HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 152 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: 22,922

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives


Given the politics of where Western democracies are going, Gonzalez' words seem relevant.


Two Competing Visions of Food and the Future -- Bill Gates and Dr. Vandana Shiva

At times it's good to review the obvious for the same reasons we still say "I love you" when others already know that.

Food, farmlands, biodiversity, envisioning the future are paths so worn that we lose sight of those who would shuttle us into their more synthetic or profitable paths.

Thinking about humans' future, can Vandana Shiva and Bill Gates coordinate a future for human good? Whose activities will do the greatest good for the greatest number?

Monsanto's insurgency and Gates' insurgency on farmland and food supply are facts. It's even said that their goals are the same.
Human producers of food are the worst sufferers of the world's food crisis.

Diversity of species is the base on which we produce our food. Kill biodiversity, kill food. Yet we wouldn't think that, given the caloric intake of rich countries, which doesn't necessarily mean nutritional intake. It's also true that whole food is medicine.

Industrial farming imposes water pollution, climate change; it destroys biodiversity, and sacrifices 8,500 crops for 8 commodities.

Eating is a ecological, ethical, political and agricultural act.
No more separation between those who grow the food and those who eat food.
No more for-profit separation of humans from nature's abundance.

How old this is shows how old these food and future vision conflicts are.

Forget Brand, and for now just take in some information.

Who is buying up Earth essentials is who we need to see.

If we keep on our radar the names of those controlling land and energy, we can glimpse their visions of humans' future, how they use theirs and others' power to get humans there.

Collecting land and knowledge (data and research) is what the 1% do. To them, human free will is secondary and not self evident. The way I see them so far (not very well), their efforts don't encourage a collective unity of any vision but theirs. Their efforts don't look democratic. To find out what they know requires FOIAs, political will, both kind of useless when finding out what the Davos crowd's up to.

I don't credit our political opponents with foresight or wisdom, yet this 1%'er activity might be one reason some Republicans say democracy is not important. The politics of AZ vote count theatrics to AI algorithms to fascism to plutocracy and autocracy are 1% dark money donor financed. History's shown that however benevolent such governance begins, it goes downhill for anyone but the 1%.

So, we're not just facing the Kochs, Mercers and Waltons' Republican visions. We need to see the vision of a big donor to Democrats, Bill Gates. I'd like to optimistically believe he's a force for a good anthropocene, but so far, his activities don't support my politics or vision of the future.

Some want to guide Earth's future while others pursue space control. I don't mind being among the puny humans who can only watch them, as long as my descendants get to live a better future than what's being envisioned by the 1% right now. Beyond Biden and Harris, I don't see any way this government will 'swerve' their power. I see them controlling global wealth and allowing the veneer of democracy to those humans who want it.

Some readings...

Your thoughts...?

To The Facebook Oversight Board

To The Facebook Oversight Board --

Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei
Evelyn Awad
Endy Bayuni
Catalina Botero-Marino
Katherine Chen
Nighat Dad
Jamal Greene
Tawakkol Karman
Maina Kiai
Sudhir Krishnaswamy
Ronaldo Lemos
Michael McConnell
Suzanne Nossel
Julie Owono
Emi Palmor
Alan Rusbridger
Andras Sajo
John Samples
Nicolas Suzor
Helle Thorning-Schmidt

When you 'rule' on whether Donald Trump can rejoin Facebook, remember that it is public knowledge in the U.S. that

-- during Trump's presidency you allowed him to break your Terms of Service countless times without suspending him;
-- during his presidency you allowed him to post fundraising issues to solicit followers' donations;
-- from Nov 4 2020 until Jan 6 you allowed his 2000+ posts to claim that the 2020 election was stolen, which led to his 'friends' storming the U.S. Capitol on his behalf on Jan 6 to literally stop Congress from certifying America's popular and electoral vote;
-- you only suspended him when other platforms banned him for life;
-- he will use Facebook to post the same claims again;
-- you routinely suspend U.S. citizens for posts that don't adhere to your never-defined "Community" or its "Standards," suspensions that you base on other posters' "reports", with many suspensions lasting for at least a month at a time.

If you decide, one day short of four months of his attempt to delegitimize the election and incite seditious insurrection on Congress, that Trump may rejoin Facebook, you have shown that you are not a neutral platform in

-- your disregard for abuse of the First Amendment, since you would continue to allow a public figure to repeatedly yell "fire" in your platform theater when other platforms do not,
-- your accommodation of fake covid claims and fake covid cure claims,
-- your disregard for his followers to call their fellow Americans, once again, liars in their votes,
— your platform's support for his disproven claims about being elected "by a landslide" when other platforms do not,
-- your allowing his followers a platform to repeat his lies about popular vote fraud,
— your disregard for his and his believers’ predictable repeating of lies that Joe Biden's presidency is illegitimate,
— allowing him and his believers' continued poisoning of truthful public knowledge that Joe Biden is the legitimate president through their fellow Americans' popular vote (81+ million) and Electoral College votes,
-- your continued disregard for continued poisoning of democratic discourse that continues to cry "fire" on your platform,
-- your accommodation of debunked inflammatory conspiracist claims,
— your trustworthiness in promoting "community standards"
-- your pro-Trumpism,
-- your anti-democracy stance,
-- corporate disregard for who and what secures or endangers Americans' freedoms and democracy.

If you rule that Trump can rejoin Facebook, you, more than any social media platform, will prove that Facebook is not to be trusted by at least 81 million Americans who have the common sense to know factual truth from lies. You will prove to be unwilling to learn from history. As the boycotts continue against American companies, I'll be among the Americans who close their Facebook accounts, and you'll likely become Parler lite.

Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow -- Facebook's Ruling On Trump's Suspension

from Chris Hayes

from Rachel Maddow -- start 31:56

from The New Yorker

The Politics of Earth Cleanup Policy: End Fossil Fuel Plastic Before It Kills Earth and Us

Beyond the focus on our political opponents is still the world that will impact everyone.

By 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. It’s an environmental crisis in the making for nearly 70 years. Plastic pollution stands with agricultural CO2 emissions as one of the largest environmental threats facing humans and animals globally. Because it affects 70% of Earth.

100 companies should not be killing the oceans, land earthlings and 7.5 billion of us for money. It's "bad for business."
When oceans die, so will multi-celled land life.

The "fundamental" problems:
-- political laziness to end production & use of fossil fuel and single use plastics.
-- attacking plastic from the death end to the production end
-- ignoring and neglecting the well being of our descendants.



StarTalk Podcast: The Code of Life and CRISPR with Jennifer Doudna and Walter Isaacson

Start 1:10 for discussion of Doudna and The Code Breaker

Additionally, the ethics of gene editing is being handled by both this scientist patent holder (15 patents) along with the public labs at their universities -- Berkeley and Harvard, the DoD and the National Academy of Sciences. There shouldn't be public worry about corporate patent control.

Look up hers and Charpentier's lead lawyer, Eldora Ellison, who has explained to the federal judiciary the nuances of both biology and law. SCOTUS could use at least one justice who understands both biology and technology. I'd love for Biden to nominate her.

Because Ellison's explanations of science and law to both the U.S. Patent Office and the U.S. Court of Appeals are on record, Doudna and Charpentier have also been awarded, as of 2020, major patents in Britain, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Mexico.

Doudna wrote the initial version of this 2015 report by Paul Berg (father of recombinant DNA), of what was the Napa conference. The conference report suggests ethical guidelines. It got coverage on page 1 of The New York Times, though the paper's headline was misleading.

President Biden's State of the Union Address

Start 25:00

For the first time in American history

From the 'Nip This Shit In The Bud' File: "Derek Chauvin Is Not a Victim" by Tim Wise

For right-wing lawmakers hoping to raise money in time for their mid-term campaigns, few bogeymen serve the purpose as well as Congresswoman Maxine Waters. As a Black woman and racial justice advocate, Waters ticks any number of boxes on the side of the ledger marked: Things the far-right despises.

And so it’s no surprise that as we awaited the jury’s decision in the trial of former officer Derek Chauvin, her words to protesters would be deliberately twisted to suggest she had issued a call to violence in the event of a not guilty verdict. What better way to conjure the specter of Black mobs and liberal perfidy? What better way to shift attention from the murderer in the room, Chauvin, and the brutal law enforcement apparatus he served?

When Waters joined the protest over the recent police killing of Daunte Wright and told demonstrators they would need to “stay in the streets” and be “more confrontational” should Chauvin be acquitted, she was not encouraging riots. Confrontation only means violence in this instance if you presume that Black people are irrational beings without the capacity for strategic thought or discernment. And however much white conservatives might view them in such a manner, it goes without saying that Waters does not. She believes they understand what confrontation means, the same way civil rights protesters did when Dr. King called the Birmingham campaign “Operation C” (and yes, the “C” was for confrontation).

Perhaps Waters should have known her words would be mangled this way by the right. Fine. If so, one can fault her for presuming good faith from those who despise her and the causes for which she fights. But at some point, one has to place the blame squarely where it belongs: not on the congresswoman, but on those who deliberately stoke public fear and anger with claims they know are false.


Tim Wise was an antiracist before antiracism was cool. We should never allow the Right to raise money off lies. We need to point out lies until the racist gullibles know that 81 million of us are going to show them up and beat them down in 2022.


Yo, brother Carville? Ain't no such thing as "too woke."

We need to talk. You need to listen.

Ain't no such thing as "too woke" in the service of democracy.

NO, Carville, "wokeness" is not a "problem." WOKE IS CONSCIOUSNESS. Of America's actual history of racism, sexism, pollution, voting rights politics.

"Woke" is only a problem for the stupid, as in "It's the economy, stupid."

You need to stop serving up RW talking points to Republicans.
Black people coined that term, and right wing whites think they can denigrate it -- starting with Bill Maher, a Democrat who barely tolerates Democrats.

This "woke" denigration is a re-hash of the old denigration of "political correctness" -- which was always really about moral correctness and how it aggravated the shit out of Americans who wanted to be judgmental of their fellows in the name of freeedom! Something Christians ought to recognize.

Woke has become a dog whistle for anti-Black sentiment. Black people coined the term WOKE back in the pre-BLM days. Now racist whites think they can denigrate it. Bill Maher ain't woke, and neither are you to try to "start somethin" in your party.

You, brother Carville, muddy public discourse and "start shit." You seldom think through how to shatter right wing sound bite bullshit.

Yours is the help that is no help. Fall back.

As Fran Liebowitz thoughtfully says: Think before you speak. Read before you think.

Dr. Umar Johnson -- Education Issues and Ideas, and the Pitch for Homeschooling

Takeaway: Can home schooling solve public school problems? Yes, if parents reimagine themselves enough to become full time teachers and masters of planning, instruction and outcome measures for at least four subjects. Simple.

Way better:


The system broken, the school's closed, the prisons open
We ain't got nothing' to lose, ma' fucka', we rolling
Huh? Ma'fucka', we rollin'
With some light-skinned girls and some Kelly Rowlands
In this white man's world, we the ones chosen
So goodnight, cruel world, I see you in the mornin'
Huh? I'll see you in the mornin'
This is way too much, I need a moment ...

Kanye West, "Power"
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 152 Next »