A Reminder That 'Princess Leia' Is An O.G. Mental Health Hero


Obama Administration Approves Plan To Make Prison Phone Calls More Affordable


Today’s vote will never make up for the inactions of the past, but it is my hope that the order will finally bring relief to those that have waited for so long

I Live Without Borders

Wired 2015.

Nayda Tolokonnikova

There is the sad Russian joke about a Russian going through passport control and he gets asked by an officer: "Occupation?" "No," replies the Russian. "Just visiting!"
Every time I go through passport control somewhere, I am really lost when an officer at border control asks me about the purpose of my visit. I really do not know what to answer.
I feel that I do not fit into the existing categories. I live without borders.
Am I just visiting all the places where I go to? But what if I'm here to do a speech or to work, to make a political protest, to write a song or to a live for a while in a place -- am I living, working, visiting or am I doing something else?
My home is everywhere and nowhere -- yesterday I was in Sofia, Bulgaria, today I am in London and in a week I'll be in Moscow.
I live without borders.
When Ai Weiwei was finally allowed to travel outside of China, we met him in Berlin. Now he's in Beijing, in a week he'll be back in Berlin. There are few borders people actually do know these days.
When my convoy delivered me to Moscow from my first prison, the prison boss questioned us on what cities we were from. When it was my turn, I answered:
"I am a citizen of the world!"
The prison boss got mad and started yelling:
"Outside you're a citizen, but here you're just a convict!"
As the feminist philosopher Rosie Braidotti says: "At the start of the third millennium, in an age of global and differentiated mobility, a diffuse sort of nomadism defines the location of many subjects..."
So today's nomadism is a clear understanding about the mobility of borders, it's an intense feeling to cross the territories and borders of everyone.
As Braidotti puts it (and please, please read her if you haven't!), the ideal nomad has the following qualities:
One -- mobility -- the possibility to move without mentioning borders, to cross the borders of others.
Two -- the unclear definition of yourself -- it's when you feel yourself as a citizen of the world and shift boundaries that define your nationality, location, citizenship, race and class.
Three -- activity, a nomad is very active and political.
The global economy is already built according to the ideals of nomadism -- it alreadyknows no borders. Laws and goverments are much slower, they really lag and fall behind.
Our governments still believe in the power of borders -- and thats why Europe closes its borders to refugees and Putin takes Crimea. We have to step away from this 19th century logic and understand how to live in the 21st century -- without borders. The 21st century is the century of ideas, not the century of locked borders, razor wires, refugee camps and huge armies.
And what is globalization in the good sense, if we really are living in a global world? It is the free movement of people, along with goods and ideas.
Migrants are innovative and entrepreneurial. In the 19th century, a third of the population of Sweden, Ireland and Italy emigrated to America and other countries. The U.S. is the very best example of how dynamic a country of immigrants can be.
We are huge fans of the concept that the increase in immigration we are seeing right now will greatly boost Europe's economic growth, just as it has boosted and allowed the U.S. to become a prosperous nation and thrive in early 20th century. Europe andespecially new-age technology pioneers have to think of the best way to collaborate and integrate with new Europeans that are coming from the Middle East, Africa, Asia and everywhere.
Let's show that democratic nations are capable not only to send bombs as their response to international matters -- but to welcome millions of new citizens and work together with them to achieve great results.
We as citizens must not wait for our governments who can be too slow, too inert, way too plagued by populist votes and tendencies -- but let's take control of the situation ourselves, create networks and use technology to do what our own governments can't do.

Kerry Offers Optimism On Israeli-Palestinian Violence After Meeting With Netanyahu


The Benghazi Committee's Out of Control Effort to Destroy Hillary Clinton at All Costs


Posted: Updated: 
BENGHAZI
Print
The following is David Brock's Oct. 21, 2015 speech at the World Affairs Council in Philadelphia in advance of Secretary Hillary Clinton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Two years ago tomorrow, Media Matters published a book called The Benghazi Hoaxin which we exposed how Republicans had twisted the facts, invented charges out of thin air, and dishonored the memory of four brave Americans who died in Benghazi in their attempt to turn a national tragedy into a political weapon.

Last month, I published Killing the Messenger, a book whose subtitle is: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary and Hijack Your Government. The centerpiece of the book is about the centerpiece of that plot: a partisan witch hunt that began with the despicable politicization of a terrorist attack on the United States and has since spiraled into a desperate fishing expedition and completely out of control effort to destroy Hillary Clinton at all costs. 

Today, Secretary Clinton will testify before the Benghazi Select Committee, as she has been asking to do for months. She's been called not because of the committee's concerns about diplomatic security, but about her emails.

Clinton's use of a personal email account as Secretary of State followed the law and followed precedent. It has nothing to do with Benghazi, as the committee chairman himself has admitted.

But to Republicans, it doesn't matter. As I detail in Killing the Messenger, the Benghazi investigation was never about getting to the bottom of what actually happened. It was always a dirt-digging operation, a wild search for some hint of scandal that could stop Barack Obama from being re-elected, and, when that failed, stop Hillary Clinton from succeeding him.

And in the days that followed my book's release, Republicans started to finally admit it.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy didn't just acknowledge the Benghazi hoax, he boasted about it.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" he crowed. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping." The GOP's goal, McCarthy added in his mangled English, was to paint Clinton as "untrustable." 

Then another Republican Congressman, Richard Hanna, confessed that the committee was "designed to go after" Hillary.

And last week, Republican officials told the New York Times that the committee began focusing on emails because Speaker of the House John Boehner thought it was "a way to keep the issue alive and to cause political problems for her campaign."

Meanwhile, a whistleblower emerged from within the committee staff: a former investigator, Air Force Reserve officer, and self-described conservative Republican named Bradley Podliska.

Major Podliska told CNN of the absurdity of life on the Benghazi committee. Staffers regularly wasted time online and sometimes drank on the job. Several joined a "gun buying club," whiling away the hours at the office designing personalized weapons -- "chrome-plated, monogrammed, Tiffany-style Glock 9-millimeters," to be exact.

He also reported that the committee "trained its sights almost exclusively on Clinton" following news reports on her emails. And he revealed that he had been fired for refusing to go along -- which would make his firing unlawful.

The committee responded by attacking Podliska as a "lousy employee" and divulging details of his employment -- which is also against the law, in this case the Congressional Accountability Act, which prohibited the committee from making public the details of the ongoing mediation surrounding Podliska's firing.

Indeed, this response was just the kind of thing you'd expect from a political war room, which is exactly what the Benghazi Select Committee is.

Bernie Sanders Plays The Bongos To Ben Harper's ‘Burn One Down’

Bernie Sanders Bongos

He's already got the rock star-sized crowds, so if the presidential thing doesn’t work out it’s good to know he’s just a percussion kit away from a new career.

Obama Administration Approves Plan To Make Prison Phone Calls More Affordable


"Today’s vote will never make up for the inactions of the past, but it is my hope that the order will finally bring relief to those that have waited for so long."

Our Presidential Race Picture Is Hugely Distorted by Our Bad Voting System


Posted: Updated: 
VOTING
Print
Our democracy's decisions should reflect voter views. But we are using a bad system: essentially "name one candidate, then shut up." Political scientists call that "theplurality system" (British: "first past the post").
That's a flawed system for evaluating true popular sentiment. It only can know what each voter thinks about just one candidate, ignoring their opinions about everybody else.
The 2000 US Presidential race demonstrated these flaws. If your favorite candidate was Nader, then voting honestly was stupid since your vote would be wasted. Ditto if your favorite was Patrick Buchanan, another third-party candidate. That risk of a wasted vote was why 90% of the voters whose favorite was Nader or Buchanan voted for somebody else altogether in 2000. So not only does the plurality system first tell you it just doesn't care about and doesn't want to hear your opinions about anybody besides just one candidate, it then also incentivizes you to lie about even the mere sliver of information it does solicit.
The system rewards NOT telling the truth about who or what you really want.
That often causes the most popular view to lose because of vote-splitting. Indeed, that's exactly how George Bush Jr. won the presidency in 2000. Unfortunately Bush left office with the lowest approval rating of any president ever -- 22%. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, over four thousand dead Americans, and a financial crisis, testify that the cost of such distortions of public sentiment can be very high. We need a better voting system.
Among people who study voting systems, ours ranks very low indeed. In fact, none of the participants at the Voting Procedure Workshop in Normandy, France in 2010 -- academics and professionals who research voting systems -- rated plurality an acceptable system, out of the 18 systems they considered. As these experts well know, our system can easily elect the candidate the majority of voters consider worst.
For anybody aware of the plurality system's flaws, the current US presidential race is a failure. Donald Trump, as a famous billionaire narcissist with an unduplicatable style, does not need to worry about his vote being split with a similar rival. Many of his rivals, however, resemble each other and hence naturally will split the vote. Trump merely needs to keep it that way to win, and to force voting for them to be a stupid vote-waste risk. Then Trump will win even if 70% of the voters hate him. By using this strategy, Trump would be imitating Arnold Schwarzenegger's victorious 2003 campaign for Governor of California.
Unfortunately electing candidates who win only because their rivals have split support, often does not work out well.
In July 2010 when the "Governator" approached the end of his legal term limit, he had the lowest approval rating (19%, with 71% disapproval) of any California governor ever. See a pattern?
The system the Normandy workshop rated top among the 18 they considered, instead was "approval voting." In this system, each voter approves or disapproves of each candidate, not just one; the candidate with highest approve versus disapprove ratio wins. The approval system does away with "spoilers" -- if you approve Nader, that doesn't stop you from also approving Gore; so Nader does not hurt Gore unless he wins. With approval, in contrast to our system, these is no longer such a thing as "vote splitting" -- or the "wasted votes" pathology -- and no ballots are ever ruined by "overvoting." In the "approval" system, it's never stupid to approve your favorite. "Score voting," in which voters rate each candidate on a numerical scale (e.g. 0 to 9; highest average wins), appears even better than approval voting for reflecting public sentiment. Neither is a radical departure: ancient Sparta and Renaissance Venice used these methods for many centuries. These nations flourished.
And even the United States used a more approval-like system for its first four presidential elections. Again, a good time for leaders.

More

Most Trending