. One of the main factors we see individuals looking for a lawful separation rather than a separation is for clinical insurance coverage. If you get divorced, your ex-spouse (ex-husband or ex-wife) can not get on your health insurance policy. If neither of you intend on remarrying quickly, this is a choice to maintain the other party on your insurance coverage. Another reason we see for lawful separation is since the events are older and also they have no intent of obtaining separated-- meaning, they recognize they are not obtaining remarried, so they don't wish to get divorced. One last factor that prevails is for religious reasons. Some people believe that divorce is a sin under their religious beliefs therefore, a legal separation is preferred for that pair so they do not hinder their connection with God. All these as well as various other reasons are valid as well as essential. You should evaluate the pros and cons of separation versus lawful splitting up in your specific situation as well as just what you reach will certainly be the appropriate selection for you. Transforming a Legal Splitting up right into a Divorce in Utah. divorce vs separation in Utah. As soon as a lawful separation order has been signed by a court in Utah; you could later convert that order of separation right into a separation decree in the future. You need to speak to a household regulation lawyer or our office and also we could submit a movement to convert the order to a divorce decree. Your partner may object as well as can do so. If an argument is submitted with the court; after that, a hearing will likely be held by the court. We need to reveal that the court has jurisdiction and premises to grant a divorce. A lot of do not oppose the conversion from a lawful separation to a divorce when the moment comes. Also if your spouse does object to the conversion from a splitting up order to a separation decree; as long as you satisfy the jurisdiction and premises for separation and the documentation is in order, the court will certainly approve the separation. There is no law in Utah that requires you to remain married to your partner. A divorce based on difference of opinions is always permitted. Final thought Divorce or Lawful Separation is never a satisfying procedure. They are almost always uncomfortable and tough. Nonetheless, it might be required as well as the very best decision you could make, depending on your scenario. If you are enduring, it is time to end the suffering. If you know inside that splitting up or separation is ideal for you; you should follow your inner voice as well as let it guide you. There is no need to endure anymore than you already have. In spite of everything, it is feasible to come from this painful and also undesirable circumstance successfully. Finding out more concerning divorce and lawful splitting up is necessary in determining what the very best course for you to take is. There are a great deal of aspects and also steps to take in both processes and it is necessary to be aware of exactly what both separation and also separation entail. We are greater than pleased in order to help you overcome these tight spots, and could assist you in determining what choices are the best for your and your details situations. To find out more concerning divorce and splitting up, a complimentary preliminary appointment is your following finest action. Get the information as well as lawful responses you are seeking. Our address : 8833 South Redwood Road, West Jordan, Utah 84088- Call Me When you're ready 801-676-7309.

This show is for West Jordan Utah individuals who want a Divorce Lawyer in Utah. Thank you! If you live in West Jordan, Holladay, South Jordan, Bingham Canyon, Pepperwood, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake City, Sandy, Midvale, Riverton, Draper, Copperton, Magna, Alpine, Lehi, Tooele, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Woods Cross, Lindon, Centerville, Orem, Park City, Farmington, Provo, Kaysville, Layton, Syracuse, Clearfield, Hill AFB, or Grantsville we are here to assist you with your estate plan. West Jordan SEO Make sure you call the 5 star rated Salt Lake City Divorce Lawyer right now.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 876-5875

Ascent Law LLC

4.7 stars - based on 45 reviews

http://www.ascentlawfirm.com #UtahDivorceAttorney