HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Chicago
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 10,139

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives

Gov Jay Inslee Signs Workforce Education Investment Act

The act creates a new account, the Workforce Education Investment Account, that may only be used for higher education programs, operations, compensation and state-funded student aid programs.

The bill was opposed by the Washington Retail Association and the Independent Business Association of Washington, as well as independent physician clinics. They argued it would lead to increased costs and make it difficult for rural doctors to stay in business. It passed largely along party lines.

Students whose families make $50,000 or less for a family of four can go to a two- or four-year public college in Washington tuition-free, and students whose families make up to the median income — nearly $92,000 for a family of four— will also get some aid.

With the additional funding, Washington will spend $845 million over the 2019-2021 biennium for financial aid. It may be “the most generous-promise financial aid program in the country” — not just because of the award amounts, but also because of the different ways the money can be used, said Rachelle Sharpe, deputy executive director of the Washington Student Achievement Council, which oversees financial aid.

For example: The grant aid can be used by any Washington resident who qualifies, who doesn’t already have a bachelor’s degree, and who wants to earn something less than a full degree (such as a certificate) at a community college. It can be used at 66 schools in Washington (including many of the state’s private universities) and allows students to go part-time. It also covers apprenticeships



High Likelihood Human Civilization Coming to an End starting 2050

The Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, a think-tank in Melbourne, Australia, describes climate change as "a near- to mid-term existential threat to human civilization" and sets out a plausible scenario of where business-as-usual could lead over the next 30 years.

Its paper argues that the potentially "extremely serious outcomes" of climate-related security threats are often far more probable than conventionally assumed, but almost impossible to quantify because they "fall outside the human experience of the last thousand years."

On our current trajectory, the report warns, "planetary and human systems [are] reaching a 'point of no return' by mid-century, in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order."


There are no models anymore to predict the earth's dynamics of heat, food destruction and water.

No military can stop the billion who will migrate. Today's 65 million will jump to 150 - 200 million refugees.

Scale and speed are the only game in town when it comes to stopping climate change.

Start at the 2:00 minute point for Australia's assessment.

Gov. Jay Inslee's Global Climate Mobilization Plan

For Jay Inslee, no other framework covers both our domestic economy and international standing than the climate crisis.

No one knows the scope and scalability of climate change work than Gov. Inslee.

His plan has five tenets:

-- Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, a 195-nation sweeping agreement to combat climate change that Trump opted to leave in 2017, fulfilling a campaign promise.
-- Studying climate migration, reversing a Trump administration to remove protections for refugees from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua, and pledging to increase the number of refugees resettled by the United States.
-- Including enforceable climate standards for all new US trade agreements, "including conditioning trade deals on countries' commitment to robust implementation of the Paris Agreement" and increasing barriers for the trade of fossil fuels.
-- Doubling the US investment in the Global Climate Fund to help the proliferation of green technology.
-- Working to make substantial cuts to fossil fuel subsidies, and "implementing widespread prohibitions against financing for fossil fuel projects overseas."

Inslee, in early May, rolled out a sweeping plan aimed at combating climate change that, if enacted, would mean a wholesale change to the way the United States
-- builds buildings,
-- manufactures cars and
-- supplies the power grid and
-- cuts US coal production by 2030.

And later May, Inslee unveiled a jobs plan that promises the creation of 8 million jobs over the next 10 years with a laser-like focus on combating climate change.

The plan -- titled the "Global Climate Mobilization" -- is the third policy roll out from Inslee's campaign that aims to link a range of issues to climate change, the issue that Inslee is staking his entire campaign on.


Jay Inslee On Climate Change -- "I have a plan for that." His interview with Yale 360.

" The climate crisis is not a single issue, it’s every issue.

It’s the economy.

It’s healthcare.

It’s our nation’s security.

It’s every issue and the one that is most urgent."

Inslee has since unveiled two major climate change proposals. One would require “zero-emission” electricity generation across the U.S. by 2035.

The other calls for the federal government to invest $3 trillion over a decade to upgrade buildings, create “climate-smart infrastructure,” encourage “clean manufacturing,” and research “next-generation” energy technologies.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York, one of the authors of the Green New Deal, recently tweeted that Inslee’s plans were “the most serious + comprehensive” of any of the candidate’s.


America, Love Yourself. Show Me The Things You Believe In.


Clint Watts is solid.

DU needs to review his latest advice for the Primaries and General.


I urge DU and beyond to read the whole article. When it comes to Truth manipulation, Putin and Kremlin are chess players.

Modified Excerpts

From Russia’s perspective, the American 2020 election will require a lighter touch than 2016.

1. Their troll farm and state-sponsored news outlets won’t need to make “fake news”; America’s candidates and political parties will make plenty for American audiences.

2. Most American discussions of Kremlin influence see Putin's stance as pro-Republican and anti-Democrat.

That’s not correct.

The formula is pro-populist, anti-establishment.

On the whole, populist movements may be healthy injections of political participation...But for the Kremlin, they offer a disorganized, easily infiltrated counter to establishment governments that check Putin’s power.

Why? Because Populists often lack sufficient foreign policy knowledge; so their inexperience leaves them ill-equipped to react to Putin maneuvers.

3. In 2020, Kremlin propagandists will seek to connect populist right and populist left audiences through shared narratives designed to
-- normalize Russia’s agenda in America,
-- demoralize democratic constituents and
-- neutralize political establishment counters to Russian advances abroad and inroads into American society.

The Kremlin wants Americans on both sides of the political spectrum -- far right, far left -- using the same talking points even if they have drastically different ideologies:
-- America should withdraw from foreign battlefields and global markets, and
-- democracy is a corrupt sham that can’t be trusted.

How? the Kremlin will simply amplify the readily available American-made content to further divide the U.S. electorate.

Putin’s propagandists will employ the “Five R’s” on American conservatives:

-- remind Americans of their missteps,
-- repost (reshare & retweet) organic American content supporting Russia’s agenda,
-- repurpose vitriolic American narratives to manipulate unwitting audiences,
-- repeat White House attacks on other Americans, and
-- route conspiracies and alternative content through fringe populist information sources.

As Malcolm Nance said at USC recently, first Putin creates the Big Frame (e.g., "We Told You So" for US right wing media.

To start: It's FRAME Russian Innocence, then FLOOD American Perfidy and Doubt.
In April, when no Mueller Report had reached Congress, Putin, echoing Barr andTrump, told an audience in St. Petersburg, which got reported by both left and right media here:
-- “We said from the start that this infamous commission of Mr. Mueller’s would not find anything because
-- nobody knows this better than us.
-- Russia did not meddle in any elections in the United States.
-- There was no collusion, as Mr. Mueller said, between Trump and Russia.”

Breitbart, Fox News, the One America News Network and the Daily Caller echo Putin. Oleg Deripaska gets some op-ed space, too.

More surprising and striking success for Russia’s disinformation are the machine repeats of Kremlin narratives by the White House itself. President Trump repeated on at least three occasions highly specific pieces of Russian propaganda alleging
-- Polish aggression toward Belarus,
-- claiming Montenegro to be an aggressive country and offering
-- that the Soviet Union went to war in Afghanistan to stop terrorists. These claims are not only false positions crafted by the Kremlin, but Trump is taking Putin’s side against U.S. allies and America’s own previously held positions.

With this many conservatives mainlining Russian thinking into American minds, the Kremlin won’t have to do much with them in 2020.

In 2016, Populists on the political right were the primary focus, with the political left getting the remainder.
In 2020, this formula will likely reverse.

...identify, highlight and empower the unwitting and the like-minded on the political left. (Relevant examples of their engagement from 2016: the open courting of former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, and pursuit of the NRA and Christian communities...)

Tulsi Gabbard fell into this crossfire with her meeting with and support of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. It situated her as a bridge between anti-Israel activists of the political left and white supremacists like former KKK leader and GOP Louisiana state representative David Duke, who tweeted, “Tulsi Gabbard is currently the only Presidential candidate who doesn’t want to send White children off to die for Israel.” Alt-right leader Richard Spencer and the nationalist Mike Cernovich also fanned support for Gabbard in January 2019. We shouldn’t forget Steve Bannon sought Gabbard out for a meeting with President-elect Trump in November 2016.

Online and on-the-ground convergence between the populist right and the populist left is happening in plain sight—all the Kremlin has to do is help it grow.

Beyond Tulsi Gabbard, Russia’s propagandists will seek agents-of-influence, individuals inside the American government and media able to influence national policy. The agents they seek this time around will largely be across the political left, seeking to amplify and connect their preferred Kremlin message with that of the right.

Putin wants Americans to hear from Americans
-- that America is littered with infighting and violence between identity groups;
-- that capitalism a corrupt system empowering elites over the people;
-- that the U.S. an imperialist war mongering country,
-- that democracy is a fraud perpetrated by competing elitist factions and
-- that the nation is destined for a divided dystopian future.

Dystopia and its people:


Supreme Court Passes Up a Chance to Reconsider Roe

Source: Mother Jones

Tuesday, the court declined to hear the Indiana case. The per curiam opinion explaining the court's reasoning for the denial didn't reveal the vote breakdown, but the decision was supported by at least one of the court's most conservative members: Clarence Thomas.

Tuesday's decision in favor of Planned Parenthood wasn't rooted in any sort of desire to preserve abortion rights, but rather in procedural issues.

Both Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote separately to say they would have blocked the fetal remains law. "This case implicates 'the right of [a] woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,'" Ginsburg wrote, arguing that Indiana's petition should have been denied completely.

Indiana has one more controversial abortion case still pending before the court, involving a state law that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 18 hours before receiving an abortion. The 7th Circuit held that the law created an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion, without any "known benefits," and blocked its implementation. Indiana appealed to the Supreme Court, which will consider the petition again on Thursday.

Read more: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/supreme-court-passes-up-on-a-chance-to-reconsider-roe/?fbclid=IwAR2yCX7UrEsjsEC_gkfhGwxyOfNV9caCOKaxtpXHIMn_fvHm5qKlGlPQPWg

A cynical take is that SCOTUS realizes that a total reversal of Roe at this point would be a disaster for the GOP, and that the conservative wing of the court serves the GOP more than it serves the Constitution.

A Roe reversal at this point would not only deprive the GOP of one of their two favorite wedge and fundraising issues before the 2020 election (the other one being guns)

A more constitutional take is that, since 70% of Americans support Roe, it would create a nightmarish backlash, propelling the abortion issue toward the top of the list of issues influencing people's votes.

Until SCOTUS shows a pattern of refusing to hear state-generated cases, it can't yet be clear to half the public that Roe is, indeed, settled.

Long term, if half the country doesn't stay vigilant, SCOTUS could well be content to chip away at Roe a little at a time, while states unduly burden women legally to the point where a Roe reversal would scarcely be noticed.

Jay Inslee's Washington Ranks #1

If this news doesn't prove the makings of a great president, I don't know what would!

From US News and World Report



Inslee's Washington state Ranked Number One

From US News and World Report



Been drinkin' and thinkin' about Game of Thrones' finale. I loved it. Here's why.

Just thought I'd put this out there, for better or worse...

Game of Thrones' ending is what life actually is -- not everyone gets exactly what they want for all their suffering, but everyone gets equality of free will and peace through compromise.

Expecting storybook ending, or one of "blood, drama and tears" is a child's view of story endings. Life isn't neatly wrapped up as are stories for children, and neither is the future. Adults realize that the best stories help them cope with life.

GOT's ending shows that the Game of Thrones was one of blood revenge for previous wrongs, crimes and betrayals, and Loyalty as the highest good. GOT showed the morality of old world kingdoms, even of those who wanted to "liberate" good people who'd follow them.

Drogon melted the symbol of all that.

The finale made sure the following were resolved from old testament-style "justice" to new testament-style mercy and forgiveness:

1. What Danaerys' told Jon Snow of the future -- her idea of "liberation" by death for "good people" who "don't get to choose" -- her destruction of Kings' Landing was the 'tell.'

2. The deaths of all the revenge driven leaders, who lived by the "Game" ended their game.

3. The decision that no more leaders existed by accident of birth but by the free will decisions of representatives of The People created a transition away from 'the game.'

4. Tyrion's claim that powerful stories never die, and that Bran had the best story and knowledge of the kingdoms, reassured that visionary leadership can guide power.

It was Bran who knew that free will had to rule at the end. Because Bran knew freedom across the kingdoms would have to be based on that, my interpretation stands that this ending was best.

The finale made sure to show that the story, "Game of..." history wasn't just old history, or the end of history, but the beginning of a new world herstory of rule by respect for everyone's free will and equality.

Bran's assent to Sansa and Grey Worm was given out of respect their free wills, and a model of keeping peace through compromise. So was Jon Snow's compromise.

The whole "wheel is broken" thing, along with Tyrions's speech about the power of story, were the two keys to understanding how the morality of free will, mercy and forgiveness are better than the "game" morality of force and revenge.

This story, going forward -- of a new, "broken" king who transitions six kingdoms away from the old morality of 'born' leadership -- is a great ending. The real drama of life is governing oneself wisely, not dramatically.

I thought GOT was emotional, powerful, and thoughtful -- Game of Thrones itself was part and parcel of Tyrion's speech about the power of story.

Humans really prefer stories -- lies that tell the truth -- over straight truth. This is what Game of Thrones did.

It's up to the followers of that story to finally "get it."

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »