#using different sources of varied alliance to U.S. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

magz · 10 months ago

Text

Gaza, Palestine.

"Several people have reportedly been injured and at least 5 killed after parachutes dropping aid over #Gaza failed to open. Video shows the aid falling quickly to the ground, as people gathered to collect desperately needed food and supplies."

March 8, 2024

(Aljazeera English post with video link)

Articles for context:

"Airdropping aid is inefficient—so why is the U.S. doing it anyway?" (NPR)

Article Date: March 4, 2024.

Quote.

[...]

Konyndyk (president of Refugees International): Well, the first thing to understand about airdrops is they are probably the most inefficient possible way to deliver aid. So they're used very, very sparingly and only when there is truly no other way to get aid in. So we would use them if a population was completely physically inaccessible, if they had been cut off by an earthquake or a hurricane or if there was fighting or if they were besieged. So, for example, when Iraqi Yazidis were fleeing the genocidal militia, the ISIL militia that had pushed them out of their town, they fled up Sinjar Mountain. And in 2014, when I was at AID, we organized airdrops by the U.S. military onto Sinjar Mountain to sustain them. Outside of those kind of situations, it's very, very rare. I can't think of one where we've used them in a place that was simultaneously being served by overland access.

Shapiro (interviewer): Can you just explain why it is so inefficient, why it is such a sort of last resort?

Konyndyk: Well, first is cost. It is about - you know, and obviously, every situation is a little different, but ballpark 8 to 10 times as expensive logistically to deliver by air as by overland transport. And the volumes are much smaller. So to put this in perspective, Samantha Power, the administrator of USAID, was in the Middle East last week. And she gave remarks in the West Bank, where she was bemoaning the fact that only about 96 trucks per day, on average, had been getting into Gaza. Well, the three planeloads that the U.S. dropped last week are equivalent to ballpark four to six truckloads. So it really is not a significant additional amount of aid relative to the already hugely inadequate amount that's getting in.

Shapiro: That's staggering, that not only is it eight to 10 times more expensive, but it's the equivalent of four to six truckloads. And the number that President Biden himself has described as wholly insufficient is something like 96 trucks per day.

Konyndyk: Correct.

[...]

"Gaza Authorities Say Accident Involving Airdropped Aid Kills 5" (New York Times)

Article Date: March 8, 2024; Updated March 9, 2024.

Quote.

The authorities in Gaza said at least five Palestinians were killed and several others were wounded on Friday after packages of humanitarian aid that had been airdropped fell on them in Gaza City.

[...]

In the clip, whose date and location were verified by The New York Times, it appears that one parachute failed to open, while multiple packages that were not attached to parachutes plummeted to the ground. In the clip, filmed near Al-Shati Camp, people can be seen running in different directions.

The government media office said in a statement that the packages fell “on the heads” of some people “as a result of landing incorrectly.” The office added that it had previously warned that a similar incident could occur during airdrops and “pose a death threat to the lives” of civilians in Gaza. Noting that some of the aid had landed in the sea or close to the Israeli border, the statement said that airdrop operations were “ineffective and not the best way to deliver aid.”

[...]

U.N. officials, aid groups and experts on humanitarian crises have said the airdrops are insufficient and largely symbolic, given the dire needs of the two million Gazans still trapped in a war zone. They have urged Israel to open up more border crossings and to speed up inspections of the aid shipments.

Airdrops can only deliver a fraction of the food a convoy of trucks can haul, and it is difficult if not impossible to control who takes possession of the goods once they reach the ground, these experts have said.

But dangers posed by failed parachutes and falling pallets of food, water and other aid are also a major risk in airdrop operations.

[...]

#using different sources of varied alliance to U.S.#genocide #death #palestine #sij

30 notes · View notes

kemetic-dreams · 4 years ago

Photo

IS IT BLACK OR AFRICAN OR AFRICAN AMERICAN?

HAD A RECENT RUN IN WITH AN ASIAN PATIENT OF MINE. WHO ASKED ME, AFTER I STATED MY NAME. WHAT DO I CALL YOUR PEOPLE? I HEAR SOME PEOPLE SAY BLACK, THEN AFRICAN AMERICAN,COLORED, AND SOMETHING CALLED MELANATED BEINGS?

SO THE BIG QUESTION WHAT DO WE CALL OURSELVES? I AM CONFUSED.

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND AFRICANS NEVER SPOKE ENGLISH

AFRICANS NEVER HAD A UNIFYING LANGUAGE

THE BASIS OF AFRICAN IDENTITY LET ALONE ALL IDENTITIES COMES FROM ETHNIC IDENTITY.

WHY WOULD AFRICANS BE MESMERIZED BY COLOR

REAL IDENTITIES ARE AUTONYMS, EXAMPLE AMAZULU IS A IDENTITY THAT THOSE GROUPS OF PPL WITH OUT FOREIGN INTERVENTION CAME UP WITH.

EUROPEANS NOR ASIAN CAME UP WITH THE TERM ZULU

THE TERM IFIRIYA OR AFRICA COMES FROM THE VARIOUS ETHNIC GROUPS FROM NORTH AFRICA

AFTER HANNIBAL WAS DEFEATED, SCIPIO NAMED HIS SELF AFTER THE LAND

ALSO AFRICA COMES FROM�� Massey, in 1881, stated that Africa is derived from the Egyptian af-rui-ka, meaning "to turn toward the opening of the Ka." The Ka is the energetic double of every person and the "opening of the Ka" refers to a womb or birthplace. Africa would be, for the Egyptians, "the birthplace."

WHEN WE SAY WE ARE AFRICAN WE ARE STATING OUR RAICAL ORIGINS. NOT A NATIONALITY

IS YOUR SKIN COLOR BLACK?

NO OUR SKIN IS NOT BLACK NOR DO ALL AFRICAN LOOK ALIKE OR MYOPIC

Human skin color ranges in variety from the darkest brown to the lightest hues. An individual's skin pigmentation is the result of genetics, being the product of both of the individual's biological parents' genetic makeup, and exposure to sun. In evolution, skin pigmentation in human beings evolved by a process of natural selection primarily to regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects

Black people refers to a racialized classification of people, usually a political and a skin color-based category for specific populations with a mid to dark brown complexion. Not all Black people have dark skin; in certain countries, often in socially based systems of racial classification in the Western world, the term "Black" is used to describe persons who are perceived as dark-skinned compared to other populations. It is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of Oceania. Indigenous African societies do not use the term Black as a racial identity outside of influences brought by Western cultures.

For some individuals, communities and countries, "Black" is perceived as a derogatory, outdated, reductive or otherwise unrepresentative label, and as a result is neither used nor defined, especially in African countries with little to no history of colonial racial segregation. Some have commented that labeling people "Black" is erroneous as the people described as "Black" are seen by some to have a brown skin color.

WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA TO CALL AFRICANS BLACK

AFTER THE BACONS REBELLION, WHEN EUROPEANS AND AFRICANS HAD A REVOLT, THAT DESTROYED PLANTATIONS

It was the first rebellion in the North American colonies in which discontented frontiersmen took part (a somewhat similar uprising in Maryland involving John Coode and Josias Fendall took place shortly afterwards). The alliance between European indentured servants and Africans (many enslaved until death or freed), united by their bond-servitude, disturbed the ruling class. The ruling class responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.While the farmers did not succeed in their initial goal of driving the Native Americans from Virginia, the rebellion resulted in Berkeley being recalled to England.

AFTER THE LEADER OF THE REBELLION DIED LAND OWNERS, REACHED OUT TO LAW MAKERS FROM LONDON CAME OVER FOR HELP AND TO BE ADVISED

FIRST THING THEY DID WAS BAN INTER RACIAL MARRIAGES

THEN THEY DECIDED THAT AFRICANS WOULD NEVER GET OUT OF SLAVERY.

THIS IS WHEN THE TERM WHITE AND BLACK WERE DEVELOPED. BLACK MEANING YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, AND WHITE MEANS YOU DO HAVE RIGHTS

youtube

SO WHEN WAS THE MAJOR CHANGE

By that time, the majority of African people in the United States were native-born, so the use of the term "African" became problematic. Though initially a source of pride, many Africans feared that the use of African as an identity would be a hindrance to their fight for full citizenship in the US. They also felt that it would give ammunition to those who were advocating repatriating black people back to Africa. In 1835, black leaders called upon Black Americans to remove the title of "African" from their institutions and replace it with "Negro" or "Colored American". A few institutions chose to keep their historic names, such as the African Methodist Episcopal Church. African Americans popularly used the terms "Negro" or "colored" for themselves until the late 1960s.

In 1988, the civil rights leader Jesse Jackson urged Americans to use instead the term "African American" because it had a historical cultural base and was a construction similar to terms used by European descendants, such as German American, Italian American, etc. Since then, African American and black have often had parallel status. However, controversy continues over which if any of the two terms is more appropriate. Maulana Karenga argues that the term African-American is more appropriate because it accurately articulates their geographical and historical origin.

Others have argued that "black" is a better term because "African" suggests foreignness, although Black Americans helped found the United States. Still others believe that the term black is inaccurate because African Americans have a variety of skin tones. Some surveys suggest that the majority of Black Americans have no preference for "African American" or "Black",although they have a slight preference for "black" in personal settings and "African American" in more formal settings

The United States is weird on labeling people. At one point all Europeans were not considered white, ironically at the same time Asians were considered to be white. They say white and black are skin colors, but at what point do we call Asians a myopic color. According to the United States Census, because I have North African ancestry, I am considered to be white.

Are Mexicans white?

The official racial status of Mexican Americans has varied throughout American history. From 1850 to 1920, the U.S. Census form did not distinguish between whites and Mexican Americans. In 1930, the U.S. Census form asked for "color or race," and census enumerators were instructed to write W for white and Mex for Mexican. In 1940 and 1950, the census reverted its decision and made Mexicans be classified as white again and thus the instructions were to "Report white (W) for Mexicans unless they were definitely of full Indigenous Indian or other non-white races (such as Black or Asian)."

During periods in U.S. history when racial intermarriage wasn't legally acknowledged, and when Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were uniformly allotted white status, they were legally allowed to intermarry with what today are termed non-Hispanic whites, unlike Blacks and Asians. They were allowed to acquire U.S. citizenship upon arrival; served in all-white units during World War II; could vote and hold elected office in places such as Texas, especially San Antonio; ran the state politics and constituted most of the elite of New Mexico since colonial times; and went to segregated white schools in Central Texas and Los Angeles. Additionally, Asians were barred from marrying Mexican Americans because Mexicans were legally white.

U.S. nativists in the late 1920s and 1930s (mostly due to the socially xenophobic and economic climate of the Great Depression) tried to put a halt to Mexican immigration by having Mexicans (and Mexican Americans) declared non-white, by virtue of their Indian heritage. After 70 years of being in the United States and having been bestowed white status by the U.S. government this was the first time the United States began to show true racist attitudes towards Mexicans in America something that usually came quickly to people of other races. They based their strategy on a 1924 law that barred entry to immigrants who were ineligible for citizenship, and at that point, only blacks and whites, and not Asians or Native Americans, could naturalize and become U.S. citizens. The test case came in December 1935, when a Buffalo, N.Y., judge rejected Jalisco native Timoteo Andrade's application for citizenship on the grounds that he was a "Mexican Indian." Had it not been for the intervention of the Mexican and American governments, who forced a second hearing, this precedent could very well have made many Mexicans, the majority of whom are mestizo, ineligible for citizenship. When mixed race Mexicans were allowed to retain their white status in American society they were unperturbed with the fact that the United States still continued its discriminatory practices towards Mexicans of full Indigenous heritage.

During the Great Depression, Mexicans were largely considered non-white. As many as 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were deported in a decade-long effort by the government called the Mexican Repatriation.

In the 2000 U.S census, around half of all persons of Mexican or Mexican American origin in the U.S. checked white to register their race (in addition to stating their Mexican national origin).Mexican Americans are the largest white Hispanic group in the United States.

The idea of color is a European colonial disease not an African one.

African is a racial origins term

Saying your Jamaican,Nigerian,Ethiopian,Canadian,Mexican, or Brazilian are Nations/Nationality

Saying Amhara, Sicilian, Irish, Yoruba, Zulu, or Han are examples of Ethnicities

African American is not an ethnic group but clusters of different ethnics from Africa in the Americas.

Black is nothing more than a class system designed by Europeans

Just because your born in Germany doesn’t change your race.

When do Asian people stop being racially Asian just because they moved to a different nation

So, why does this happens to Europeans or Africans

There is no such things as a black language, skin color, or names or even a black or nation called black

3K notes · View notes

yourreddancer · 3 years ago

Text

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

January 31, 2022 (Monday)CNN reported tonight that former president Trump had not one but two executive orders prepared to enable his loyalists to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.

One authorizing the Pentagon to seize the machines was made public as part of the investigation by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Another, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security, has been confirmed to CNN by a number of sources, but is not publicly available.Shortly after this report, the New York Times reported a story with much more detail, claiming that Trump was directly involved in the plans to seize the machines.

The authors talked to “people familiar with the matter [who] were briefed on the events by participants or had firsthand knowledge of them.” That latter description is interesting: someone in Trump’s inner circle is talking to reporters (and the shape of the different elements in the story suggests that person is not necessarily giving an accurate account).

CNN also reported that former vice president Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, testified before the January 6 committee last week. Short had been cooperating with the committee, providing documents, and testified after a subpoena. He was with Pence for many of the key moments surrounding the events of January 6.

The committee has asked a judge to adjust document production from lawyer John Eastman’s former employer, Chapman University. Eastman sued to stop a subpoena for 94,000 pages of emails the university agreed to produce, saying that many of them were covered by attorney-client privilege. So a judge ordered him to review them, but he is moving so slowly the committee says he won’t get around to sending the ones between January 4, 2021, and January 7, 2021—the ones the members most want to see—until it’s too late for them to be of use. The judge ordered him to prioritize those days.

Also, campaign finance reports filed today show that former president George W. Bush donated the maximum allowable to Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who is vice chair of the January 6 committee, and to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who also opposed former president Trump. The fight between establishment Republicans and Trump Republicans continues to simmer, but the muted response today to Trump’s statement last night about overturning the election suggests the establishment is not willing to make a stand in favor of our democratic system if it means losing their base.

In the wake of Trump’s weekend attack on the prosecutors investigating the varying valuations of his properties and his efforts to overturn the election, Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney Fani Willis today asked the FBI to address heightened security concerns.

Otherwise, today’s main news came from the meeting of the United Nations Security Council, where the U.S. ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, warned of an “urgent and dangerous” situation in Europe as Russian president Vladimir Putin has massed more than 100,000 Russian troops along the border with Ukraine. The Russian representative countered that Russia had indicated no intention of invading Ukraine and the U.S. is fearmongering.

At stake is the concept of sovereignty: will large states have the power to absorb their neighbors into spheres of influence in a system that mirrors that of the Cold War era, or will each state have the right to hold firm borders and determine its own alliances.

The U.S. and the U.K. have said they have prepared a list of “oligarchs close to the Kremlin” who will be hit with sanctions in the case that Russian troops invade Ukraine again. The list includes the family members of those profiting from Putin’s regime, cutting off their ability to funnel illicit money into western democracies. This is a huge deal.

Oligarchs consolidated power in the former Soviet satellite states in the 1990s and moved enormous amounts of illicit money into the U.S. and the U.K.—so much that London is sometimes called “Londongrad.” Recent studies suggest that the influx of that illicit money had undermined democracy, and cleaning it up would almost certainly help to stabilize the systems in the U.S. and the U.K. British foreign secretary Liz Truss said the measures “can target anyone providing strategic support close to Vladimir Putin.”

This threat appears to have worried the Kremlin, whose spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the proposed measures an illegitimate “outright attack on business.” The head of Russia’s Senate committee for protection of national sovereignty, Andrey Klimov, said that any such sanctions would hurt Britain rather than Russia by hurting the image of the U.K. as a safe haven for investments. Capital would flow out of the U.K. to Hong Kong or Zurich, he warned

.Interviewed by Politico’s Ryan Heath, European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Kadri Liik noted that a massive military deployment would be “very badly received�� in Russia. Asked if Putin sees Biden as weak, Liik said the opposite: that he has come off as smart. “He's trying to limit his frontlines. He's not fighting each and every battle. Plus, Biden is someone who can speak on behalf of the West. During the whole Trump period, there was no one like that.”

In Britain today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the country’s Conservative Party faced a serious challenge to his government when a report revealed “failures of leadership and judgment” by Johnson in attending 12 parties that ignored the country’s strict lockdown rules. Johnson had downplayed the events and now that they are confirmed, even much of his own party appears ready to abandon him, appalled that he apparently considered himself above the law. In a leader, one member of Parliament said, “honesty and decency matters.”

5 notes · View notes

xtruss · 5 years ago

Text

VOICE

Everyone Misunderstands the Reason for the U.S.-China Cold War

The left says it’s U.S. arrogance. The right says it’s Chinese malevolence. Both are wrong.

— B yStephen M. Walt | June 30, 2020 Foreign Policy

Flags of the United States and China are placed ahead of a meeting between U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and his Chinese counterpart, Han Changfu, at the Ministry of Agriculture in Beijing on June 30, 2017. JASON LEE/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

The United States is pretty polarized these days, but nearly everyone seems to agree that China is a big problem. The Trump administration has been at odds with China on trade issues since day one, and its 2017 National Security Strategy labeled China a “revisionist power” and major strategic rival. (President Donald Trump himself seems to have been willing to give Beijing a free pass if it would help him get reelected, but that’s just a sign of his own venality and inconsistent with the administration’s other policies.) Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden may have started his campaign in 2019 downplaying fears that China was going to “eat our lunch,” but his campaign has grown increasingly hawkish over time.

Not surprisingly, hard-line Republican members of Congress like Josh Hawley and Matt Gaetz have been sounding the alarm as well, while progressives and moderates warn of a “new cold war” and call for renewed dialogue to manage the relationship. Despite their differing prescriptions, all of these groups see the state of Sino-American relations as of vital importance.

Unfortunately, discussion of the Sino-American rivalry is also succumbing to a familiar tendency to attribute conflict to our opponents’ internal characteristics: their ruling ideology, domestic institutions, or the personalities of particular leaders. This tendency has a long history in the United States: The country entered World War I in order to defeat German militarism and make the world safe for democracy, and later it fought World War II to defeat fascism. At the dawn of the Cold War, George Kennan’s infamous “X” article (“The Sources of Soviet Conduct”) argued that Moscow had a relentless and internally motivated urge to expand, driven by the need for foreign enemies to justify the Communist Party’s authoritarian rule. Appeasement would not work, he argued, and the only choice was to contain the Soviet Union until its internal system “mellowed.” More recently, U.S. leaders blamed America’s problems with Iraq on Saddam Hussein’s recklessly evil ambitions and portrayed Iran’s leaders as irrational religious fanatics whose foreign-policy behavior is driven solely by ideological beliefs.

In all of these conflicts, trouble arose from the basic nature of these adversaries, not from the circumstances they found themselves in or the inherently competitive nature of international politics itself.

And so it is with China today. Former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster maintains that China is a threat “because its leaders are promoting a closed, authoritarian model as an alternative to democratic governance and free-market economics.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo agrees: In his view, relations have deteriorated because “it’s a different Chinese Communist Party today than it was 10 years ago. … This is a Chinese Communist Party that has come to view itself as intent upon the destruction of Western ideas, Western democracies, Western values.” According to Sen. Marco Rubio: “Chinese Communist Party power serves no purpose but to strengthen the party’s rule and to spread its influence around the world. … China is an untrustworthy partner in any endeavor whether it’s a nation-state project, an industrial capacity, or financial integration.” The only way to avoid a conflict, Vice President Mike Pence said, is for China’s rulers to “change course and return to the spirit of ‘reform and opening’ and greater freedom.”

Even far more sophisticated China watchers, such as former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, attribute much of China’s increasingly assertive stance to President Xi Jinping’s centralization of power, and Rudd sees this behavior as “an expression of Xi Jinping’s personal leadership temperament, which is impatient with the incremental bureaucratism endemic to the Chinese system, and with which the international community had become relaxed, comfortable, and thoroughly accustomed.” The implication is that a different Chinese leader would be a much less serious problem. Similarly, Timothy Garton Ash believes that the “primary cause of this new cold war is the turn taken by the Chinese communist party leadership under Xi Jinping since 2012: more oppressive at home, more aggressive abroad.” Other observers point to rising nationalism (whether spontaneous or government-sponsored) as another key factor in China’s greater foreign-policy assertiveness.

Relying on categories originally conceived by the late Kenneth Waltz, international relations scholars variously refer to such accounts as “unit-level,” “reductionist,” or “second-image” explanations. The many variations within this broad family of theories all view a country’s foreign-policy behavior as primarily the result of its internal characteristics. Thus, U.S. foreign policy is sometimes attributed to its democratic system, liberal values, or capitalist economic order, just as the behavior of other states is said to derive from the nature of their domestic regime, ruling ideology, “strategic culture,” or leaders’ personalities.

Explanations based on domestic characteristics are appealing in part because they seem so simple and straightforward: Peace-loving democracies act that way because they are (supposedly) based on norms of tolerance; by contrast, aggressors act aggressively because they are based on domination or coercion or because there are fewer constraints on what leaders can do.

Focusing on the internal characteristics of other states is also tempting because it absolves us of responsibility for conflict and allows us to pin the blame on others. If we are on the side of the angels and our own political system is based on sound and just principles, then when trouble arises, it must be because Bad States or Bad Leaders are out there doing Bad Things. This perspective also provides a ready solution: Get rid of those Bad States or those Bad Leaders! Demonizing one’s opponents is also a time-honored way of rallying public support in the face of an international challenge, and that requires highlighting the negative qualities that are supposedly making one’s rivals act as they are.

Unfortunately, pinning most of the blame for conflict on an opponent’s domestic characteristics is also dangerous. For starters, if conflict is due primarily to the nature of the opposing regime(s), then the only long-term solution is to overthrow them. Accommodation, mutual coexistence, or even extensive cooperation on matters of mutual interest are for the most part ruled out, with potentially catastrophic consequences. When rivals see the nature of the other side as a threat in itself, a struggle to the death becomes the only alternative.

What unit-level explanations either overlook or downplay are the broader structural factors that have made Sino-American rivalry inevitable. First and foremost, the two most powerful countries in the international system are overwhelmingly likely to be at odds with each other. Because each is the other’s greatest potential threat, they will inevitably eye each other warily, go to considerable lengths to reduce the other’s ability to threaten their core interests, and constantly look for ways to gain an advantage, if only to ensure that the other side does not gain an advantage over them.

Even if it were possible (or worth the risk), internal changes in either the United States or China are unlikely to eliminate these incentives (or at least not anytime soon). Each country is trying—with varying degrees of skill and success—to avoid being in a position where the other can threaten its security, prosperity, or domestic way of life. And because neither can be completely sure what the other might do in the future—a reality amply demonstrated by the erratic course of U.S. foreign policy in recent years—both are actively competing for power and influence in a variety of domains.

This troubling situation is exacerbated by the incompatibility of their respective strategic objectives, which derive in part from geography and from the legacies of the past century. Quite understandably, China’s leaders would like to live in as secure a neighborhood as possible, for the same reasons that the United States formulated and eventually enforced the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere. Beijing need not impose one-party state capitalist regimes around its periphery; it just wants all of its neighbors to be mindful of its interests and does not want any of them to pose a significant threat. Toward that end, it would like to push the United States out of the region so that it no longer has to worry as much about U.S. military power and so that its neighbors cannot count on American help. This goal is hardly mystifying or irrational: Would any great power be happy if the world’s most powerful country had significant military forces arrayed nearby and had close military alliances with many of its immediate neighbors?

The United States has good reasons to remain in Asia, however. As John Mearsheimer and I have explained elsewhere, preventing China from establishing a dominant position in Asia strengthens U.S. security by forcing China to focus more attention closer to home and making it harder (though of course not impossible) for China to project power elsewhere in the world (including areas closer to the United States itself). This strategic logic would still apply if China were to liberalize or if America were to adopt Chinese-style state capitalism. The result, unfortunately, is a zero-sum conflict: Neither side can get what it wants without depriving the other.

Thus, the roots of the present Sino-American rivalry have less to do with particular leaders or regime types and more to do with the distribution of power and the particular strategies that the two sides are pursuing. This is not to say that domestic politics or individual leadership do not matter at all, either in influencing the intensity of the competition or the skill with which each side wages it. Some leaders are more (or less) risk acceptant, and Americans are currently getting (another) painful demonstration of the harm that incompetent leadership can inflict. But the more important point is that new leaders or profound domestic changes are not going to alter the inherently competitive nature of U.S.-Chinese relations.

From this perspective, both progressives and hard-liners in the United States are getting it wrong. The former believe that China poses at most a modest threat to U.S. interests and that some combination of accommodation and skillful diplomacy can eliminate most if not all of the friction and head off a new cold war. I’m all for skillful diplomacy, but I do not believe it will suffice to prevent an intense competition that is primarily rooted in the distribution of power.

As Trump said of his trade war, hard-liners think a competition with China will be “good and easy to win.” In their view, all it takes is more and tougher sanctions, a decoupling of the U.S. and Chinese economies, a big increase in U.S. defense spending, and a rallying of like-minded democracies to the U.S. side, with the ultimate goal of ending Chinese Communist Party rule. Apart from the obvious costs and risks of this course of action, this view overstates Chinese vulnerabilities, understates the costs to the United States, and greatly exaggerates other states’ willingness to join an anti-Beijing crusade. China’s neighbors do not want it to dominate them and are eager to maintain ties with Washington, but they have no desire to get dragged into a violent conflict. And there is little reason to believe that a supposedly more liberal China would be any less interested in defending its own interests and any more willing to accept permanent inferiority to the United States.

So what does a more structural view of this situation imply?

First, it tells us that we are in it for the long haul; no clever strategy or bold stroke of genius is going to solve this conflict once and for all—at least not anytime soon.

Second, it is a serious rivalry, and the United States should conduct in a serious way. You don’t deal with an ambitious peer competitor with a bunch of amateurs in charge or with a president who puts his personal agenda ahead of the country’s. It will take intelligent military investments, to be sure, but a major diplomatic effort by knowledgeable and well-trained officials is going to be of equal if not greater importance. Maintaining a healthy set of Asian alliances is essential because the United States simply cannot remain an influential power in Asia without a lot of local support. The bottom line: America cannot entrust the care and feeding of those relationships to campaign contributors, party hacks, or dilettantes.

Third, and perhaps most important, both sides have a genuine and shared interest in keeping their rivalry within boundaries, both to avoid unnecessary clashes and to facilitate cooperation on issues where U.S. and Chinese interests overlap (climate change, pandemic prevention, etc.). One cannot eliminate all risks and prevent future crises, but Washington must be clear about its own red lines and make sure it understands Beijing’s. This is where unit-level factors kick in: The rivalry may be hard-wired into today’s international system, but how each side handles the competition will be determined by who is in charge and by the quality of their domestic institutions. I would not assume that America’s will fall short, but I wouldn’t be complacent about that either.

— Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

2 notes · View notes

atheistforhumanity · 6 years ago

Text

My Summary of The Mueller Report (part 1)

Introduction

After digging through the entire Mueller Report, I found myself facing surprises that exceeded my preconceptions and some that contradicted my preconceptions. I can say definitively that reading the Report has solidified the belief that Trump’s campaign acted unethically and against the interests of the United States, but I can see why there have not been indictments drawn.

I’ve decided to break this review up into three pieces. Part 1 will focus on the question of collusion with Russia, part 2 will focus on obstruction of justice, and part 3 will be an analysis of why no charges have been filed.

Collusion

Before talk about what happened during the election, we need to acknowledge that before Trump even announced his candidacy he was attempting to expand his business into Moscow, with a Trump Tower and other business ventures. This gives Trump believable motive to cozy up to Russia and have a vested interest in improving relations with them, as he has openly talked about since he began running. Not only did Trump have an interest in Russia, but people in Russia already had an interest in Trump. Before the Campaign, a real estate agent emailed Cohen and wrote of an alliance between Trump and Putin for political purposes.

It’s not clear how connected this person actually was or how influential this was in sparking Russia’s interest in Trump politically, but it sets an ominous background against the shady actions in 2016.

Also, back in 2015, another man named Klokov offered to Cohen to set up an in person meeting with Putin. Cohen turned down this meeting because he believed Sater’s connections with the Russian govt. were good enough.

Now we need to talk about the word collusion and define what we are talking about. The colloquial term is used to describe any type of cooperation between two parties. Many Trump supporters have been retorting that collusion is not a crime. That’s technically true, the crime is called Conspiracy Against The United States. These words, collusion and coordination, are extremely important to the questions we are asking, and the Report states that neither of them “have a settled definition in federal criminal law” (Mueller Report, V 1 p. 10). The report stresses the importance of agreement to solidify conviction, meaning that the Office had to prove that both parties literally said, “yes, let’s work together for a common purpose.” This is the most frustrating part of reading the report, because it clearly sets a high bar for the standard of guilt, and the Trump campaign is bumping that bar, but never passing it. The Report does recognize that both parties saw the advantage they would gain from each other and acted accordingly to benefit from the other, although this was without any formal agreement.

What I’m going to show you from this point on is a series of actions that were deliberately taken by the Trump campaign to both improve relations for an officially unspecified reason, which is likely Trump’s desire to expand his business, and to benefit from the illegal actions by Russia against the U.S..

George Papadopoulos

Evidence of Russia’s hacking become noticeable around mid-2016. At that same time…

Papadopoulos was not a coffee boy. He was hired by the Campaign as an energy consultant and frequently traveled over seas for the Campaign. While in England, a Russian operative named Joseph Mifsud took a special interest in Papadopoulos purely because of his position in the Trump Campaign. As you’ll see, Russia tried to make contact with Trump through multiple back door efforts. Mifsud told Papadopoulos about the stolen emails long before the information was public. Papadopoulos babbled to an Australian diplomat, who called the FBI. That is how the FBI turned the their attention to the Trump campaign, and it was a damn good reason. In Papadopoulos’ confession, he swears that he never old anyone about the stolen emails, and officials in the campaign stated “with varying degrees of certainty” that he never told them (Mueller Report V1 p. 101). I don’t believe that for one second. I think it’s reasonable to assume Papadopoulos would run back to the Campaign with this juicy information to score major kudos. Papadopoulos did say he attempted to barter a meeting between Trump and Russian government officials through Mifsud, but that meeting never ended up happening. This is not the only time a middle man was used to try set up a meeting with Trump that failed. Incompetence may be a significant reason that he’s not being charged.

This is incident one where we have the two parties discussing working together, but failing to show that an official agreement for the Trump Campaign to work in coordination with Russian hacking was made. This is the very thin line between unethical but legal, and conspiracy.

Carter Page

The first thing you need to know about Carter Page is that he acknowledges in his confession that he knew he was dealing Russian Intelligence Agents (Report, V1. p. 105). Equally important is that Page had lived and worked in Russia for a number of years, and he volunteered to work on the Trump campaign with the express goal of helping Trump improve relations with Russia. He literally got the job by emailing his thoughts about Russia-US relations and suggesting that Trump should meet with Putin. Remember, several other agents are trying to connect Putin to Trump through different channels at the same time. Naturally, Trump made Page his official expert on Russia. Seriously, that was his main function.

Page was invited to speak at the New Economic School in Moscow in 2016. The NES revealed to investigators that they only invited Page because of his connection to Trump. Once there, Page made contact with several old associates and key members of Russian Intelligence that also pop up in other Trump Campaign contacts.

So here we have Trump’s Russia expert in Moscow and admitting he knew he was talking with Russian Intelligence, and his time, conversations, and actions during that trip are largely unknown and unexplained. We do know, however, from Page’s emails that he was feeling out Russian support for Trump.

This alone is not illegal, but what is concerning is that an official agreement to coordinate efforts could have been made between the Russian government and the Trump campaign during this time and we wouldn’t have the solid proof. So again, we come just short of crossing the line of conspiracy. It’s worth noting that the FBI did investigate Page for potentially discussing sanctions with Russia while Trump was still a candidate, which would have been a violation of the Logan act. Unfortunately, that investigation was stonewalled due to lack of sources to uncover his actions in Russia.

CNI and The Mayflower Hotel

The Center for The National Interest is non-profit think tank with clear ties to the Russian government. The president of CNI is a Russian man named Dimitri Simes. Simes and the CNI were in close contact with several members of the Trump campaign, including Sessions who used to serve on the board of CNI. In late April, CNI hosted an event at the Mayflower Hotel that served to personally connect Trump with Ambassador Kislyak, who is known to do Intelligence work for Russia. Nothing explicitly illegal happened at this event, but it was another example of Russian agents making connections with the campaign and an opportunity to discuss coordination with Russia. Everyone involved claims that no such discussion took place. However, these are the same people who were caught multiple times lying about ever having met with any Russians at all ever.

Trump Tower Meeting

Everyone is very familiar with the Trump Tower meeting. What is important about this meeting is that it is the clearest example of an agreement to work together for a common goal, which is what needs to be demonstrated for a conspiracy conviction. We know that Trump Jr. gets an email offering illicit information on Hillary Clinton from the Russian Government, and he eagerly accepts. Even though Trump said he did not know about the meeting, Goldstone clearly states that he would share this information with Trump as well.

At the meeting Russian attorney Veselnitskaya claimed to have information about dirty financial activity by the Clintons. The only reason that Trump Jr. did not take this information and make use of it is because Veselnitskaya was unable to provide any proof of her claims. Trump Jr. even exclaimed, “what the hell are we doing here?” They then moved into talk about the Magnitsky Act. That is not innocent talk about adoptions. It’s talk about a very serious law that restricts Russian business activity outside of Russia. This is not the first time talk of “repairing” relations has come up with Trump Campaign members. It’s very clear that Veselnitskaya intended to offer dirt on Hillary in exchange for action on the Magnitsky Act. To be clear, Trump Jr. never refused to help with the Magnitsky Act, in fact he told them the meeting had been a waste because had no lawyers present. This implies that they may have discussed action if they had been aided by legal counsel.

While Trump Jr. may not have taken that information, he and other members went to that meeting with Trump’s knowledge with full intention of cooperating with the Russian government, and benefiting from the cyber attack against our nation. Remember that from both Papadopoulos and Page, the team very likely knew this information came from the stolen emails. I’ll talk about the legality of this meeting in part 3.

Republican National Convention

This is an event that I don’t think receives enough attention. In July of 2016, after Trump has won the candidacy for the Republican party, there was a convention to discuss and vote on the 2016 platform Republicans would run on. During this convention, a provision involving protection for the state of Ukraine and other language involving Russia was weakened. Specifically, U.S. action to protect Ukraine from further invasion was changed from responding with “deadly” force to “appropriate” force. That may seem like a small deal, but it’s a significant change. What it does is make the wording vague enough so that the Republican leader can determine what response should be made, and that response can obviously be virtually nothing.

This is happening literally at the same time that Cohen is still pushing for a Trump Tower in Moscow, along with other business expansion. This is also, after Papadopoulos and Page have made contact with Russian operatives, and after the Trump Tower meeting.

That’s important to consider because on the surface there is nothing illegal or improper with altering your platform, they have the freedom to run on any policies they want. However, if you could prove that policy changes were being made to help a foreign enemy that just attacked the United States out of an agreement to work with that hostile power, then you’re talking about conspiracy. Members at the RNC involved with the committee that made those changes made official statements to the Office that they were under the impression the changes were made at Trump’s request. A campaign member told a Republican committee member that he was on the phone with Trump as he told her to make the changes. The campaign worker later denied saying this.

Paul Manafort

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on him, because I think everyone is familiar with Manafort’s deep connections to Russia. What is important to know in the context of collusion is that during the campaign, during the hacking and manipulations efforts by Russia, throughout the time meetings took place between campaign officials and Russian agents, Paul Manafort had instructed Rick Gates provide a man named Konstantin Kilimnik, a former Manafort employee in Ukraine with ties to Russian intelligence, polling data that the campaign collected, as well as other updates on the campaign.

The polling data is very significant because the Office could never determine exactly what Manafort’s motivation was or what it was ever used for. Theoretically this could aide in hacking efforts, or simply in misinformation efforts across social media. It could be still be used for future purposes. It’s worth noting that Manafort’s lawyer tried to have this information redacted. Also, Manafort met in person with Konstantin Kilimnik,twice during the campaign, and their discussions are unknown for two reasons. The Office was unable to access all of Manafort’s electronic communications and Manafort refuses to talk, unlike some of his colleagues. Once again, we have direct interaction and coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russian intelligence for unknown purposes with no legitimate alibi.

Lastly, I want you to know that months after the election, after Russia clearly helped Trump get elected, Konstantin Kilimnik emailed Manafort to discuss ways that Trump could help Russia. (There’s more to this, but that’s the short version)

Campaign Efforts To Obtain Clinton Emails

Before Russia blatantly offered to provide information they claimed was from Hillary’s emails, Trump was determined to get his hands on them. The Report clearly states that Trump directed his staff to obtain Hillary’s stolen emails. Flynn took charge of this task and contacted two people, Barbara Ledeen and Peter Smith. Ledeen had apparently been working on obtaining Clinton’s private emails all the way back in 2015, and knew that they had been hacked by Russia. I find this astonishingly suspicious, yet even the Mueller Report doesn’t explain how she could have known this.

Smith is an even more suspicious character. In 2016, after Trump announced publicly he wanted Russia to release Clinton’s emails, Smith began an interesting journey to obtain them in coordination with the Trump campaign. It was confirmed that Smith was in contact with a couple high level staffers such as Flynn, though they didn’t necessarily control him. Smith oddly boasted many times that he was in touch with the hackers that committed the attack on our systems. After a series of bartering and back door deals, Smith came up empty handed. His connections were never verified, but he represents a high profile effort by the Trump Campaign to obtain stolen materials on an attack against the United States for his benefit.

Conclusion

Obviously this is not all the details pertaining to collusion, that section is half of the entire report. However, these highlights make some significant points. First is that Trump always had motivation to ignore wrongs committed by Russia for his personal benefit. The second is that Russia made several attempts to, in many cases successful, to befriend the Trump campaign and work together in some fashion. Third is that Trump and members of his campaign showed no aversion to working with Russia when they privately and publicly knew Russia was launching a cyber-assault on our country, and were eager to benefit from such actions.

I argue that the willingness to coordinate is quite obvious and that Trump and his staff acted in complete disregard of any ethical or legal standards. The “smoking gun” that would be needed to prove agreement on the cyber-assault itself and reciprocity could very well lie in one of many connections between campaign staff and Russian intelligence agents, which cannot be explained or justified.

As I stated in the beginning, it is clear to me that Trump, even without proving formal agreement, acted in a mirror fashion with the Russian government for both of their benefit at the expense of the American people. I can see why Mueller could not point to the extremely narrow standard of evidence needed to make a conviction of conspiracy, it in no way excuses the actions by Trump and his staff.

#politics #Trump #Mueller Report #Collusion #republicans #conservatives #liberals #impeachment #long read

43 notes · View notes

glitterypeanutmugnickel · 3 years ago

Text

January 31, 2022

Heather Cox Richardson

Feb 1

Comment

CNN reported tonight that former president Trump had not one but two executive orders prepared to enable his loyalists to seize voting machines after the 2020 election. One authorizing the Pentagon to seize the machines was made public as part of the investigation by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Another, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security, has been confirmed to CNN by a number of sources, but is not publicly available.

Shortly after this report, the New York Times reported a story with much more detail, claiming that Trump was directly involved in the plans to seize the machines. The authors talked to “people familiar with the matter [who] were briefed on the events by participants or had firsthand knowledge of them.” That latter description is interesting: someone in Trump’s inner circle is talking to reporters (and the shape of the different elements in the story suggests that person is not necessarily giving an accurate account).

This is a huge deal. Oligarchs consolidated power in the former Soviet satellite states in the 1990s and moved enormous amounts of illicit money into the U.S. and the U.K.—so much that London is sometimes called “Londongrad.” Recent studies suggest that the influx of that illicit money had undermined democracy, and cleaning it up would almost certainly help to stabilize the systems in the U.S. and the U.K. British foreign secretary Liz Truss said the measures “can target anyone providing strategic support close to Vladimir Putin.”

Interviewed by Politico’s Ryan Heath, European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Kadri Liik noted that a massive military deployment would be “very badly received” in Russia. Asked if Putin sees Biden as weak, Liik said the opposite: that he has come off as smart. “He’s trying to limit his frontlines. He’s not fighting each and every battle. Plus, Biden is someone who can speak on behalf of the West. During the whole Trump period, there was no one like that.”

0 notes

jessicalynnhepner · 3 years ago

Text

Chapter 1—Working With Child Abuse and Neglect Issues Part 1

Child abuse and neglect pose an increasingly recognized and serious threat to the nation's children. In the last 10 years the reported cases of abused and neglected children more than doubled, from 1.4 million in 1986 to more than 3 million in 1997; substance abuse was involved in more than 70 percent of the cases. A recent survey of State child welfare administrators found that parental substance abuse was a factor in at least 50 percent of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. Moreover, 80 percent reported that substance abuse and poverty were the two primary factors contributing to abuse and neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 1999).

Children whose parents abuse substances are almost three times more likely to be abused and four times more likely to be neglected than other children (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University [CASA], 1999). Substance abuse is a contributing factor to the abuse of at least one third of the children in the child welfare system (DHHS, 1999). It is estimated that each day five children die as a result of child abuse or neglect--up from three a day reported in 1994 (CASA, 1999; McCurdy and Daro, 1994). In reported cases, the most pervasive form of child maltreatment is neglect (60 percent), followed by physical abuse (25 percent), sexual abuse (13 percent), and emotional maltreatment (5 percent). More than 50 percent of the victims were 7 years old or younger; slightly more than half of victims were girls (Sedlak and Broadhurst, 1996).

Statistics will vary because of differences in criteria and methodology and because many cases of child maltreatment involve overlapping forms of abuse or neglect. (More details regarding the prevalence of child abuse and neglect are provided later in this chapter, along with specific definitions of what is meant by the terms "child abuse" and "neglect.") For the same reasons, it is difficult to determine if the incidence of child maltreatment is actually continuing to rise or not. However, researchers, counselors, and program administrators agree that the rise in substance abuse disorders as a factor in child abuse and neglect cases has severely complicated efforts by child welfare systems to protect children and rehabilitate families (CASA, 1999; DHHS, 1999).

Parents with substance abuse problems are less educated and less likely to be employed full time; they are much less likely than other parents to be married and much more likely to be involved in the welfare system (DHHS, 1999). However, these statistics may result from a population's reliance on public welfare systems; parents in higher socioeconomic classes can afford private systems where reporting is not mandated.

Many clients in substance abuse treatment have histories of child abuse or neglect that might affect their chances for recovery. There is accumulating research and clinical evidence that physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect during childhood increase a person's risk of developing substance abuse disorders (DHHS, 1999). In addition, relapse and treatment complications may be more likely if issues related to maltreatment are not identified and treated (Brown, 1991; Rose, 1991; Young, 1995). The counselor might have more difficulty engaging clients with abuse histories, and these clients may have a variety of disabling comorbid conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and dissociative disorders.

Given the presence of substance abuse in the majority of child abuse or neglect cases, alcohol and drug counselors may also have reason to suspect, or may discover, that clients are abusing or neglecting their own children. The children of substance-abusing parents will also face an increased risk of developing a substance abuse disorder themselves. A recent study confirms what has long been suspected, that children of alcoholics (whether or not they have been abused) have an altered brain chemistry that may make them more likely to become alcoholics themselves (Wand et al., 1998).

If the cycle of intergenerational substance abuse and child abuse and neglect is to be broken, counselors must address these issues. This is discussed in Chapter 5. Counselors will sometimes find it challenging to maintain the therapeutic alliance with clients that is central to successful treatment while meeting their legal obligations to report suspected or known maltreatment (see Chapter 6).

Go to: Substance Abuse and Child Abuse and Neglect Treatment providers have observed that a large proportion of their clients report being physically, emotionally, or sexually abused as children. This clinical knowledge is increasingly supported by research findings. Most of this research has focused on one of two questions: Are people with substance abuse disorders more likely to have been abused or neglected as children than are people without substance abuse disorders? Are those who report a history of childhood abuse or neglect more likely than their peers to have a substance abuse disorder? Specific answers to these questions depend to some extent on gender, and therefore the literature for men and women should be examined separately. Because most of the available information in this area focuses on childhood sexual and physical abuse, this TIP primarily addresses these two forms of maltreatment. As noted above, however, neglect is the most prevalent type of child maltreatment, and witnessing domestic violence is also a common (and potentially damaging) form of childhood trauma. (See TIP 25, Substance Abuse Treatment and Domestic Violence [CSAT, 1997b] for more information on how to deal with this significant problem.) Rates Among Adolescent Girls and WomenA review of several studies found that women who abuse alcohol reported higher rates of childhood sexual and physical abuse than their peers without such disorders (Langeland and Hartgers, 1998). The likelihood of substance abuse disorders was directly related to the severity of childhood abuse as well. A more exhaustive literature review found that women with substance abuse disorders were nearly two times more likely than women in the general population to report childhood sexual abuse. These women were also more likely to have experienced physical abuse (Simpson and Miller, in press).Miller and her colleagues found that 70 percent of women in treatment for alcohol use disorders reported some form of childhood sexual abuse, while only 35 percent of the women in the general population did the same (Miller et al., 1993). Twelve percent of the women with alcohol use disorders did not suffer any form of sexual or physical abuse, compared with 41 percent of the control sample. The study concluded that parental alcoholism and child abuse were both independent risk factors for problematic drinking among adults, suggesting that childhood abuse itself contributes uniquely to the genesis of substance abuse disorders.A 1995 literature review reveals a link between childhood sexual abuse and substance abuse (Polusny and Follette, 1995). In community samples, the authors found that the lifetime diagnosis rate of substance abuse disorders was 14 to 31 percent among women who had been sexually abused and 3 to 12 percent among women who had not been abused. In clinical samples, the rate of lifetime substance abuse diagnoses among sexual abuse survivors ranged from 21 to 57 percent, compared with a range of 2 to 27 percent for women without such histories. Another representative study of young adults found that 43.5 percent of the women who had been sexually abused as children met diagnostic criteria for an alcohol abuse disorder, while the criteria were met by only 8 percent of those who had not been sexually abused (Silverman et al., 1996).The available research does indicate that women with substance abuse disorders are more likely than other women to report childhood abuse and women with childhood abuse histories are more likely than other women to have substance abuse disorders. Despite these findings, it is unclear to what extent the relationship between childhood abuse and the development of substance abuse is causal. Genetics, for example, might account for the association--child abuse might simply be incidental to the process in which the genetic

propensity for drinking is passed from parent to child. Childhood stress from sources other than abuse and neglect might also contribute to substance abuse among adults (Malinosky-Rummell and Hansen, 1993). However, even when parental history of alcohol problems and measures of childhood stress are statistically controlled, childhood sexual and physical abuse still seem to contribute significantly to the alcohol-related problems of women (Bennett and Kemper, 1994; Miller et al., 1993). Rates Among Adolescent Boys and MenThere are fewer studies of child abuse among boys and men with substance abuse disorders, and findings are less consistent than those generated for girls and women. One group of researchers believes that data are insufficient to determine (1) whether men with alcohol abuse disorders are more likely than their peers to have suffered childhood abuse, or (2) whether men with childhood abuse histories are more likely than other men to have alcohol abuse disorders (Langeland and Hartgers, 1998).Simpson and Miller found 27 studies that addressed the issue of childhood abuse and neglect among men with substance abuse disorders (Simpson and Miller, in press). Only 10 of these studies found childhood sexual abuse rates higher than the national average of 16 percent (Finkelhor et al., 1990), and only six of these studies found rates above 10 percent. Most studies reveal that men with substance abuse disorders actually suffered less sexual abuse than their peers; however, these men did report unusually high rates of childhood physical abuse.The few prospective studies of childhood abuse among men suggest that abuse does increase the risk of alcohol abuse (Simpson and Miller, in press). Men who report childhood abuse also may be more likely to have a substance abuse disorder, but this conclusion is not certain. Societal expectations of self-reliance and fear of homosexual stigmatization may prevent these men from disclosing childhood sexual abuse (Briere et al., 1988). Current trends, however, suggest that men are becoming more willing to disclose histories of sexual abuse. Although the incidence of abuse has remained stable for women, far more men are reporting sexual abuse than have done so in the past (Simpson and Miller, in press). Men with substance abuse disorders are also reporting more childhood physical abuse. Current study techniques simply may be more sensitive for sexual abuse among men, but further study is needed.Most studies that have examined the rates of substance abuse among men with child abuse histories have found elevated rates of substance abuse disorders (Simpson and Miller, in press). One important exception to this pattern is a study that examined the rates of arrest for alcohol- and drug-related offenses among young adults with and without documented histories of childhood abuse or neglect (Ireland and Widom, 1994). This study found no relationship between a history of childhood abuse and neglect and substance abuse problems among men. It should be mentioned, however, that Ireland and Widom did not assess whether the study participants experienced child abuse or neglect that was not officially reported. Some of those who were classified as not having been abused or neglected may have experienced such maltreatment, and the results of this study are therefore difficult to interpret.Most of the available literature indicates that men with childhood abuse histories are more likely to have substance abuse disorders than men without childhood abuse histories (Simpson and Miller, in press). The rates of childhood physical abuse appear to be higher among men with substance abuse disorders than among men from the general population. However, men with substance abuse disorders do not report more childhood sexual abuse than other men. Holmes and his colleagues

uncovered several factors that contribute to the reluctance of men to report sexual abuse (Holmes et al., 1997). The shame, homosexual stigmatization, and perceptions of weakness associated with disclosure are perceived by many men to be more burdensome than the secret of abuse. Also, men are prone to minimize the negative effects that childhood sexual abuse may have, though men who were sexually abused as children are at greater risk than their nonabused peers for later psychological and emotional difficulties. Holmes and colleagues found that when men disclose a history of child abuse to their mental health counselors, its importance is often dismissed. The researchers concluded that the childhood sexual abuse of males is viewed with far less gravity then the childhood abuse of girls and women (Holmes and Slap, 1998; Holmes et al., 1997).https://whateveryparentshouldknowaboutcps.blogspot.com/2020/07/chapter-1working-with-child-abuse-and.html

#Chapter 1—Working With Child Abuse and Neglect Issues part 1

0 notes

vivekbajaj-grs · 3 years ago

Text

Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Size, Status and Forecast 2021-2027

Alliance marketing is a kind of marketing mode that pays according to the marketing effect. It is a new network marketing mode that the business uses the third platform to provide the website alliance service, and the individual seller or company promotes the commercial goods, so as to expand the sales space and increase the sales volume. The three roles of alliance marketing include advertisers (merchants), alliance members and alliance marketing platform. Advertisers pay reasonable advertising expenses to the members of the alliance according to the actual effect of alliance marketing (such as sales, guide number, click number, etc.) to save marketing expenses and improve marketing quality. The alliance members choose the appropriate advertisers through the network alliance marketing management platform and improve the income by playing the advertisement, and save a lot of marketing expenses of the alliance, and easily turn the website access into the revenue.

The global and Chinese Affiliate Marketing Platform has developed rapidly in recent years. In the future, the rapid development of Affiliate Marketing Platform in Asia Pacific region will provide more market opportunities for operators in the region. The commission price of Affiliate Marketing Platform in China is not so uniform and transparent. The degree of market competition varies from place to place, and the demands of enterprises are different. Affiliate Marketing Platformis is mainly classified into the following types: pay per sales (CPS), pay per Guide (CPL), and pay per click (CPC). According to the survey results in 2019, 70.15% of Affiliate Marketing Platform merchants choose to pay by sales (CPS), 19.30% of Affiliate Marketing Platform merchants choose to pay by guided number (CPL), and 10.55% of Affiliate Marketing Platform merchants choose to pay by click (CPC). As businesses pay more and more attention to sales, cost per sale (CPS) will become an important type. The application fields of Affiliate Marketing Platform can be divided into two types, such as physical products and virtual products. The survey results in 2019 show that 80.55% of Affiliate Marketing Platform market is physical product type, and 19.45% of Affiliate Marketing Platform market is virtual product type. With the development of affiliate marketing economy, countries require more and more precision, efficiency and standardization in the field. At the same time, countries will need more Affiliate Marketing Platforms. Therefore, Affiliate Marketing Platform has great market potential in the future.

Download FREE Sample of this Report @ https://www.grandresearchstore.com/report-sample/global-affiliate-ing-platform-2021-2027-641

Market Analysis and Insights: Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Market

The global Affiliate Marketing Platform market size is projected to reach US$ 26330 million by 2027, from US$ 9795 million in 2020, at a CAGR of 15.2% during 2021-2027.

With industry-standard accuracy in analysis and high data integrity, the report makes a brilliant attempt to unveil key opportunities available in the global Affiliate Marketing Platform market to help players in achieving a strong market position. Buyers of the report can access verified and reliable market forecasts, including those for the overall size of the global Affiliate Marketing Platform market in terms of revenue.

On the whole, the report proves to be an effective tool that players can use to gain a competitive edge over their competitors and ensure lasting success in the global Affiliate Marketing Platform market. All of the findings, data, and information provided in the report are validated and revalidated with the help of trustworthy sources. The analysts who have authored the report took a unique and industry-best research and analysis approach for an in-depth study of the global Affiliate Marketing Platform market.

Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Scope and Market Size

Affiliate Marketing Platform market is segmented by company, region (country), by Type, and by Application. Players, stakeholders, and other participants in the global Affiliate Marketing Platform market will be able to gain the upper hand as they use the report as a powerful resource. The segmental analysis focuses on revenue and forecast by Type and by Application in terms of revenue and forecast for the period 2016-2027.

Segment by Type

by Cost Per Sale

by Cost Per Lead

by Cost Per Click

Segment by Application

Physical Products

Virtual Products

By Region

North America

U.S.

Canada

Europe

Germany

France

U.K.

Italy

Russia

Nordic

Rest of Europe

Asia-Pacific

China

Japan

South Korea

Southeast Asia

India

Australia

Rest of Asia

Latin America

Mexico

Brazil

Rest of Latin America

Middle East & Africa

Turkey

Saudi Arabia

UAE

Rest of MEA

By Company

Amazon

Alibaba

EBay

Rakuten

AWIN

Shopify

CJ Affiliate

Bluehost

StudioPress?WPEngine?

Tradedoubler

Admitad

ShareASale

Clickbank

Leadpages

Get the Complete Report & TOC @ https://www.grandresearchstore.com/ict-and-media/global-affiliate-ing-platform-2021-2027-641

Table of content

1 Report Overview 1.1 Study Scope 1.2 Market Analysis by Type 1.2.1 Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Size Growth Rate by Type: 2016 VS 2021 VS 2027 1.3 Market by Application 1.3.1 Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Share by Application: 2016 VS 2021 VS 2027 1.3.2 Physical Products 1.3.3 Virtual Products 1.4 Study Objectives 1.5 Years Considered 2 Global Growth Trends 2.1 Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Perspective (2016-2027) 2.2 Affiliate Marketing Platform Growth Trends by Regions 2.2.1 Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Size by Regions: 2016 VS 2021 VS 2027 2.2.2 Affiliate Marketing Platform Historic Market Share by Regions (2016-2021) 2.2.3 Affiliate Marketing Platform Forecasted Market Size by Regions (2022-2027) 2.3 Affiliate Marketing Platform Industry Dynamic 2.3.1 Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Trends 2.3.2 Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Drivers 2.3.3 Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Challenges 2.3.4 Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Restraints 3 Competition Landscape by Key Players 3.1 Global Top Affiliate Marketing Platform Players by Revenue 3.1.1 Global Top Affiliate Marketing Platform Players by Revenue (2016-2021) 3.1.2 Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Revenue Market Share by Players (2016-2021) 3.2 Global Affiliate Marketing Platform Market Sh

CONTACT US: 276 5th Avenue, New York , NY 10001,United States International: (+1) 646 781 7170 / +91 8087042414 Follow Us On linkedin :- https://www.linkedin.com/company/grand-research-store/

#AffiliateMarketingPlatformMarket

0 notes

stephenmccull · 3 years ago

Text

Telehealth’s Limits: Battle Over State Lines and Licensing Threatens Patients’ Options

If you live in one state, does it matter that the doctor treating you online is in another? Surprisingly, the answer is yes, and the ability to conduct certain virtual appointments may be nearing an end.

Televisits for medical care took off during the worst days of the pandemic, quickly becoming commonplace. Most states and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services temporarily waived rules requiring licensed clinicians to hold a valid license in the state where their patient is located. Those restrictions don’t keep patients from visiting doctors’ offices in other states, but problems could arise if those same patients used telemedicine.

Now states are rolling back many of those pandemic workarounds.

Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, for example, recently scrambled to notify more than 1,000 Virginia patients that their telehealth appointments were “no longer feasible,” said Dr. Brian Hasselfeld, medical director of digital health and telemedicine at Johns Hopkins. Virginia is among the states where the emergency orders are expiring or being rolled back.

At least 17 states still have waivers in effect, according to a tracker maintained by the Alliance for Connected Care, a lobbying group representing insurers, tech companies and pharmacies.

As those rules end, “it risks increasing barriers” to care, said Hasselfeld. Johns Hopkins, he added, hosted more than 1 million televisits, serving more than 330,000 unique patients, since the pandemic began. About 10% of those visits were from states where Johns Hopkins does not operate facilities.

The rollbacks come amid a longer and larger debate over states’ authority around medical licensing that the pandemic — with its widespread adoption of telehealth services — has put front and center.

“Consumers don’t know about these regulations, but if you all of a sudden pull the rug out from these services, you will definitely see a consumer backlash,” said Dr. Harry Greenspun, chief medical officer for the consultancy Guidehouse.

Still, finding a way forward pits high-powered stakeholders against one another, and consumers’ input is likely to be muted.

State medical boards don’t want to cede authority, saying their power to license and discipline medical professionals boosts patient safety. Licensing is also a source of state revenue.

Providers have long been split on whether to change cross-state licensing rules. Different state requirements — along with fees — make it cumbersome and expensive for doctors, nurses and other clinicians to get licenses in multiple states, leading to calls for more flexibility. Even so, those efforts have faced pushback from within the profession, with opposition from other clinicians who fear the added competition that could come from telehealth could lead to losing patients or jobs.

“As with most things in medicine, it’s a bottom-line issue. The reason telehealth has been blocked across state lines for many years related fundamentally to physicians wanting to protect their own practices,” said Greenspun.

But the pandemic changed the equation.

Even though the initial spike in telehealth visits has eased, utilization remains 38 times higher than before the pandemic, attracting not only patients, but also venture capitalists seeking to join the hot business opportunity, according to a report from consulting firm McKinsey and Co.

Patients’ experience with televisits coupled with the growing interest by investors is focusing attention on this formerly inside-baseball issue of cross-state licensing.

Greenspun predicts consumers will ultimately drive the solution by “voting with their wallets,” aided by giant, consumer-focused retailers like Amazon and Walmart, both of which in recent months made forays into telemedicine.

In the short term, however, the focus is on both the protections and the barriers state regulations create.

“The whole challenge is to ensure maximum access to health while assuring quality,” said Barak Richman, a Duke University law professor, who said laws and policies haven’t been updated to reflect new technological realities partly because state boards want to hang onto their authority.

Patients and their doctors are getting creative, with some consumers simply driving across state lines, then making a Zoom call from their vehicle.

“It’s not ideal, but some patients say they are willing to drive a mile or two and sit in a parking lot in a private space and continue to get my care,” said Dr. Shabana Khan, director of telepsychiatry at NYU Langone Health’s department of child and adolescent psychiatry and a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Telepsychiatry Committee. She and other practitioners ask their patients about their locations, mainly for safety reasons, but also to check that they are in-state.

Still, for some patients, driving to another state for an in-person or even a virtual appointment is not an option.

Khan worries about people whose care is interrupted by the changes, especially those reluctant to seek out new therapists or who cannot find any clinicians taking new patients.

Austin Smith hopes that doesn’t happen to him.

After initial treatment for what he calls a “weird flavor of cancer” didn’t help reduce his gastrointestinal stromal tumors, he searched out other experts, landing in a clinical trial. But it was in San Diego and the 28-year-old salesman lives in Phoenix.

Although he drives more than five hours each way every couple of months for treatment and to see his doctors, he does much of his other follow-up online. The only difference is “if I was in person, and I said I was hurting here, the doctor could poke me,” he said.

And if the rules change? He’ll make the drive. “I’ll do anything to beat this,” he said of his cancer.

But will doctors, whose patients have spent the past year or more growing comfortable with virtual visits, also be willing to take steps that could likely involve extra costs and red tape?

To get additional licenses, for instance, practitioners must submit applications in every state where their patients reside, each of which can take weeks or months to process. They must pay application fees and keep up with a range of requirements such as continuing education, which vary by state.

States say their traditional role as overseer ensures that all applicants meet educational requirements and pass background checks. They also investigate complaints and argue there’s an advantage to keeping local officials in charge.

“It’s closer to home,” said Lisa Robin, chief advocacy officer with the Federation of State Medical Boards. “There’s a remedy for residents of the state with their own state officials.”

Doctor groups such as the American Medical Association agree.

Allowing a change that doesn’t put centralized authority in a patient’s home state would raise “serious enforcement issues as states do not have interstate policing authority and cannot investigate incidents that happen in another state,” said then-AMA President-elect Jack Resneck during a congressional hearing in March.

But others want more flexibility and say it can be done safely.

Hasselfeld, at Johns Hopkins, said there is precedent for easing multistate licensing requirements. The Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, allows medical staffers who are properly licensed in at least one state to treat patients in any VA facility.

The Alliance for Connected Care and other advocates are pushing states to extend their pandemic rules. A few have done so. Arizona, for example, made permanent the rules allowing out-of-state medical providers to practice telemedicine for Arizona residents, as long as they register with the state and their home-state license is in good standing. Connecticut’s similar rules have now been stretched until June 2023.

The alliance and others also back legislation stalled in Congress that would temporarily allow medical professionals licensed in one state to treat — either in person or via televisits — patients in any other state.

Because such fixes are controversial, voluntary interstate pacts have gained attention. Several already exist: one each for nurses, doctors, physical therapists and psychologists. Proponents say they are a simple way to ensure state boards retain authority and high standards, while making it easier for licensed medical professionals to expand their geographic range.

The nurses’ compact, enacted by 37 states and Guam, allows registered nurses with a valid license in one state to have it recognized by all the others in the pact.

A different kind of model is the Interstate Physician Licensure Compact, which has been enacted by 33 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, and has issued more than 21,000 licenses since it began in 2017, said Robin, of the Federation of State Medical Boards.

While it speeds the paperwork process, it does not eliminate the cost of applying for licenses in each state.

The compact simplifies the process by having the applicant physician’s home state confirm his or her eligibility and perform a criminal background check. If the applicant is eligible, the home state sends a letter of qualification to the new state, which then issues a license, Robin said. Physicians must meet all rules and laws in each state, such as requirements for continuing medical education. Additionally, they cannot have a history of disciplinary actions or currently be under investigation.

“It’s a fairly high bar,” said Robin.

Such compacts — especially if they are bolstered by new legislation at the federal level — could help the advances in telehealth made during the pandemic stick around for good, expanding access to care for both mental health services and medical care across the U.S. “What’s at stake if we get this right,” said Richman at Duke, “is making sure we have an innovative marketplace that fully uses virtual technology and a regulatory system that encourages competition and quality.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Telehealth’s Limits: Battle Over State Lines and Licensing Threatens Patients’ Options published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

Biden Looks to a Consensus Builder to Heal a Democratic Rift on Trade WASHINGTON — The negotiations lasted late into the evening, leaving some members of Congress shouting and pounding the table in frustration as they fought over what would be included in the revised North American Free Trade Agreement. Katherine Tai, the chief trade counsel to Congress’s powerful Ways and Means Committee, appeared unflappable to those in the room as she helped to hammer out compromises that would ultimately bring Democrats on board in late 2019 to support the 2,082-page trade pact negotiated by the Trump administration, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. In negotiations through the course of 2019, Ms. Tai calmly helped to assemble an unlikely coalition to support the trade deal, ultimately mollifying the concerns of both business lobbyists and labor unions, forging ties between Democrats and Republicans, and helping to persuade Mexican officials to accept strict new oversight of their factories, her former colleagues say. “Katherine was the glue that held us together,” said Representative Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat from Oregon who played a leading role in the negotiations. “If you end up with a product that has support from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. to the Chamber of Commerce, that is an unusual feat.” The Biden administration is now pinning its hopes on Ms. Tai, its nominee for United States Trade Representative, to serve as a consensus builder and help bridge the Democratic Party’s varying views on trade. Ms. Tai is scheduled to appear for her confirmation hearing on Thursday morning before the Senate Finance Committee. Ms. Tai has strong connections in Congress, and supporters expect her nomination to proceed smoothly. But if confirmed, she will face bigger challenges, including filling in the details of what the Biden administration has called its “worker-focused” trade approach. As trade representative, Ms. Tai will be a key player in restoring alliances strained under former President Donald J. Trump, as well as formulating the administration’s China policy, where she is expected to draw on prior experience bringing cases against China at the World Trade Organization. She will also take charge on decisions on matters that divide the Democratic Party, like whether to keep or scrap the tariffs Mr. Trump imposed on foreign products, and whether new foreign trade deals will help the United States compete globally or end up selling American workers short. Both the Biden administration and members of Congress see finding consensus on trade issues as paramount, given the deep divisions that dogged Democrats in the past. During the Obama administration, the United States Trade Representative sparred with labor unions and many Democratic lawmakers over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact between countries along the Pacific Rim. Mr. Obama and his supporters saw the agreement as key to countering China. But progressive Democrats believed the pact would send more U.S. jobs offshore, and fought the Obama administration on its passage. Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the deal, and the remaining countries in the pact went on to sign it without the United States. Democrats “spent a lot of time drilling down on what happened,” said Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon who supported the agreement. “I really felt that it was important post-T.P.P. to make sure that the trade conversation started and stopped with how the typical American worker and the typical American consumer would be affected,” he said. The New Washington Updated Feb. 24, 2021, 1:04 p.m. ET What resulted, he said, was the approach in the revised North American trade deal, U.S.M.C.A. — higher labor standards, tighter environment regulation and new mechanisms to ensure that the rules of trade agreements can be enforced — which Democrats now describe as the bedrock of their new approach to trade. “Katherine was very much involved in all of those discussions,” Mr. Wyden said. “She’s a real coalition builder. And that was particularly important to me, because of the whole T.P.P. period.” Sherrod Brown, a Democratic senator who opposed the T.P.P. and then worked with Mr. Wyden on the U.S.M.C.A.’s rules for workers, said the Democratic Party had coalesced around this new policy of strong and enforceable trade rules. “That is a new policy for a Democratic administration, for sure,” he said. “But it’s because the Democratic Party en masse, that’s where we are.” Mr. Brown said he had fought with presidents of his own party about trade in the past, “including some not very nice exchanges. I’ve fought with their trade representatives, and this is absolutely a different era.” “You will have trade policy that will actually work for workers,” he said. The Biden administration has gone to great lengths to cement its ties with congressional Democrats who are influential on trade. In addition to Ms. Tai’s nomination, it has recruited key U.S.T.R. staff from both Mr. Wyden and Mr. Brown’s offices, as well as hiring former employees of Democratic lawmakers like Suzan DelBene of Washington, Jimmy Gomez of California and John Lewis of Georgia. But that doesn’t mean Mr. Biden’s trade policy will be without dispute. Despite the administration’s strong ties to congressional Democrats and labor unions, it will still have to balance the concerns of other factions, like big tech companies that are important donors, or foreign policy experts who see freer trade as a way to shore up America’s position in the multilateral system. Those positions could be difficult to reconcile, say trade experts. Some have also questioned how much influence Ms. Tai might have on matters like China and tariffs, given she is a relative newcomer to the administration. Mr. Biden has appointed several old contacts to his foreign policy team who have worked closely with him for years, including Antony J. Blinken, the secretary of state; Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser; and Kurt Campbell, the top U.S. diplomat for Asia. But Ms. Tai’s supporters say she will probably be an influential voice on trade given her deep expertise and understanding of trade policy. If confirmed, Ms. Tai would be the first Asian-American and woman of color to serve as the U.S. trade representative. Ms. Tai’s parents were born in China and moved to Taiwan before immigrating to the United States, where they worked as government scientists. Ms. Tai was born in the United States, but speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese and lived and worked in China as a teaching fellow in the late 1990s. She received a B.A. from Yale University and a law degree from Harvard Law School, and went on to work as an associate for several Washington law firms and a clerk for two district judges. From 2007 to 2014, Ms. Tai worked for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, where she successfully prosecuted several cases on Chinese trade practices at the World Trade Organization, including a challenge to China’s curbs on exports of rare earth minerals. When she was hired, the office of U.S.T.R. was in the middle of trying to parse a particular Chinese legal measure, and gave it to Ms. Tai to translate as part of her interview, said Claire Reade, a former assistant U.S.T.R. for China Affairs who is now senior counsel at Arnold & Porter. “We got a second expert opinion free of charge,” she said. In the Obama administration, and in her work hammering out a consensus on the North American trade deal, Ms. Tai displayed a range of skills that will help her succeed as trade representative, Ms. Reade said — leadership and initiative, the political and diplomatic skills to navigate the interagency process of government, a good instinct for reading people, and a wide grasp of complex trade matters. “She really in her work has gone through hellfire and has come out the other side — which means, as I say, she’s not to be underestimated,” Ms. Reade said. Source link Orbem News #Biden #Builder #Consensus #Democratic #Heal #rift #Trade

0 notes

phaelosopher · 4 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on http://www.phaelosopher.com/2021/02/24/social-and-spiritual-discombobulation/

Social and Spiritual Discombobulation

When Joe Biden declares, as he did recently at a meeting of G7 countries (which was closed to media), that “America First” diplomacy is over, he means that “Americans first” is also over.

SOURCE: The New York Times

Biden let the G7 representatives, from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, that America is now back and ready to play in the Trans-Atlantic Alliance sandbox.

IMAGE SOURCE: USDebtclock.org

The “United States of America” is a bankrupt corporation that is in debt beyond belief. Yet, its highly questionable “leader” is announcing and pledging his allegiance to foreign interests, pledging more debt accelerating concessions and disbursements to said “allies”.

Americans are told to brace themselves for wave after wave of health calamity and financial stress, with little in the way of direction on how to reduce and ameliorate the matters at hand.

Please be clear: there are answers to all these issues, from health to fiscal, but they involve moving in an entirely different direction, beginning with toward the direction of truth.

We are where we are as a society, nation, and people, as a result of a cascade of lies and liars who, throughout history, no longer care what is true.

Americans have never been “first” in U.S. politics. Mr. Trump, and a few other presidents sought, to varying degrees of success, to move the system in that direction. But Mr. Biden and his ideological “supporters”, under the cover of a pandemic, have managed to dismantle the Principles that America has striven to embody.

The incessant fixation on mask wearing, ostensibly for the “protection” of others, is more so to protect the guilty, i.e., political operatives and accomplices, from a plain sight crime of monumental proportions against the people of this nation, and all of humanity.

Notice the ritualistic vibe?

These people are doing what they’ve been told to do, but not by the American. They do not work on behalf of the American people. They do someone’s bidding to exploit… albeit with our cooperation.

If there were no “pandemic” (and for the record, there is none), there would be no plausible reason to justify the measures that the sufficiently misinformed public has consented to permitting. If you know that the information being presented is not factual, and can cause harm would you follow it?

IMAGE SOURCE: Dallas Morning News

Employers, such as Trader Joe’s, Walmart, Walgreen’s and Amazon are offering incentives for employees to take COVID-19 injections. There’s no truth behind the initiatives. People are doing it to keep or obtain a job, a position, or continue to be able to “earn a living”.

People are agreeing to comply because they:

think the danger is legitimate

think that the promoters have their best interests at heart

believe that no alternatives exist

think the inconvenience is temporary and complying is the fastest way to get “back to normal”

IMAGE SOURCE: SFGate.com

So without independently verifiable, scientific evidence “experts” continue to mislead people deeper into a dysfunctional abyss. Below, Dr. Anthony “Falsy” Fauci now “suggests” that even with the supreme act of obedience and compliance, people who take the injections who want to go to restaurants are still advised to eat outdoors and avoid theaters.

IMAGE SOURCE: Business Insider

Scientific principles are not the eminent domain of any exclusive group. They belong to everyone, because they represent Laws of Nature that apply to everyone, even those who don’t understand, “recognize” or respect them. Many who call themselves, or are thought to be “scientists” do not understand, recognize, or respect the Laws of Nature. Their pronouncements, such as Dr. Falsy’s above, if not true, will not change Biological Facts of Life.

IMAGE SOURCE: Orange County NC

“Social distancing” is being pushed as a behavioral norm to “protect against a now ubiquitous ‘COVID-19’, except when it is inconvenient.

The crime that is being perpetrated are coordinated actions that keep from the public information about the incorrect assumptions that have evolved into the institution known today as “modern medicine”, under the general subject of “Germ Theory”.

Still being practiced, institutionalized, and unquestioned today, erroneous medical thinking is taking compliant humans into a broader den of emotional dependency and mental servitude. One of the consequences of these misrepresentations is the decreasing inclination to seek the truth (just listen to “the authority”), and discern what is true, to choose it, and benefit from the decision.

Taught to seek approval rather than truth, we have taken some fundamental errors in thinking as gospel truth, and presumed that acting as though they were true would make it so.

As an example, this leaves us oblivious to the cumulative effects of, and connection between genetic manipulation and gender confusion and rise of transgenderism. The people who push the products that alter genetic information would explain the phenomenon by suggesting that new species of humans are “evolving”. Better to keep the scientists in the labs working than to pull back and risk seeing whether the phenomenon abates.

IMAGE SOURCE: Family Watch International

With an increasing portion of the population retaining or regaining their discerning abilities, a large and concerted effort was undertaken to remove and expunge mitigating factual information about pathogen origins and behavior, virology, and its remediation. Even more so, an almost total under-estimation and negation of the Human Immune System is at play by people who should know how it works. This includes the “researchers,” and the educators who teach new researchers, as well as the public. They run the education system that requires children to “get their shots” as a condition for attending schools. With “COVID-19” this erroneous thinking has expanded to prey on the public at large who are all suspected as being potential “victims”, and are being coerced, by various means of policy and subterfuge, into to injection compliance.

Please remember that there are methods that need to be pursued to maintain and restore health: the approaches described above are NOT on the list.

This track of thinking and behavior has brought us to where we are now, not only in social, cultural, and environmental chaos, but mental and spiritual too.

Unless you take the initiative to take are of yourself, and know the potential consequences, you can count on the information that you’re being given will be false.

You have the power to chart a different future. Each one of us does. All anyone has to do is seek, vet, and then follow truth, wherever it leads. Give truth and accept only truth in return.

Truth is not swayed by political affiliation, or scientific opinion. Truth is scientific, but not all “scientists” are truthful. They are only telling you what people who wanted to keep their academic or professional standing, told them. Every “hole” in their truth, is essentially a lie. It matters not whether the liar wears a white coat.

This is social and spiritual discombobulation. Knowingly or unknowingly, it is our experience and our creation. For those who condone or comply, it is also someone’s future; someone’s children will inherit this unless we make some informed decisions now.

The future is *not* in our children’s hands, as I’ve seen some people opine. It is in our hands. All who continue listening to, or obeying liars, will have been their enablers, and will pay the price.

Please follow and like us:

#COVID-19 #Education #medicine

0 notes

gravitascivics · 4 years ago

Text

A DIFFERENT CASE ON THE LEFT

[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous postings. Of late, the blog has been looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their subject. It’s time to post a series of such summary accounts. The advantage of such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and arguments. This and upcoming summary postings will be preceded by this message.]

To continue this blog’s look at the national polarized landscape, a Pew Research Center report provides information about the left side of that divide. The report relates to the 2016 election and basically describes how the left relies on a journalism that has in place well-established structures and processes that guarantee its objectivity.[1]

Of course, as this blog has just reported, this stands in counter distinction to the right-wing ecosystem that instead of utilizing long-standing protocols to bolster truth-telling, has utilized rhetorical techniques – including memes – that result in dubious news accounts. This is further enhanced by the relatively unified set of interests its party, the Republican Party, represents. When everyone tends to see the world through a single lens, those observations are more easily deceived and less demanding of objectivity.

The Republican Party counts on a limited set of groups – businesspeople, fundamentalist religious groups, and disaffected labor groups smarting over the loss of jobs to automation and cheap labor nations – to make up its base. That naturally leads to allow for a singular, mostly ideological messaging to take hold and bolster existing biases among these people.

The left and its party – the Democratic Party – has instead a wide variety of groups making up its ranks. This includes from conservative minority-religious groups, e.g., most Jews and fundamentalist blacks, to urban, professional groups such as academics and well-trained technologists. Of course, these are tendencies, and this account is not meant to describe how all members of these groups vote.

But to the degree this alignment exists among Democrats, given the proclivity for disagreement among such a high level of diversity, this alliance demands to a greater degree objective news sources. Therefore, they rely on news outlets having well-established structures and protocols guaranteeing both talent and objectivity in gathering and reporting the news.

Such an arrangement, though, does not protect those well-established newspapers – e.g., The New York Times and The Washington Post – and national TV news organizations – e.g., CBS and NBC – from being described as FAKE NEWS by the right-wing ecosystem.

But this reliance on these news outlets allows Democrats and the left to formulate fact-based positions on the vibrant issues of the day. That arrangement, in a more varied landscape, helps the party to avoid messaging – and accompanying proposals – that appeals to or is demanded by its more extreme members – a faction currently called progressives.

As for the news organizations themselves, they seek to not be identified as the leftist press and seek to be considered simply the FREE PRESS. This is backed by their protocols for gathering and reporting the news. They rely on their audiences to be on the more centrist elements of the electorate both among left and right of center voters and these voter, in turn, make up the vast percentage of the electorate.

And associated with this avoidance of extremism, it also demands that their information sources to avoid exclusively relying on extremists. They interview all relevant sources, but they keep those sources’ biases revealed to the readers and viewers.

Central to those endeavors, those source must be treated objectively, and in turn, the news organizations must maintain unbiased methodologies in gathering and reporting their stories and in formulating their editorial positions. They only revert to withholding information about their sources when those sources will tell their stories only upon being granted anonymity. In that case, journalists have gone to jail instead of revealing who those sources are.

So, in summary, establishment journalists do not take up ideological positioning in their reporting and try to maintain a balanced perspective about how they present their stories. On this last point, Ezra Klein describes these journalistic entities as “sources that root their identity in … being antagonistic toward political movements.”[2]

In other words, the established press strives – not always successfully – to avoid taking sides. The resulting, achieved balance serves the needs of the left in that that side, as described above and in previous postings, can maintain itself only with a good dose of compromise within its ranks. Compromise is served by information sources being neutral and believable.

Some might note exceptions to this general description. Many, mostly on the right, accuse CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and other outlets of being too pro-left in their reporting. Also, there is some research by academic sources that definitely claims that there is a leftist bias among establishment sources. One such study is by Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago who published a study back in 2005 using data from the 1990-2003.[3]

They found Fox News Special Report and The Washington Times as conservative. They also found Newsweek, The New York Times, Time magazine, CBS Evening News, USA Today, and NBC Nightly News as having a definite leftist bias. Balanced news outlets included ABC Good Morning America and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Moderately left were CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, The Washington Post, NPR’s Morning Edition, and ABC WorldNews Tonight. Not ranked were The Wall Street Journal and talk radio.

While this study is a bit dated and counters the thrust of what this account is claiming, the Groseclose-Milyo study is not judged as debunking the general observations this review has of the current media. If considered in relative terms – comparing current day right-wing journalism and left-wing journalism – the general judgement expressed here is still considered justified and worthy of mention.

And this leads one to further consider how the more balanced journalists advance in their profession. Higher reputations belong to a relatively small number of news organizations and they provide rewards to those considered skilled at being excellent news people. How? By hiring them for more lucrative jobs. One is considered to be at the top of this profession if one has secured a position at The New York Times or The Washington Post, or on one of the national news networks.

So, the basic point here is that the right – in terms of its voters – due to their distinguishing unity, is more open to disreputable sources that one finds on social media and rest of the right-wing ecosystem. On the other hand, the left is “protected” from such journalism given the nature of the politics that diverse groups demand.

With diversity, it is more difficult to cull a varied follow-ship with a united rhetorical messaging that social media tends to produce. The only exception to that difficulty is messaging based on objectified reporting that results in verifiable truth.[4] The established press come much closer to that standard when compared to the right-wing social media, outlets such as Newsmax, and talk show hosts as Rush Limbaugh.

[1] Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler, “Partisanship, Propaganda, & Disinformation: Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election,” Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Library (n.d.), accessed August 19, 2020, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/76a9/3eb0bed8ff032c44186678c5279f20cc5ff8.pdf?_ga=2.230250332.1151241653.1597869609-1463880478.1597869609 .

[2] Ezra Klein, Why We’re Polarized (New York, NY: Avid Reader Press, 2020), 236.

[3] Robert J. Barro, “The Liberal Media: It’s No Myth,” Business Week/Online, June 14, 2004, accessed December 29, 2020, https://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf . Of note, Barro is a founding member of the movement, new classical macroeconomics, that began as a response to the condition of stagflation in the 1970s and is currently an editor-in-chief at Quarterly Journal of Economics, the scholarly journal that published the Groseclose-Milyo study.

[4] This reference to objectified methods should not be confused with the reductionism a scientist practices in a scientific study. In this form, journalism more resembles responsible historical study by reputable historians. Journalism is often described informally as the first stab at history.

#right-wing ecosystem #established news media #Ezra Klein #Robert J. Barro #civics education #social studies

0 notes

kunalcmi · 4 years ago

Text

LATIN AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS CMO MARKET ANALYSIS (2020-2027)

The demand for generic products is high in the pharmaceutical market in Latin America. Moreover, majority of pharmaceutical companies are gradually outsourcing manufacturing activities to contract manufacturing organizations (CMO).

Statistics:

Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market is estimated to account for US$ 13,266.5 Mn in terms of value by the end of 2027.

Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market: Drivers

Increasing prevalence of chronic disorders is expected to propel growth of Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market over the forecast period. For instance, according to Incidência de Câncer no Brasil, the estimated number of new cases of cancer was 600,000, excluding cases of non-melanoma skin cancer during 2018-2019 biennium, in Brazil.

Moreover, increasing vaccination drives are also expected to aid in growth of the market. For instance, in March 2020, Brazil initiated its National Flu Vaccination Campaign in three phases against influenza. The vaccine is indicated for anyone over 6 months of age, except those who have had allergic reactions at previous doses.

Statistics:

Brazil held dominant position in Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market in 2019, accounting for 38.6% share in terms of value, followed by Mexico and Argentina, respectively

Figure 1: Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market Share (%) Value, By Region, 2019

Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market: Restraints

The pharmaceutical industry in Mexico does not operate through an established system of reimbursement and there is minimal reimbursement offered outside the hospital setting. Reimbursement is limited to generic drugs, based on health technology assessment and to the under privileged population. Such scenario is expected to hinder growth of Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market.

Weak or ambiguity in patent laws is also expected to limit growth of the market. Different countries in Latin America have adopted different approaches for intellectual property protection. Ambiguity also prevails regarding pricing of drugs. For instance, prices of public sector pharmaceutical drugs in Latin America varied than those sold through the private sector

Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market: Opportunities

Growing medical tourism in Latin America is expected to offer lucrative growth opportunities for players in the market. For instance, according to Tourism of the Federal District, Mexico City, in 2018, Tijuana received 1.7 million patients and companions from the U.S. and Canada generating a revenue of US$ 600 million.

Moreover, integration of public and private healthcare sector in Latin America may lead to revival of a weak sector in the region, thereby aiding in growth of the market.

Statistics:

Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market was valued at US$ 13,266.5 Mn in 2019 and is forecast to reach a value of US$ 40,070.3 Mn by 2027 at a CAGR of 14.8% between 2020 and 2027.

Figure 2: Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market Value (US$ Mn), 2016 - 2027

Market Trends/Key Takeaways

Major pharmaceutical companies are focused on approval and launch of COVID-19 test kits. For instance, in February 2020, Osang Healthcare received European certification (CE-IVD) for GeneFinder, a test kit for the new coronavirus, and the company has commercialized the product in Italy, Romania, Morocco, Brazil, and Russia.

The coronavirus pandemic has adversely impacted the healthcare system in Latin America. As of May 07, 2020, there have been 26,025 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 2,507 deaths in Mexico as reported to the World Health Organization. The lockdown implemented in several countries in Latin America is expected to have mixed impact on the market.

Request Sample Free Copy of Report here: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-sample/3933

Download PDF Brochure: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-pdf/3933

Figure 3: Value Chain Analysis -

Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market: Competitive Landscape

Major players operating in Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market include, BASF SE, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis AG, Pfizer, Inc., Pisa Farmacéutica, Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Landsteiner Scientific.

Latin America Pharmaceutical Products CMO Market: Key Developments

Major players in the market are focused on adopting partnership strategies to enhance their market share. For instance, in March 2019, Pfizer, Inc. partnered with Unión Latinoamerica Contra el Cáncer de la Mujer - Latin American Union Against Cancer of Women, to launch the personal guide “Me and Metastatic Breast Cancer”.

Major players in the market are also focused on R&D of new products to expand their product portfolio. For instance, in December 2019, FerGene, a new gene therapy company formed as an alliance between Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Blackstone Life Sciences, announced positive results from a clinical trial that assessed the efficacy of nadofaragene firadenovec (rAd-IFN/Syn3), an investigational gene therapy, for the treatment of high-grade, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

About Us:

Coherent Market Insights is a global market intelligence and consulting organization focused on assisting our plethora of clients achieve transformational growth by helping them make critical business decisions.

What we provide:

Customized Market Research Services

Industry Analysis Services

Business Consulting Services

Market Intelligence Services

Long term Engagement Model

Country Specific Analysis

Mr. Shah

Coherent Market Insights Pvt. Ltd.

Address: 1001 4th ave, #3200 Seattle, WA 98154, U.S.

Phone: +1-206-701-6702

Email: [email protected]

Source: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/latin-america-pharmaceutical-products-cmo-market-3933

#Latin America Pharmaceutical Products #CoherentMarketInsights #MarketResearch #Industryanalysis #BusinessConsulting

0 notes

corporatesecurityzxpx268-blog · 4 years ago

Text

The 6-Minute Rule for Who Had The First Burglar Alarm Service?

Additional statistics reflect if the local authorities departments are no longer preoccupied with reacting to quality of life calls or incorrect alarms, then they will have more time to examine more major offenses. The economic sector can help both police with prospective counter-terrorist activities by being the eyes and ears of the community, and coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the battle against global terrorism.

is essential to our modern-day infrastructure. Much of the nation's facilities is currently under private sector control, hence an alliance in between the DHS and personal service might assist facilitate better communication channels in between public-private collaborations. Lots of IT firms currently share vital details with the federal government when necessary to protect us from terrorist threats and foreign attacks.

Get This Report about Do Celebrity Bodyguards Carry Guns?

The federal government likewise benefits when it contracts out security to private firms through agreements and quotes due to the competitive nature of personal companies bidding for jobs. This can likewise improve effectiveness and revenue inspire for the personal market to preserve contracts. In truth, some security professionals have actually mentioned outsourcing some companies within the DHS to the economic sector would be more efficient, most notably the Transport Security Company (TSA).

FEMA can utilize the private sector within particular typhoon prone neighborhoods to boost readiness for disasters and to help with healing efforts considering that local personal companies are more tuned in to their neighbors' needs. DHS is a massive government firm that can not successfully run without the knowledge and resources of private market through research, issue solving and sharing intelligence data while avoiding the administrative restrictions enforced upon it by the federal government.

youtube

The 5-Minute Rule for What Is Difference Between Security Guard And Security Officer?

It will likewise maximize the police department to focus on more severe problems and help the DHS by supplying intelligence on significant terrorist targets and enhancing channels of interactions which will improve the US' strength and durability. Integrated Security Solutions has the background, experience and knowledge to provide private security varying from apartment building security to private neighborhood patrol (executive protection agent).

The private security market is growing at a rapid pace. This is great news to some because they are an important part of American safety. Their work has actually progressed from the old days of standing guard and night. Not just do they secure business, institutions, and people, but likewise info and copyright that might be stolen.

Some Known Questions About Can Security Guards Handcuff You?.

This has assisted spur growth in IT-associated positions in the security industry. The need to secure people and home has actually constantly existed, however has actually ended up being more appropriate as the risk level in the nation continues to climb.Private security workers also carry out a lot of work behind the scenes (executive protection agent). Potential staff members might need to go through background checks, which are handled by personal investigators. Searching for a private security company? Building Security Solutions can address any concerns you have. The private security market began seeing a huge increase in popularity in 2010. Ever since, the industry has actually continued to grow significantly with each passing year. The U.S. security industry has actually currently grown to be a 350 billion dollar market with 282 billion dollars being invested in the economic sector alone and another 69 billion dollars being spent by the federal government. More than 80 billion is being invested in IT-related sources of security. Both of these numbers are approximated to increase continuously throughout completion of the decade. There are currently more than 2 million full time employees in the U.S. Security market. A big part of those security workers are investigators and private investigators. It is thought the variety of detectives and personal investigators will increase by a minimum of twenty one percent before the end of the decade. It is believed that a significantly threatening environment is responsible for much of the development. Dangers from foreign and domestic sources are leading to more costs in the security industry. Another factor for so much development in the economic sector is the vip protection services steady modification of how criminal activity is investigated and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?search=private security companies los angeles executive protection pursued. More focus is being placed on developing preventative steps instead of the more conventional approach of pursuing existing wrongdoers. This places a larger reliance on technology, which leads to a growth in the IT-related security sector. These security workers are being used by more business than ever before to help perform background checks and perform crucial investigations that.

may prevent criminal activity from taking place. Whether they are standing guard, running background checks, or safeguarding websites versus hackers, there's no denying the progressively essential function the private security market is playing in American culture.

0 notes

industryupdatenews · 4 years ago

Text

Diagnostic Imaging Services Market Revenue to Decline during Coronavirus Disruption, Stakeholders to Realign Their Growth Strategies

Fact.MR has come up with a study on Diagnostic Imaging Services Market and the report is laden with information that can be utilized by stakeholders in the market to make informed decisions. Analysts have widely utilized the well-entrenched and effective market intelligence tools to collect and collate and then present the analysis and assessment of the Diagnostic Imaging Services Market in an easily understandable format for all. The report includes the major market conditions across the globe such as the product profit, price, production, capacity, demand, supply, as well as market growth structure. In addition, this report offers significant data through the SWOT analysis and Porter’s five forces investment return data, and investment feasibility analysis. The global Diagnostic Imaging Services market Demand has seen a historical CAGR of nearly XX% during the period (2015-2019) and is projected to create a valuation of about US$ XX Mn/Bn by 2025.

The Diagnostic Imaging Services Market report offers an in-depth analysis of the cost structure, market size, and PESTEL analysis which offers market outlook. Likewise, the Diagnostic Imaging Services Market report focuses on the major economies across the globe.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the dynamics of the Diagnostic Imaging Services Market. This market research report includes extensive data on the impacts of the market. The research analyst team of the firm has been monitoring the market during this coronavirus crisis and has been talking with the industry experts to finally publish a detailed analysis of the future scope of the Diagnostic Imaging Services Market. They have followed a robust research methodology and got involved in primary and secondary research to prepare the Diagnostic Imaging Services Market report.

For Right Perspective & Competitive Insights on Diagnostic Imaging Services Market, Request for a Sample:

https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=S&rep_id=4752

Analysts have made use of varied industry-wide prominent tools of market intelligence to gather, collate, and analyze market data, figures, and facts to arrive at revenue estimations and projections in the Diagnostic Imaging Services Market.

The research report of the Diagnostic Imaging Services Market comprises significant insights for the clients and vendors that are looking to maintain their market position as well as to expand the business in the current and upcoming market scenarios. Furthermore, the report provides a detailed study of the facts and figures, as viewers search for the scope in market growth related to the category of the product.

Competitive Landscape:

Major players in the market are identified through secondary research and their market revenues determined through primary and secondary research. Secondary research included the research of the annual and financial reports of the top manufacturers; whereas, primary research included extensive interviews of key opinion leaders and industry experts such as experienced front-line staff, directors, CEOs and marketing executives. The percentage splits, market shares, growth rate and breakdowns of the product markets are determined through using secondary sources and verified through the primary sources.

· RadNet, Inc.

· Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc.

· I-MED Radiology Network (Permira)

· Sonic Healthcare

Market Segmentation:

The common characters are also being considered for segmentation such as global market share, common interests, worldwide demand, and supply of Diagnostic Imaging Services Market.

On the basis of end-use industry, the global Diagnostic Imaging Services market report offers insights into the opportunities and new avenues of following key segments:

· Hospitals

· Diagnostic Imaging Centers

· Ambulatory Surgical Centers

In order to analyze growth prospects in the aforementioned segments in the global Diagnostic Imaging Services market, the study assesses demand and consumption patterns of the following product segments

· Diagnostic Radiology

· Ultrasound

· Computed Tomography

· Nuclear Imaging

· Magnetic Resonance Imaging

We offer tailor-made solutions to fit your requirements, request customization @

https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=RC&rep_id=4752

To have a better understanding of regional dynamics, the Global Diagnostic Imaging Services Market covers the following geographies:

· North America (U.S., Canada)

· Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of Latin America)

· Europe (Germany, Italy, France, U.K., Spain, Benelux, Russia, Rest of Europe)

· Japan

· APEJ (China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Australia & New Zealand, Rest of Asia Pacific)

· MEA (GCC Countries, Turkey, Northern Africa, South Africa, Rest of Middle East & Africa)

How can Fact.MR Make a Difference?

In-depth understanding of key industry trends shaping the present growth dynamics

Offers value chain analysis and price trend analysis of various offering of competitors

Offers data-driven decision to help companies decide strategies that need recalibration

Offers insights into areas in research and development that should attract

Identifies data outliers before your competitors

#Diagnostic Imaging Services market Demand

0 notes

maximuswolf · 4 years ago

Text

Studying China: a resource for Political Economy and (some) Ideology via /r/communism

Studying China: a resource for Political Economy and (some) Ideology

Edit: it looks like my formatting didn’t work in many places (ie: further indenting under bullet points) so I will work on fixing that if the post is unclear

Skip the first three sections if you just want the resources

Introduction

On this forum, there is a void when it comes to political-economic resources for China's post-reform period. To be more specific I refer to a lack of a unified and continuous literature source, for MIM (for example) has some valuable resources to a certain extent (which I will be listing), say up to the 90s, but the literature seems to end there (save for some bits and pieces of theory which reference China, or literature which otherwise concerns them more generally). For Reddit, the most valuable conversation and resources are spread about various comment sections while the most unified material is unsatisfactory. I say this in the most general sense but it should be clear to everyone that news stories and books by politicians are far from satisfactory, and an informative post which primarily draws upon such sources is not doing the necessary work. This post seeks to begin remedying this (I do not claim that I can provide a super resource to fill the gaps).

I won't simply be drawing upon sources which have already been read such as MIM theory and Li Minqi etc. (although they will most certainly be included here); I will also be drawing upon a burgeoning field of English-written (or translated) Chinese Marxian political economy, and more varied sources such as those which posters here have made reference to (for example, those examining the regional economic relationship of South Korea/Japan and China).

The end goal is to promote a more accurate understanding of modern China.

Why are previous megathreads unsatisfactory?

They have been primarily focused on ideology, and it is not clear how deep an ideological understanding one could even get from reading them.

As Marx said:

My view is that each particular mode of production, and the relations of production corresponding to it at each given moment, in short 'the economic structure of society', is 'the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness', and that 'the mode of production of material life' conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life'.

Footnote #35, pp. 175 of Penguin Classics edition of Capital Vol. 1 (1976) (this quote is originally from A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, but I use Capital for its surrounding discussion)

Here Marx gives the example of bourgeois political economists who argue that the social formations attributable to the existing capitalist mode of production are in fact self-evident or attributable to nature; those same political economists treating pre-bourgeois social organizations of production ("natural" products of their time) as backward "in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions" (ibid, pp.175). Hence the given ideology which is tied to a given mode of production is considerably conditioned by it while the old social formations - no longer of immediate value - either fade or are cast aside.

This doesn’t deny “dual movement”, nor does it deny the value of studying ideology. Studying from the ideological angle may provide some valuable clues; for instance, we might assume that the appearance of contradictions in a given ideology are products of definite contradictions of the mode of production, where the more contradictory a given ideology seems, the more the struggle of opposing forces there will be in the mode of production which it seeks to justify. But we are counting on being able to recognize such contradictions in the first place; we will be struggling against the process of naturalization in doing so, and the process of naturalization paints over such contradictions as “the way things are”. To extend the analysis here without a material rooting, one can only make abstract claims to meet the abstract claims of the other; and so we enter into a meta-narrative (not to mention being limited to a priori distinctions).

And so it is that Marx did not write Capital while relying on or abandoning the words of bourgeois political economists and statesmen, but instead using them as supplementary material (separating the wheat from the chaff in the process). To this end this megathread adds to the existing forum resources (and I will still include a section of resources which are influential to or indicative of CPC policy, including some ideological work, so it is not pure political economy).

"Advisories"

This is not a perfect list, nor do I consider it a perfect post!

This compilation is curated (as it is limited to what literature I am aware of, and is mostly focused on the post-reform economy as a point of contention), and I would not consider it as the be-all-end-all of understanding China's political economy (work is definitely missing). I tried to give easily accessible links for the literature but unfortunately I could not find links for all (here I place a subtle reminder about sci-hub and libgen). I would hope that the reader is able to supply some of their own literature and make connections to that which they have already read/will read. The point, then, is to provide some valuable resources and directions for research which vary (they do not all complement each other); further, while not all are new to Reddit (some I've compiled by combing the forum), put together they provide a very solid base.

At times it will be necessary for the reader to extract the useful bits from otherwise shady writing should they be written by non-Marxian economists or be theoretically insufficient or confusing (if they are neoclassical thought hidden under Marxist language, for example). I’m sure that we, as communists, are all able to accomplish this (and therein lies the assumption that some communist theory has been read prior to diving in here).

Finally, this is a page in progress. I will add works that I find later on, or good works that are suggested to me, and I may even edit later on to give explanations and/or summaries of the literature choices or otherwise trim the post (if I find the time and motivation to do this). FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR READING ARE WELCOME FOR EVERY SECTION!

Anyway, let's get into it.

General works for China's economy

Analyses of the economy of China (or aspects of it) from different periods in history or across them:

Bettelheim: Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China

Bramall: Chinese Economic Development (bourgeois economics but good data and sympathetic to Mao)

Long & Herrera: The Enigma of China’s Growth

Hinton: Fanshen - a documentary of revolution in a Chinese village

Wheelwright and MacFarlane: The Chinese Road to Socialism - Economics of the Cultural Revolution

Liu Suinan & Wu Wungan: China's Socialist Economy: An Outline History (1949-1984)

Park: Political Economy of Post-Revolutionary China

Hart-Landsberg & Burkett: China, Capitalist Accumulation, and Labor

Li: Rise of China and Demise of Global Capitalism

Various Authors: Routledge Studies on the Chinese Economy (a good resource for lots of economic analyses, but be on the lookout for bad takes)

China's economy nested within a global perspective

For those works which conceptualize or touch upon China but take a global (or regional) perspective:

King: Lenin's Theory of Imperialism Today - The Global Divide between Monopoly and Non-Monopoly Capital

Smith: Imperialism in the 21st Century

Suwandi: Value Chains: The New Economic Imperialism

Cope & Lauesen: Imperialism and the Transformation of Values into Prices

Arrighi: Adam Smith in Beijing

Bunker & Ciccantell: East Asia and the Global Economy (bourgeois economics, but valuable)

Long, Feng, Li & Herrera: U.S.-China Trade War: Has the Real "Thief" Finally Been Unmasked?

Gunder-Frank: ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age

Duke Global Value Chains Center

A center for GVC analyses which contains empirical work; included by suggestion. See for example: Overcapacity in Steel: China's Role in a Global Problem

Chinese Marxian Perspectives

A list of works (mostly articles) by actual Chinese Marxian political economists (including Orthodox economists who incorporate Marxian methods). Includes analyses of class, labour productivity, labour share/supply, prices, land reform and more:

Li Minqi: China's Changing Class Structure and National Income Distribution, 1952–2015

Do Labor Values Explain Chinese Prices? Evidence from China’s Input-Output Tables, 1990–2012 (with Han Cheng)

Qi Hao: The Labor Share Question in China

The State and Domestic Capitalists in China’s Economic Transition: From Great Compromise to Strained Alliance (with Isabel Nogueira)

The Impact of State-Owned Enterprises on China's Economic Growth (with David Kotz)

Fusheng Xie, Zhi Li & Xiaolu Kuang: The Reserve Army of Labor in China’s Economy, 1991–2015

Fusheng Xie, An Li & Zhongjin Li: Can the Socialist Market Economy in China Adhere to Socialism?

Ying Chen: The Myth of Hukou: Re-examining Hukou's Implications for China's Development Model

Zhun Xu: From Commune to Capitalism: the political economy of agrarian change in China.

For freely-available reading that relates to this book: The political economy of decollectivization in China and China's Grain Production

Li Zhongjin: Labor Process and the Social Structure of Accumulation in China (with Qi Hao)

Giovanni Arrighi in Beijing: Rethinking the Transformation of the Labor Supply in Rural China During the Reform Era (with Qi Hao

Putting Precarity Back to Production: A Case Study of Didi Kuaiche Drivers in the City of Nanjing, China (with Qi Hao)

Zhu Andong: The Dependence of China’s Economic Growth on Exports and Investment (with David Kotz)

Li Minqi, Zhang Yaozu, Xu Zhun, and Qi Hao: 资本的终结 (21世纪大众政治经济学) - The End of Capital: A Popular Political Economy Textbook for the 21st Century (completely in Chinese and probably off the table for most readers, but I thought I would include it as a Chinese Marxian economic textbook. Others can be found on Renmin U Press as well.)

Understanding CPC policy: thoughts and influences

I wanted to include this section to show writing by academics/theorists which has made a definite impact in government economic policy post-reform, or work which describes post-reform policy and provides scattered clues as to ideology (I figure that its inclusion at the end of the post implies the importance of first reading up on China's political economy). I've avoided work by big-name politicians as I figure we have quite enough of that.

If I find any further influential work I will add it (I am notably missing work conceptualizing Deng's southern tour and further thought on the 90s, for example). Sometimes I made a conscious choice to exclude writing, however; for instance, the work of Li Yining was incredibly influential on the government's 90s liberalizations (including the privatization of SOEs through a shareholding system) but who would willingly read that bourgeois drivel. I have also tried to avoid listing other influential liberals, but be aware that they have had their day.

Anyway:

(example of pre-reform influential thought)

Communist Party of China (1974): Fundamentals of Political Economy (also known as the "Shanghai Textbook"; I include it in this section to provide reference. For popular post-reform economics textbooks which show a shift in ideology, the reader can perhaps look at Peking U's school of economics)

Xue Muqiao: China's Socialist Economy (theory of the productive forces)

Wang Huning: Moving Toward a Political System with Higher Efficiency and More Democracy

Structure of the Contradiction in Japanese-American Relations in the 1990s

Wang Huning has been a prominent thinker for CPC ideology and governance ever since the 90s (he is now on the Politburo Standing Committee). These are but two articles I was able to find.

Wang Shaoguang and Hu Angang: 中国国家能力报告 - A Study of China's State Capacity (for a book inspired by this study in English see The Chinese Economy in Crisis, same authors)

These same authors also wrote a significant amount about China's uneven development (East/West, Urban/Rural etc). For example: The Political Economy of Uneven Development: The Case of China

Wen Tiejun: Select Works (note: these are a series of diverse essays from the late 90s up until 2019, compiled by me, which portray the theories/economics of Wen Tiejun and the greater school of "rural revitilization". Please excuse the pdf formatting; there is a mismatch of page sizes in places.)

Hu Angang: Economic and Social Transformation in China (I include Hu here on his own as an influential economist/thinker of the past ~25 years)

Cheng Enfu: A Theory of China’s ‘Miracle’: Eight Principles of Contemporary Chinese Political Economy (with Ding Xiaoqin)

Jin Huiming: Marxism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Note: This book is not economic (it's theoretical) nor is it influential (its an explanation of existing theory), but it can expound upon what the "sinicization of Marxism" entails for the post-reform CPC and as such is included here

Jiang Shigong: Philosophy and History: Interpreting the “Xi Jinping Era” (ignore the annoying translator preface; this is good for conceptualizing the "Chinese Dream" ideology)

Xie Fusheng, Ling Gao & Peiyu Xie: Supply-side structural reforms from the perspective of global production networks – based on the theoretical logic and empirical evidence of political economy

Some Thoughts

Once again, ignore if you just want the resources; this is just me thinking out loud.

Although this is an unfinished post here is a lot to read through here; I had even more to list but I decided today to just post this as it was getting fairly long (and hence more will be added later should I have ample time and motivation; no guarantees). In the interest of keeping this post more impartial than not, I will limit myself to a few general comments on the Chinese Marxian works (so please don't take my words here as a summary of all of the posted works; my comments here are not meant to reflect upon every book):

I still hold my belief that there is a struggle over the Chinese mode of production; a "line" which moves according to the strength of each opposing force - the Chinese capitalists (bourgeoisie/billionaires/elite etc) and the Chinese communists (proletariat/working class/socialists etc). The arena is the entire Chinese nation; enveloping the party, its ideology, domestic & international policy, law, academia etc. To this end, the "third path" advocated in some of the works linked above would appear to be the changing location of said line. The trajectory of CPC policy, and the Chinese mode of production, to me, should be understood this way.

And so it follows that the intellectual sphere follows this struggle. A wise person once said: "The worst advocates for Chinese Marxism are the Chinese Marxists themselves" (or something like that). Indeed, for there has been a fight with (and subjugation to) capitalism and capitalist ideology in the arena of ideas for almost 40 years (hence being incredibly diluted and mixed); only recently having more of a voice (closely tied with the strength of the working class). This is one possible explanation, but I should note that it is not the only possible one.

More specifically, the power of the proletarian movement dictates the ability of Marxist science to hold ground in the intellectual sphere; in this specific case, whether Marxists can be in the position to work and train new Marxian intellectuals. Hence we can expect further political economic work in this tradition (this mirrors how Soohaeng Kim was able to be in the position to supervise Marxist post-grads at Seoul National, for example). Not to say that academics should be the focal point of our study as communists, but their research can be valuable. Hence I have put such an emphasis on their work (besides the fact that they are most likely not widely read), and I believe the tradition should be followed with interest.

In summary of the whole post, I hope that plenty of reading material has been provided for postulating China's mode of production (and the ideologies which sprout from it and condition it). Each work should be read for what it is, and I think each can help increase our understanding. One final time, I would welcome (in fact I am looking for) additional works which would fit here so I might increase the value of the post.

Anyhow, that's enough talking. Happy reading!

Submitted October 14, 2020 at 06:00PM by TheReimMinister via reddit https://ift.tt/378gAI3

0 notes