AuthorTopic: Knarf's Knewz Channel  (Read 1922334 times)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Kamala Harris, the cancel culture cop
« Reply #16875 on: August 13, 2020, 08:56:26 AM »
Joe Biden would rather sate the appetites of his party’s culture warriors than unite a divided nation.

That’s the central lesson from his choice of Sen. Kamala Harris as a running mate.

Harris is a vindictive culture war cop whose political and prosecutorial career has been built upon punishing those she finds deplorable. Biden has just raised the stakes of the 2020 election and relinquished his claim to being a “safe pick.”

Not in our lifetimes has a nominee’s running mate been so consequential. His choice matters more than normal, not only because he is very old and clearly in decline but also because he is running to be a placeholder president. Biden was nominated not for his own virtues but for his own lack of the politically deadly vices that beset his opponents in this year's primary.

It is thus shocking that he would pick such a divisive No. 2, whose unpopularity outside the core Democratic base is abundantly evident. Harris collapsed in the presidential polls almost the moment she stepped into the national spotlight. Despite being amply funded, she went from tied for second place at 15% in mid-July 2019 to low single digits by September.

Harris’s favorability is underwater among independents, with 33% unfavorable to 25% favorable, and during her presidential run, she was never above water.

Harris is not the pick Biden would make if he were trying to maximize his chances of winning the election. This is baffling if you believe, as the cable networks and graying old editorial pages have screamed, that getting rid of President Trump is of utmost importance for the survival of the republic.

No, you pick Harris if you are beholden to your party’s woke culture warriors. The Left has largely won the culture war, securing gay marriage, saving Roe v. Wade, and normalizing transgender ideology. Now, they want to punish all dissenters. This is Harris's area of expertise. You can call it "cancel culture," but that term is too benign when it comes to Harris. She is not a mere demagogue. She is a demagogue who will use the power of the federal government to punish “the other side.”

“She is a dead-on prosecutor,” her mentor Willie Brown wrote, “and when she goes into that mode, watch out. She is out for blood.”

As California attorney general, Harris prosecuted and persecuted pro-life undercover filmmaker David Daleiden for his work exposing Planned Parenthood’s trade in fetal remains. She seized his recordings while pursuing the abortion lobby’s endorsement for Senate. She was also the first prosecutor ever to use California’s eavesdropping laws against a journalist, all after secret consultations with the abortion provider.

The federal government should treat pro-lifers like segregationists, Harris has argued publicly. A clear majority of the public, about 70%, believe there should be restrictions on abortion, but Harris wants to treat states that pass restrictions as if they are acting outside the bounds of democratic legitimacy. She's called the Knights of Columbus "extremist."

She will attack “the bad guys” on the flimsiest grounds. Recall her bizarre line of questioning about the “Kasowitz law firm” during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. When Kavanaugh looked confused by the questions, Kamala’s cheerleaders in the media credited her with a beautiful “prosecutorial beatdown.” It turns out there was actually nothing there but innuendo — empty badgering to make a political opponent look bad is just what an abusive prosecutor does in front of a jury. It's her style.

Harris’s presidential campaign was focused on dividing the country. Gun owners, pro-lifers, home-schoolers, and traditional religions all will have reason to fear persecution in an administration where Harris has sway. We know she will have sway because the culture-war wing obviously calls the tune in Biden’s Democratic Party. There’s no other reason he would pick her over a less divisive choice.

Biden will probably continue to talk about reuniting a country divided by Trump’s presidency. But as of today, nobody should believe it.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Who is Kamala Harris? Joe Biden’s pick for vice president
« Reply #16876 on: August 13, 2020, 08:59:51 AM »

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference talking about the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, Jan. 16, 2020.

Joe Biden picked U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris to run as vice president on the Democratic ticket against President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, announced his decision Aug. 11.

"I have the great honor to announce that I’ve picked @KamalaHarris — a fearless fighter for the little guy, and one of the country’s finest public servants — as my running mate," Biden tweeted. "Back when Kamala was Attorney General, she worked closely with Beau. I watched as they took on the big banks, lifted up working people, and protected women and kids from abuse. I was proud then, and I'm proud now to have her as my partner in this campaign."

Beau, Biden’s son, died in 2015 after battling brain cancer. He served as Delaware’s attorney general and was an Iraq war veteran.

In choosing Harris, Biden set aside one of the biggest moments of a Democratic presidential primary debate, when Harris called him out on a controversial policy from decades ago: integrating segregated schools by busing. Harris claimed that when Biden was in the U.S. Senate, he worked to oppose busing to desegregate schools.

"There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day," Harris said. "And that little girl was me."

Harris in December suspended her own campaign for president, saying it did not have the financial resources to continue. "I’m still very much in this fight, and I will keep fighting every day for what this campaign has been about: justice for the people, all the people," she said.

As Biden’s pick, Harris became the first Black woman and first person of Indian descent to run as vice president on a major-party ticket.

Early life
Harris — whose Sanskrit-derived first name is pronounced "Comma-luh" — was born in Oakland, Calif., in 1964, the daughter of two immigrants, a medical scientist from India and an economist from Jamaica.

Harris, 55, grew up in a Black middle-class neighborhood in Berkeley, where her parents would often join civil rights protests. Her parents separated when she was 5. When she was about 12, Harris moved with her mother and sister to Montreal for several years after her mother took a research position there.

Harris earned her bachelor’s degree at Howard University and her law degree at the University of California in 1989.

Political career
Harris worked as a prosecutor in Alameda County (Oakland) and in San Francisco, then was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2003 and 2007. In 2010, she was elected California attorney general, then was re-elected in 2014.

Since winning her Senate seat in 2016, Harris has spoken out against Trump’s border wall proposal and his decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. In her own campaign for the White House, Harris supported a $15 minimum wage and was a cosponsor of the Green New Deal. She’s also supported universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

During her own presidential campaign, Harris was scrutinized for her own criminal justice record, since the party’s base has moved to the left since she was prosecuting offenders. Harris worked to reduce recidivism, eliminate bias in law enforcement, and — to wide controversy — did not seek the death penalty for a man suspected of killing a police officer.

However, as attorney general in 2016, she opposed a bill to require her office to investigate shootings by police, and she declined to weigh in on state ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana and to reduce penalties for nonviolent crimes. And despite her personal opposition to the death penalty, Harris defended it in court as attorney general.

Top issues: Education, especially teacher pay; pay equity; criminal justice; health care; climate change; immigration

Key votes in the U.S. Senate: Voted against the Trump tax bill, 2017; against efforts to overhaul the Affordable Care Act in 2017; and against Supreme Court nominations of Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. In 2020, voted to impeach President Donald Trump on counts of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

State and local offices: Prosecutor in Alameda County and San Francisco, 1990-2003; elected San Francisco district attorney, 2004-2011; elected California attorney general, 2011-2016.

Private sector work: None

Military: None

Books authored: "The Truths We Hold: An American Journey" (2019); "Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor's Plan to Make Us Safer" (2009)

Birth date: Oct. 24, 1964

Education: Howard University, B.A.; University of California Hastings College of Law. J.D.

Personal life: Douglas Emhoff (husband); two adult stepchildren

Religion: Baptist

Miscellaneous: Harris’ late mother was born in India, and her father was from Jamaica. She spent a portion of her childhood in Canada, when her mother was a medical researcher in Montreal.

Recent fact-checks
Fact-checking Kamala Harris’ claim about Donald Trump and investigations of police misconduct

Kamala Harris' claim about typical dad paying higher taxes than 400 richest families is Mostly False

Kamala Harris claimed she ‘sued Exxon Mobil’ as California AG. She didn’t.

No, America’s auto industry not expected to lose ‘as many as 300,000’ jobs, as Kamala Harris claimed

Was Kamala Harris ‘part of second class to integrate’ Berkeley's public schools?
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Here’s the truth about Kamala Harris’ prosecutorial background
« Reply #16877 on: August 13, 2020, 09:02:17 AM »
From 8 months ago, but very relevant now.

No sooner had Sen. Kamala Harris announced that she would be seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination than far-right conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl resorted to racist birtherism and claimed that the California senator was ineligible for the presidency because of her parents’ immigrant backgrounds (Harris’ mother was from India, her father from Jamaica) and because she attended high school in Montreal, Canada. Harris, of course, is perfectly eligible to run for president: she was born in Oakland, California on October 20, 1964 and holds U.S. citizenship—and instead of undermining the laws of the United States, she has devoted much of her time to enforcing them. Harris served as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004-2011 before becoming California’s state attorney general in 2011.

Here are some facts about Harris’ legal and prosecutorial background.

1. Harris now supports legalization of recreational marijuana

In new book, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, Harris asserts that “we need to legalize marijuana and regulate it—and we need to expunge nonviolent marijuana-related offenses from the records of millions of people who have been arrested and incarcerated so they can get on with their lives.” However, Harris wasn’t always this liberal on marijuana laws. In 2014, when she sought reelection as California’s attorney general, Harris distanced herself from Republican opponent Ronald Gold’s support for legalization. And in 2016, she didn’t support California’s Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana use for California residents who are 21 or older.

2. Harris has a long history of opposing the death penalty

If Harris does win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 and defeats all the other candidates—who could range from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Sen. Bernie Sanders if he decides to run—one sensitive issue that would be sure to come up in debates with President Donald Trump is the death penalty. Trump is a staunch supporter of capital punishment, while Harris has a long history of opposing it. Back in 2004, when she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris butted heads with fellow Democrats—including Sen. Dianne Feinstein—over the killing of police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris refused to seek the death penalty for David Hill, the man convicted of Espinoza’s murder—while Feinstein wanted him executed.

3. Harris had high conviction rates during her years as San Francisco DA

In a Trump/Harris battle in 2020, Trump would probably bring up Espinoza in order to deceptively paint Harris as soft on cop killers. But Harris’ office prosecuted Hill aggressively, and he was sentenced to life in prison. Harris isn’t draconian enough for GOP tastes, but she had high conviction rates during her years as a prosecutor. Under Harris, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office saw its overall conviction rates increase by 15%.

4. Harris was considered for U.S. attorney general in 2014

When Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s first U.S. attorney general, announced that he was resigning in 2014, Harris was one of the people mentioned as a possible replacement (others ranged from former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to federal prosecutor Preet Bharara). But Harris released an official statement saying that while she was “honored to even be mentioned,” she planned to “continue my work for the people of California as attorney general.”

5. Criticism of Harris’ legal history comes from the left as well as the right

If Harris receives the Democratic presidential nomination next year, she is likely to receive criticism from both the left and the right. Republicans—at least the non-libertarian ones—will bring up her opposition to the death penalty, while some on the left are likely to argue that in the past, she wasn’t proactive enough on criminal justice reform. In a January 17 op-ed for the New York Times, law professor Lara Bazelon wrote, “Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent.”
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Kamala Harris’s family story is the real portrait of American greatness
« Reply #16878 on: August 13, 2020, 09:10:29 AM »
From India and Jamaica to the doors of the White House in one generation.

Sen. Kamala Harris with a young girl whose mother is an immigrant from Mozambique.

Sen. Kamala Harris is the first Black woman on a presidential ticket, and the first Indian American of any gender in that role. She was explicitly chosen as a vice presidential candidate amid debate about her evident ambition to sit in the Oval Office — she’s not just a member of Joe Biden’s team but could also serve as his political successor and eventually the first woman president.

But Harris has another aspect of her identity with particular resonance in this moment, as the daughter of two immigrants — one from India and one from Jamaica — who traveled to the United States for education and made their lives here.

Her parents were surely not blind to America’s racial problems in the 1960s when they decided to pursue graduate studies at the University of California Berkeley, and they certainly were not indifferent to them upon arrival. Indeed, her parents met through their involvement in civil rights activism in Berkeley. Nonetheless, they wanted to come to the US, and they did well for themselves — both earning PhDs, and one eventually landing as a scientist at the prestigious Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the other as an economics professor at the equally prestigious Stanford University. Their daughter is now an odds-on favorite to become the next vice president of the United States and is reasonably likely to be president herself someday.

Shyamala Gopalan and Donald Harris may have found unusual success, but the story of arrival, education, and intergenerational mobility is a familiar one. And in a profound way, stories like theirs are the greatness of America. It’s a country that people have flocked to from all around the world for hundreds of years, enhancing their own lives and the nation.

It’s this dimension of America that Donald Trump most purely rejects and denies. His success in politics has both diminished America’s greatness on its own terms and raised awareness of the darker corners of American life. It is tempting to accept that Trump’s dark and twisted vision of America is the authentic one.

Yet Harris’s story and the story of her family is real. Great people come to this country, and great things happen here. And her candidacy is an opportunity to tell the stories of the people and policies that have made America great.

Trump’s dark view of America
Donald Trump was famous long before he entered politics, which he ventured into by spreading racist conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s parentage. But if the Obama-bashing made him a hero to rank-and-file Republicans, what made him a sensation was the boldness with which he descended that Trump Tower escalator to complain that Mexico is “sending” rapists and murderers across the border.

This viscerally anti-immigrant energy powered his primary wins and helped him capture the general election votes of many secular, Northern, non-college educated whites who had cast ballots for Al Gore and John Kerry and Obama.

Anti-immigrant zeal has been a major through line of his administration. To characterize Trump as a leader of a presidential administration, you need to start with the fact that he seems largely uninterested in policy and in possession of no real convictions beyond a pursuit of self-interest.

But immigration is a major exception. On immigration he has enacted sweeping policy changes — even beyond his better-known moves of poaching military construction funds to build his wall or separating asylum-seeking children from their parents.

He’s used the Covid-19 pandemic to shut down the asylum process.
He’s suspended the issuance of work visas for many seasonal employees and tech workers.
He’s tried to kick foreign students out of the country.
He’s engaged in a legal battle to try to impose a wealth test on would-be immigrants.
And he’s cut refugee resettlement levels to unprecedented lows.
Note that all of this is about legal immigration, not “enforcing the law.” Trump and his team take the view that foreigners’ desire to move here should be viewed with suspicion. He wants whole categories of migrants ruled out and others subject to much tighter scrutiny.

And the anti-immigrant tilt is part and parcel of a darker view of America. When Trump talks about “taking the oil,” treats NATO as a protection racket, or explicitly cites arms sales as the key goal of the US-Saudi alliance, he sounds like he’s gotten his picture of the United States from old Rage Against the Machine songs while somehow getting the point totally backward.

Some on the left have gone so far as to hail Trump for exposing the truth about America. As Jenée Desmond-Harris wrote during the 2016 campaign, “Trump is refreshing to people who share his views, as well as to people who have always known that views like this exist.” His presidency has brought a level of racial invective to the Oval Office not seen for decades or more, but also given incredible new prominence to anti-racism as a political cause and fueled radicalism in the streets.

Biden’s brand of politics is more moderate, more appealing to swing voters, and more optimistic than that. But he’s a questionable messenger on personal identity grounds, and his record on discussing identity issues is abysmal — from calling Obama “articulate and bright and clean” in 2007 to just last week suggesting Black communities have no internal diversity. Harris, by contrast, is perfectly situated to tell an optimistic story about immigration, about identity, and about the United States of America.

Immigration for national greatness
It’s well known that the party of Lincoln has switched sides on racial issues in America. Less known is that a parallel shift has taken place on immigration.

In his 1864 State of the Union message, President Abraham Lincoln noted “the act passed at the last session for the encouragement of immigration” but urged the passage of amendments to make it even more effective at inducing people to sail to American shores.

“I regard our immigrants as one of the principal replenishing streams which are appointed by Providence to repair the ravages of internal war and its wastes of national strength and health,” Lincoln wrote, cautioning that he was not looking at immigrants as cannon fodder for the Civil War but as a long-term source of national strength. “All that is necessary is to secure the flow of that stream in its present fullness, and to that end the Government must in every way make it manifest that it neither needs nor designs to impose involuntary military service upon those who come from other lands to cast their lot in our country.”

This is a spirit that’s gone missing from contemporary arguments. Trump complains we are too kind to foreigners. Liberals respond that Trump is being too cruel. The cruelty is real. As Adam Serwer wrote, cruelty is the point. I’ll never forget John Kelly, Trump’s onetime chief of staff, dismissing concern about children taken from their parents with the line that they’ll go to “foster care or whatever.”

But, historically, allowing immigration to the United States has not been an act of charity. Abraham Lincoln, like George Washington before him, wanted to encourage it because they believed that migration to the United States was a mutually beneficial act. Self-interest brought Harris’s parents to the United States, and life in America treated them and their children well.

George Washington: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong."

— Michiko Kakutani (@michikokakutani) July 7, 2018
Research confirms that this still works. Michael Clemens, Claudio Montenegro, and Lant Pritchett find that unskilled immigrants increase their wages by between 2.6 times (if they come from Peru) to 7 times (if they come from Haiti). Clemens finds that more-skilled workers end up at the high end of that range, with Indian computer programmers scoring a six-fold wage increase if they get a work visa. And the dream of intergenerational mobility is alive, with Ran Abramitzky, Leah Platt Boustan, Elisa Jácome, and Santiago Pérez finding that today — just as in the past — children of immigrants generally experience greater socioeconomic success than they themselves do.

Bottom line: Our findings supports idea of “American Dream” -- even immigrants who come to the United States with few resources and little skills have a real chance at improving their children’s prospects /end

— Leah Boustan (@leah_boustan) October 28, 2019
Despite America’s flaws, people clamor to move here and often find success. That speaks well of Americans, and it’s part of why the country has flourished.

In a July speech about growing tensions with China, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged Americans not to accept national decline. “We just need to believe,” he said, noting that “people aren’t desperate to settle in China.”

It’s a good point, but one Trump’s administration seems to have no appreciation of; the government is busy trying to keep people like Shyamala Gopalan and Donald Harris from moving here. That’s a shame, not just for the immigrants excluded but for America as a whole. The country could compete much more effectively with China if it took advantage of Pompeo’s insight to help grow our population. A proudly American daughter of immigrants from two different continents could be the perfect person to make the case for a more inclusive and more optimistic vision of national greatness.

NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Cornel West Says Trump's Wrong on Kamala Harris: I'm a Radical, She's a Centrist
« Reply #16879 on: August 13, 2020, 09:13:59 AM »

Philosophy professor Dr. Cornel West said Wednesday that President Donald Trump had misclassified presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris as a "radical."

Dr. West has been outspoken in his criticism of Trump, referring to him in a June interview as the "neo-fascist gangster in the White House." Describing himself as a democratic socialist, Dr. West has lamabsted politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties. While Trump has attempted to paint Harris as a member of the radical left, West said that wasn't the case.

"I want Trump people to know, I'm a radical," West said in a Wednesday interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN. "My dear sister [Kamala] Harris is not a radical—she's a centrist and a moderate. I love the sister, she's my AKA sister and everything, but at the same time, I recognize that when it comes to serious class struggles that are going on, the class war of the bosses against workers, she's not always been on the side of the workers. Neither has Biden."

"We have to tell the truth about even those we vote for," West added. "That's why I don't endorse them, I vote for them."

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

West warned that if presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Harris still retain their ties with "neo-liberal elites, then we're just going to have another slow disaster rather than a quick catastrophe."
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Kamala Harris’s Ties to Marxism
« Reply #16880 on: August 13, 2020, 09:18:31 AM »
When I read that Sleepy Joe Biden came out of the basement to announce his pick for running mate; and then I read that it was Kamala Harris, I knew I needed to uncover her Socialist leanings.
What I didn’t know was how easy it would be to find this information.
Kamala Harris is the daughter of a Marxist Professor.
And because we know that the apple does not usually fall far from the tree – folks, we have a bona fide Marxist running for VP for the Democratic Socialists of America.

Oh, if you asked Sleepy Joe if he is on board with Marxism, you would get the ‘Deer in the headlights look’ as he would attempt to answer. He would forget where he was, and would fumble bumble over Marxism. I actually feel pretty sorry for the man.

Kamala Harris’s Socialist Ties

Red Diaper Baby

Democratic presidential primary front-runner Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) recently told reporters at a campaign stop in New Hampshire that she is “not a democratic socialist.”

The next question should have been obvious: “Well, then, what kind of socialist are you?” (emphasis added)

Harris has been surrounded by socialists and communists her entire life—beginning with her staunchly Marxist father. Harris is the older child of two 1960s Berkeley radicals: Shyamala Gopalan, a cancer researcher from the state of Tamil Nadu in southern India, and Donald J. Harris, an economist from Jamaica. (emphasis added)

Gopalan and Donald Harris were very active during the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War protests of the era, often taking baby Kamala to protests in a stroller, according to a recent article in San Jose daily newspaper The Mercury News on the Harris family.

The couple separated after Donald Harris took a professorship at the University of Madison–Wisconsin. Gopalan filed for divorce in 1971 and won custody of her two daughters in 1973.

Kamala and her younger sister, Maya—now her presidential campaign chair—regularly visited their father during school holidays.

In 1972, Donald Harris left the University of Madison–Wisconsin to begin a visiting professorship of economics at Stanford University.

On Nov. 3, 1976, an article published in the Stanford Daily newspaper claimed that more than 250 students were clamoring for more Marxist perspectives.

Shortly thereafter, a letter was published in the Stanford Daily on Nov. 12, 1976, signed by the Stanford branch of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE), with signatures from members Bill Dittenhofer, Ari Cohen, Eric Berg, David O’Connor, Arthur Slepian, Sandy Thompson, and Tracy Mott:

“The program in Marxian economics would be much weaker than it is today if had it not been for massive student efforts in the form of petitions, open meetings …

“[It] was only after a divisive one and a one-half year struggle that the opposing elements in the department gave into student pressure and conceded to ‘the appointment of Prof. Donald Harris. Thus the presence of Marxian economists here simply indicates the success of the student struggle. … The recent addition of course offerings in Marxian economics is again a direct result of student pressure, not departmental benevolence.”

After an 18-month campaign by the union, Harris was offered and accepted a permanent professorship.

The URPE (which last year celebrated its 50thanniversary) began in 1968 as a spinoff of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). URPE has overlapped considerably with America’s largest Marxist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), since its founding in 1982. One of professor Donald Harris’s Stanford supporters and URPE letter signatories, Mott, is now a professor at the University of Denver, where he works with local DSA activists.

During the summer and fall of 2006, the DSA’s Political Action Committee helped DSA activists around the country host house parties to raise funds that helped Bernie Sanders become the “sole socialist in the U.S. Senate.”

According to DSA magazine Democratic Left: “Boulder, Colorado, guests braved a downpour to attend the party at the home of Leslie Lomas and hear a talk about giving money by economics professor and socialist Tracy Mott.”

According to The Mercury News: “Several of his former students said it wasn’t accurate to describe him [Donald Harris] as Marxist, although ‘he might have been a lot more sympathetic to Marx than a lot of other economists were at the time,’ said Tracy Mott.”

Mott was being disingenuous. Several Stanford Daily articles at the time described Donald Harris as “Marxist,” and Mott and his friends made it very clear that Harris was hired specifically for his radical ideology. (emphasis added)

Donald Harris wrote papers such as “The Black Ghetto as Colony: A Theoretical Critique” ‎(1972) and “Capitalist Exploitation and Black Labor: Some Conceptual Issues” (1978).

Harris’s Marxism was never questioned or denied at any stage of his career. (emphasis added)

URPE also was very close to the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), once the largest and most influential of the far-left think tanks in Washington. Since its founding in 1963, the IPS has consistently followed a pro-Marxist line on foreign policy, defense, and economic issues. (emphasis added)

To put its policy recommendations into action, the IPS “built networks of contacts among congressional legislators and their staffs, academics, government officials, and the national media,” according to the book “The War Called Peace: The Soviet Peace Offensive.”

The IPS also was on very close terms with representatives of communist Cuba and the former Soviet Union. (emphasis added)

In 1978, in an article in National Review, Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described IPS as the “perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB.” (emphasis added)

In the 1988 book “Winning America: Ideas and Leadership for the 1990s,” edited by IPS leaders Marcus Raskin and Chester Hartman, the IPS and DSA affiliate Sean Gervasi recommended a slate of radical colleagues as potential appointees in a hoped-for new Democratic administration after the 1988 election.

Gervasi’s wish list including the following:

• Barry Bluestone—SDS founder, DSA affiliate, URPE member. Served as a member of the senior policy staff of former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.).

• Gar Alperovitz—IPS, DSA, Brookings Institute.

• Robert Browne—SDS, IPS.

• Jeff Faux—DSA affiliate. Faux has worked as an economist with the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, and Labor.

• Carol O’Cleireacain—DSA member, Brookings Institute. In 2014, she became Detroit deputy mayor for economic policy, planning, and strategy.

• Howard Wachtel—IPS, URPE member.

• Art MacEwan—URPE member, DSA affiliate.

And, of course, Donald Harris, Marxist professor and Kamala Harris’s father. (emphasis added)

Republican George H.W. Bush won the 1988 election, so professor Harris stayed on at Stanford until his retirement.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Israel and UAE reach historic peace deal, Israel to suspend annexation
« Reply #16881 on: August 13, 2020, 09:41:18 AM »
The peace deal was the product of lengthy discussions between Israel, the UAE and the United States that accelerated recently, White House officials said.

Israel and the United Arab Emirates reached a historic peace deal on Thursday that will lead to a full normalization of diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern nations in an agreement that US President Donald Trump helped broker.
Under the agreement, Israel has agreed to suspend applying sovereignty to areas of the West Bank that it has been discussing annexing, senior White House officials told Reuters.

The peace deal was the product of lengthy discussions between Israel, the UAE and the United States that accelerated recently, White House officials said.
The agreement was sealed in a phone call on Thursday between Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, who said in a statement that Israel had agreed to stop annexation and that in exchange the UAE and Israel "agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship."
US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who was in the White House on Thursday, said that "the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE will make Israel stronger and safer and will likely lead to additional exciting opportunities and incremental prosperity for Israel, its neighbors and the entire region."

The officials described the agreement, to be known as the Abraham Accords, as the first of its kind since Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994. It also gives Trump a foreign policy success as he seeks re-election on November 3.
White House officials said Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman and Middle East envoy Avi Berkowitz were deeply involved in negotiating the deal, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House national security adviser Robert O'Brien.
"Congratulations to President Trump for once again making the impossible happen," Berkowitz said. "This historic opportunity makes the entire region safer, stronger and more prosperous."
A joint statement issued by the three nations said the three leaders had "agreed to the full normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates."
"This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region," the statement said.

Delegations from Israel and the United Arab Emirates will meet in the coming weeks to sign bilateral agreements regarding investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications and other issues, the statement said.
The two countries are expected soon to exchange ambassadors and embassies.
The statement said that as "a result of this diplomatic breakthrough and at the request of President Trump with the support of the United Arab Emirates, Israel will suspend declaring sovereignty" over areas of the West Bank that were envisioned in the US peace plan unveiled by Trump in January.
"Israel for the foreseeable future will be focused on building this relationship and pursuing all the advantages that can come from having this new relationship with this country, and we also breaks the ice for doing more normalizations and peace agreements with other regional players as well," one White House official told Reuters.
The agreement envisions giving Muslims greater access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem by allowing them to fly from Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv, White House officials said.
The joint statement said the United Arab Emirates and Israel will immediately expand and accelerate cooperation regarding the treatment of and the development of a vaccine for the novel coronavirus amid the pandemic.
Head of the Beit El Regional Council Shai Alon said in response that Netanyahu has betrayed the settlers, as many expect the peace deal will result in Israel's delaying its plan to annex parts of the West Bank.
"We were tricked. Our future is in Judea and Samaria and in brave decisions that need to be made by our leaders, not in agreements that are signed today and won't mean anything tomorrow. We've been betrayed," Alon said in a statement.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Restaurant closures due to pandemic left farmers with unprecedented surpluses of fresh goods

Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau announced details on Thursday of a $50-million program that will redirect surplus perishable food products to vulnerable people during the pandemic.

During an event in Sainte-Hyacinthe, Que., Bibeau announced eight partners for the surplus food rescue program, and the types of products that will be distributed. She said COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on Canadians' food security.

"Many families have not had enough food or have been eating smaller portions because they haven't been able to pay for food," she said.

Bibeau said 12 million kilograms of food that otherwise would have been wasted, including one million fresh eggs, would go to families. Other products that will be redistributed include potatoes, walleye, chicken and turkey.

Surplus fruit, vegetables, meat and seafood was generated because the COVID-19 crisis shut down much of the restaurant and hospitality industry, leaving producers with unprecedented surpluses.

Partners in the effort include Second Harvest and Food Banks Canada, and will include more than 100 food businesses and non-profit organizations.

The program, first announced in May with applications opening the following month, was designed to reduce food waste while helping farmers recover costs of production. Food will be redistributed at the cost of production.

"This is a win-win. Not only are we helping producers who cannot sell their goods to restaurants, but we are also aiding Canadians who have had to seek help from food banks," Bibeau said in a statement.

About 10 per cent of the goods will be distributed to Northern communities.

Statistics Canada has reported that one in seven Canadians live in a household where there was food insecurity over a one-month period during the pandemic.

Not so ready-to-pick: Canadian growers left hanging by COVID-19
Federal government opens application process for $50M food surplus program
In April, the federal government also announced $100 million for food banks that have been dealing with a surge in demand during the pandemic due to widespread job losses and reduced incomes.

While some farmers are experiencing huge surpluses of fresh product, food security experts have said problems caused by the pandemic — border closures restricting the movement of foreign farm workers, transportation and import bottlenecks, panic hoarding at grocery stores — can also contribute to higher food prices and a shortage of some goods.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Chicken wings test positive for Covid-19 in China...
« Reply #16883 on: August 13, 2020, 09:54:40 AM »
but there's no evidence of food transmission, experts say

A sample of frozen chicken wings imported from Brazil has tested positive for the novel coronavirus in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, authorities said Thursday, the latest in a series of reports of contaminated imported food products.

The coronavirus was detected Wednesday on a surface sample taken from a batch of chicken wings during screening of imported frozen food in Longgang district of Shenzhen, the municipal government said in a statement. Officials did not name the brand.
Health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have said the possibility of catching the virus through food is low.
Shenzhen health authorities immediately traced and tested people who might have come into contact with the product, and all results came back negative; all related products in stock have been sealed off and tested negative, the statement said.
Authorities are now tracing related products from the same brand that have already been sold, and have disinfected the area where the contaminated chicken wings were stored.
Brazil has so far reported more than 3.1 million coronavirus cases, the second highest in the world after the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University's tally.
News of the contaminated chicken wings comes a day after coronavirus was found on the packaging of shrimps imported from Ecuador, another South American country, at a restaurant in eastern Anhui province during a routine inspection, China's state broadcaster CCTV reported.

Coronavirus has been detected on the packaging of imported seafood products across several cities in China.
Since July, there have been seven instances where the virus was detected on the packaging of imported seafood products across the country, from Shandong province on the eastern coast to the municipality of Chongqing in the west, according to state media reports.
These incidents have sparked concerns over the safety of imported foods. Chinese health authorities have repeatedly told the public to be cautious about buying imported meat and seafood. On Chinese social media, some have called for the suspension of all frozen food imports.
'No evidence' of food transmission
The WHO says it is "highly unlikely that people can contract Covid-19 from food or food packaging." According to the CDC, the risk of infection by the virus from food products, food packaging, or bags is "thought to be very low."
Both organizations point out that the coronavirus spreads mostly person to person through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks.
While it is possible to catch Covid-19 by touching a surface or object -- including food or food packaging that has the virus on it -- and then touching your mouth, nose, or possibly eyes, it is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, according to the CDC.
"There is no evidence to date of viruses that cause respiratory illnesses being transmitted via food or food packaging. Coronaviruses cannot multiply in food; they need an animal or human host to multiply," the WHO says.
David Hui Shu-cheong, a respiratory medicine expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the imported food products that tested positive in China were almost certain to have been contaminated during packaging.
But he said it doesn't necessarily mean that they're infectious -- the nucleic acid tests could be picking up the RNA of dead virus. These remnants of the virus are known to have caused false positive results on patients who have recovered from the coronavirus, such as in South Korea.
If the virus taken from the food products can be grown in labs, however, then they are infectious, he said, adding that the coronavirus can survive freezing temperatures and still be active when thawed.
Stepped up screening
Chinese authorities have increased screening of imported meat and seafood products since June, when a coronavirus outbreak in Beijing emerged from the city's largest wholesale food market.

State media reported at the time that the virus was discovered on a chopping board used for imported salmon at the market, prompting supermarkets in the Chinese capital to remove salmon from their shelves.
But officials at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention have tried to allay concerns. "We cannot conclude that salmon is the source of infection just because novel coronavirus was detected on a chopping board of a seller," Wu Zunyou, chief epidemiologist at the Chinese CDC, told the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.
Wu said the chopping board could instead have been contaminated by an infected owner or customers, or other products that carried the virus.
In July, a fresh coronavirus outbreak in the city of Dalian in northern China's Liaoning province was linked to a seafood company, which processes both imported and domestic seafood.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Will Trump or Biden win the US election? Maybe a better predictor than the polls
« Reply #16884 on: August 14, 2020, 09:13:17 AM »
Joe Biden, the Democratic challenger in November’s US presidential election, has finally picked his candidate for vice president: Kamala Harris.

Has picking Harris, who is Black and Asian American, improved Biden’s chances of winning the election? Or has it actually improved the chances of Donald Trump to get re-elected?

Depending on who you ask, the answer can vary significantly and an objective answer is hard to come by. Polls or approval ratings could help – the latest poll aggregation puts Biden in the lead with 50% versus 41% for Trump with the rest of voters undecided.

But prediction markets, simple financial markets where the value of the traded assets depends on outcomes such as who wins an election, have been shown to be better longer-term predictors of election outcomes. Anyone can trade in these markets and firms can also use them to insure against political risks. Some companies even use prediction markets to forecast political changes, the demand for new products or the feasibility of project deadlines.

Biden’s chances of winning the November election were given a boost on prediction markets when he announced Harris as his running mate.

How prediction markets work
Prediction markets operate in the currency of the country in which they are based, say for example US$. For the US election, markets trade a Trump-asset, which pays out $1 after the election if Trump wins, and $0 otherwise. The Biden-asset pays out $1 if Biden wins, and $0 otherwise.

Prediction markets always price these events between $0 and $1. This means the price of an asset can be interpreted as a probability of an event occurring. So if the Trump-asset trades at $0.4, then Trump has a 40% chance of victory. It does not mean that “Trump is going to lose the election” – it means he is the underdog and will probably, but not certainly, lose. And the market quantifies these chances. However, whatever the market price, the investor will still either get only $1 or $0 after the election results are announced.

If most traders think an asset is overpriced, because the price exceeds the candidate’s chances, then they will sell and the market price will drop. Conversely, if most traders think an asset is underpriced, they will buy and the price increases. So, the market prices are a prediction of the election outcome based on the wisdom of crowds, a consensus forecast that tends to be better than the forecast of single experts.

We know that prediction market prices match the underlying probabilities because empirical and lab research has looked at thousands of such market predictions, grouped all with a price of $0.4 together, and found that the predicted event underlying the asset, for example, the election of a particular candidate, did indeed occur in 40% of these cases. Similarly, for prices of $0.5, the underlying event occurred in 50% of cases, and so on. The prices are well-calibrated as probability forecasts.

Trump’s chances
The biggest prediction market about the US election, which is based in New Zealand, predicts a 41% chance of Trump winning the election, and Biden is a strong favourite at 59%. On August 11, the day of the Harris VP announcement, Biden’s chances jumped by two percentage points while Trump’s dropped by two.

The market clearly thinks Harris was a good choice and increased Biden’s chances of winning the election. This day was also the day with the highest trading volume in the past few months, making it one of the most important events in the campaign.

Prices of the Trump-asset (red) and Biden-asset (blue) between May and August 2020.

Before that, the price graph shows that Trump’s chances slipped considerably in June. In early May, the market still viewed Trump as the favourite, with Biden not impressing during the Democratic primary race. But since the dual crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter protests (including Trump’s reactions to them) became the main issues in US politics, Trump has been losing ground steadily, and Biden overtook him as favourite.

Which events led to this reversal? On May 28, Trump threatened to bring in the National Guard to confront Black Lives Matter protesters, using the widely criticised “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” quote, prompting Twitter to flag the tweet as “glorifying violence”. On June 1, protesters were dispersed by force so that Trump could walk to a church for a photo-op. Prices at that time show that within just a few days, Trump lost about five percentage points while Biden gained five, changing the difference by ten percentage points in favour of the challenger.

COVID news also had a significant impact. On June 24-25, Trump lost another four percentage points, widening the gap to Biden by eight. During these two days, Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases testified that the US has a “disturbing” surge in new cases, showing the US was not dealing well with the crisis. In late July, Trump recovered a few percentage points as attention shifted slightly to his anti-China rhetoric and the sale of Chinese social media platform TikTok.

But the race is not over. In the 2016 election, prices moved the most in the two months just before the election. Trump trailed Hillary Clinton in prediction markets throughout the campaign and was seen as favourite only on election day – showing that the underdog can recover. So despite Trump’s poor position now, he might still regain some ground.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Money Tracker: How Much Trump And Biden Have Raised In The 2020 Election
« Reply #16885 on: August 14, 2020, 09:18:21 AM »
$633 million
raised by Joe Biden (D) and the DNC
$76 million raised in June

$1.08 billion
raised by Donald Trump (R) and the RNC
$92 million raised in June

June 2020 Monthly Campaign Committee Reports
Total individual contributions: $63,235,084
- Small dollar: $32,091,500
- Large dollar (>$200): $31,143,585
Transfers, loans and other: $180,151
Source: FEC filing

Total individual contributions: $29,769,500
- Small dollar: $11,861,719
- Large dollar (>$200): $17,907,782
Transfers, loans and other: $25,471,973
Source: FEC filing

Most Recent Affiliate Reports
Source: FEC filing

Source: FEC filing

Source: FEC filing

NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Election Funding Is Being Held Hostage in Stimulus Standoff
« Reply #16886 on: August 14, 2020, 09:20:50 AM »

It’s not the first, or second, or even sixth issue that comes up in most discussions of the deadlocked coronavirus stimulus negotiations. But federal assistance to state and local officials struggling with the difficulties of holding a general election during a pandemic is in the mix, and its enactment or abandonment could have a major impact on the chaos so many observers fear will transpire in November.

In the context of the trillions of dollars Congress has already appropriated for coronavirus relief and stimulus, election assistance involves sofa-cushion money. House Democrats have sought to secure the funds identified by the Brennan Center for Justice as necessary for “COVID-19 Election Resiliency Measures,” from facilitating voting by mail and curbside voting to polling-place and poll-worker safety, to the task of registering new voters (which has to take place in person in some states). Its original estimate of $2 billion was adopted by congressional Democrats in the negotiations leading to the CARES Act, though they only wrung $400 million from Republicans hostile to the use of federal funds to expand voting by mail. Brennan’s revised estimate of $4 billion for “election resiliency” is now the basis for the $3.6 billion election assistance ($4 billion minus the $400 million provided in CARES) proposed in House Democrats’ HEROES Act, passed in May and the baseline for both House and Senate Democratic negotiators today.

The White House/GOP HEALS proposal, unveiled in late July, has no money for election assistance, though that difference has been dwarfed by the larger gap between the parties on general fiscal assistance to state and local governments (nearly a trillion dollars in HEROES, and no new money in HEALS beyond whatever unspent money left over from CARES can be repurposed). Democrats have dropped earlier efforts to mandate expanded voting by mail in exchange for election assistance, a key sticking point with Republicans.

Now that Trump has announced a workaround for the most time-sensitive issues created by the expiration of CARES — a highly dubious workaround, but at least a gesture — the perceived pressure on Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats (who are taking a very hard line on concessions) has dropped, and odds that nothing will happen at all, or for a good while at least, have accordingly increased.

So state and local election officials cannot afford to count on any help at all from the Feds between now and November, and that’s causing serious alarm, as the Associated Press reports:

Congress’ failure so far to pass another round of coronavirus aid leaves state and local officials on their own to deal with the soaring costs of holding a presidential election amid a deadly pandemic …

Experts point to the rocky execution of the primaries since the pandemic began, in which there were numerous reports of absentee ballots failing to arrive or rejected for being late. Primaries were marred by hours-long lines in Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Las Vegas as polling places were consolidated.

“Without proper funding, guidance, and preparedness, the problems seen in previous elections are going to be just the tip of the iceberg this November,” Sylvia Albert, voting and elections director with Common Cause, warned lawmakers during a congressional hearing last week.

Earlier expectations that the pandemic might have run its course by the end of the summer are looking wildly over-optimistic now. Yet the intensity of the presidential contest in a hyper-polarized electorate is such that very high turnout is likely — if, that is, election systems don’t break from the strain, with millions of voters not receiving mail ballots in time to return them via a slowed-down postal service, and in-person voting on and shortly before Election Day slowing to a crawl at a sharply reduced number of polling places.

The central political question now is whether shoddy election infrastructure has become part of a Trump/GOP plan to win the election via reduced or skewed turnout patterns. In an overview of Republican voter suppression techniques, Perry Bacon Jr. mentions five: opposing legal changes to make voting by mail easier; reversing temporary rules adopted during the primaries to make voting by mail easier; targeted disenfranchisement efforts (e.g., restrictions on early in-person voting; not allowing students to vote where they live; the Florida GOP’s efforts to re-disenfranchise ex-felons); rhetoric designed to undermine confidence in the electoral system; and sinister structural gambits like slowing down mail service. All true and all important, but a sixth — an overwhelmed infrastructure for casting and counting ballots — is perhaps the most tempting to the GOP. It’s also the easiest, since all they have to do is to refuse to help as election officials slowly sink under the tide of COVID-19-related problems.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Trump Revives Racist Birther Conspiracy for Kamala Harris
« Reply #16887 on: August 14, 2020, 09:22:51 AM »
Though Donald Trump flirted for years with an entrance into politics, it was the election of Barack Obama — and the bogus claim that the first Black president was not born in the United States — that finally brought him into the civic sphere. Over a decade after Trump launched his political career on the back of a racist conspiracy theory, he has revived the claim for the first Black vice-presidential nominee in U.S. history: On Thursday, just two days after Harris was named Joe Biden’s VP pick, Trump suggested that she may not be eligible for the job.

“I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements, and by the way the lawyer who wrote the piece is highly qualified, very talented,” Trump said in his coronavirus press conference. He was referring to a Newsweek column in which conservative law professor John Eastman claimed that Harris may not be considered a natural-born citizen — a requirement for the presidency — because of what he calls the original understanding of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. As Axios notes, “Eastman’s view on birthright citizenship and presidential eligibility is not accepted by constitutional law scholars.”

Earlier in the day, Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis also presented Eastman’s op-ed as grounds for a birther revival, calling the baseless concern “an open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible.”

Democrats anticipated that the Trump campaign would run a campaign steeped in racism if the vice-presidential nominee was a woman of color. According to Politico, during the vetting of Senator Tammy Duckworth, the selection committee was concerned that Republicans would question Duckworth — born in Bangkok to a father who was an American citizen and Defense employee — on her legitimacy as a candidate. (The concerns would also be bogus: Duckworth is legally a natural-born citizen.) But with another Black nominee on the ballot, Trump is returning to his wheelhouse, questioning the citizenship of a candidate born in the United States.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile

A California appeals court’s decision could soon make it harder for Amazon to skirt responsibility for unsafe products sold on its platform.

On Thursday, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled that Amazon can be held liable for damages caused by a defective replacement laptop battery that caught fire and gave a woman third-degree burns. The woman, Angela Bolger, alleges she bought the laptop battery from a third-party seller, Lenoge Technology HK Ltd., on Amazon’s marketplace.

The ruling deals a major blow to Amazon, which has for years successfully fought off lawsuits that try to place liability on the company for faulty products sold through its site that cause injury and property damage.

“Consumers across the nation will feel the impact of this,” said Jeremy Robinson, an attorney for Bolger.

Representatives from Amazon didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Amazon’s sprawling marketplace, which hosts millions of third-party sellers, now accounts for approximately 60% of the company’s e-commerce sales. While the marketplace has helped Amazon bring in record revenue, it has also proven to host counterfeit, unsafe and even expired goods. The company has previously said it invests hundreds of millions of dollars per year to ensure products sold are safe and compliant.

Amazon has long maintained it’s only the conduit between buyers and sellers on its marketplace and that it’s not involved in the sourcing or distribution of products sold by third-party sellers, removing it from liability. It’s been a successful defense for Amazon in the past, including in a 2018 case concerning the purchase of a faulty hoverboard that exploded and burned down an Amazon shopper’s house in Tennessee.

The company still faces several ongoing product liability cases in state and federal courts across the country.

In Bolger’s case, the court ruled that Amazon placed itself in “the chain of distribution” of the faulty laptop battery by, among other things, storing the product in its warehouses, receiving payment and shipping the product, as well as setting “the terms of its relationship” with the third-party seller and demanding “substantial fees on each purchase.”

“Whatever term we use to describe Amazon’s role, be it ‘retailer,’ ‘distributor,’ or merely ‘facilitator,’ it was pivotal in bringing the product here to the consumer,” the court said. “Under established principles of strict liability, Amazon should be held liable if a product sold through its website turns out to be defective.”

The court said Amazon also can’t be shielded from liability through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law from the 1990s that protects online platforms from being held responsible for content their users post on their sites.
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15276
    • View Profile
Michael Cohen accuses Trump of infidelity and corruption in tell-all book
« Reply #16889 on: August 14, 2020, 09:33:20 AM »
<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>
NECROCAPITALISM at ‘Rolling thunder. Shock. A noble one in fear and dread sets things in order and is watchful.’ I-Ching (Hex.51)