\n

WA 40thLD Resolution from 2014 warned about U.S. provocations in Ukraine

RESOLUTION TO 40th LD DEMOCRATS REGARDING SITUATION IN UKRAINE:

WHEREAS the conflict in the Ukraine is heating up into a potential major war between nuclear superpowers, and

WHEREAS in February of this year,  the U.S. government,  led  by neo-con Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, and Ukraine ambassador Geoffrey  Piatt,   supported the violent overthrow of the elected president of the Ukraine (Viktor Yanukovych),   after  he decided against entering  into an exclusive economic and political agreement with the EU that would place Ukraine into severe austerity  with loans of $160 million over 5 years,  and  bond payments larger than that,  while the Russian offer would pay $15 billion in cash.   Yanukovych took the latter,  and  extreme right-wing nationalist militias, funded by the U.S. led the violence that sent the president packing.   Initially thousands of non-violent people in western Ukraine were in the streets demanding Yanukovich step down,  but they were replaced by  Neo-fascist leaders now hold key positions in the U.S.-backed government in Kiev, including overseeing the military and police.   Many of these U.S.-recommended  leaders belong to anti-semitic parties, including the Svoboda Party, who continue to stoke up animosities with eastern Ukraine.     Some of these leaders have been celebrated by visits from John McCain and Vice President Biden.

AND WHEREAS  Russia responded by facilitating the annexation of Crimea, historically part of Russia, and home to a majority of Russian-speaking people, with a 90%  vote approving annexation,

AND WHEREAS an interim peace agreement between the US, Russia and the EU quickly fell apart due to lack of invited participation by resistance groups in Eastern Ukraine,    aggression on the part of extreme nationalists on both sides is now escalating.

AND WHEREAS evidence provided by Princeton Russian history professor Stephen Cohen, writing in the Nation,  reveals that American media have “greased the wheels” of Putin-bashing and anti-Russian attitudes in our public domain,  reigniting the Cold War mentality that is quickly leading to hot war.

AND WHEREAS we have many issues in common with the Russian government, i.e. they have helped President Obama in the situations in Syria, Iran, and with nuclear disarmament in the former Soviet states, the Russians essentially won World War 2 by opening a European front freeing us from Hitler’s domination,  and in which conflict they lost over 26 million people.  Instead of celebrating our most cherished common accomplishment with them on the 70th anniversary of D-Day in June of this year,  President Obama barely brushed shoulders with President Putin in France.

AND WHEREAS the Whatcom Democrats’ platform contains the following: “Our government should not engage in overt or covert efforts to destabilize other nations’ governments”,  i.e. commit “regime change”,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,  that we in the 40th LD Democrats agree with the Veterans for Peace statement:

  1.    Counter the outlandish one-sided propaganda in the US mass media by telling the truth to our friends and neighbors and through public action.
  2.    Oppose any U.S./NATO military intervention in Ukraine or attack on Russia.  We also call on Russia and allies to step down aggression  and de-escalate tensions  that could potentially lead to a nuclear-armed war.
  3.   Oppose economic sanctions on Russia, which typically harm the most vulnerable populations the most, and can be a prelude to war.
  4.    We oppose shoring up the illegitimate government of Ukraine with billions of U.S. tax dollars that would be better spent on much needed social programs at home.
  5.    We will seek to understand the varying interests of all involved and encourage a nonviolent, diplomatic outcome to this dangerous crisis, and turn Ukraine into a field of cooperation with Russia through a jointly supported bailout devoid of geopolitical motivation, and recognizing that a NATO expansion into Russia’s sphere of influence is not legitimate.    If they had overthrown the elected government of Mexico (no matter how corrupt), we would certainly have taken back Baja California.
  6.    We need continued cooperation on all of our common interests with the Russians,  including the need to prevent jihadist attacks in the region.

Submitted on June 17th by Dianne Foster,   PCO
Approved by 40TH LD

References  available on request.
Best sources:
The Nation
Democracy NOW
Paul Craig Roberts blog
Alternet
Truthout

On RFK, Jr. and the New York Times

Despite consistently negative media coverage, RFK Jr. easily polled a higher favorability rating (+19%) than either of the two presumptive nominees, who both are negative (-7% Biden, -10% Trump).

The NYT article that ran Monday about the RFK Jr. campaign is typical of the slant to the news. Not an opinion piece, it nevertheless reeks of the hopes and wishes of the well paid servants of the oligarchy, while ignoring inconvenient aspects such as what might best serve the interests of the working class. You know, the general welfare that all our elected officials pledge to support. The RFK Jr. campaign is a “headache” for Biden, not a representation of a large segment of the party who would otherwise be voiceless in the POTUS campaign. So much for democracy, even among the fewer than 30% of eligible voters who elect a POTUS candidate. Much less the 100 million-plus eligible voters the decrepit two-parties can’t lure to the polls.

RFK, Jr. leads far ahead of Biden and Trump, according to a poll
RFK, Jr. leads far ahead of Biden and Trump

The President has plenty of weaknesses, as does his presumptive opponent. (For that matter, so do all the “realistic” prospects on either side of the partisan divide.) What RFK Jr. is campaigning against are the systemic weaknesses that have been built in over the past 50 years, no matter which party is in office. I don’t recall the NYT ever complaining about the votes Hillary Clinton received because of the narrative the Times had helped construct about her husband. As opposed to, say, a narrative formed around the Kennedys at least partly because two family members died for their political beliefs, which differed from the prevailing wisdom of the ruling class. Yet, the idea that “Mr. Kennedy’s popularity in polls is largely because of his family” was repeated at least three times in the article. Nor are “billionaire donors” a problem so long as they are giving to “acceptable” candidates. The Times routinely celebrates bipartisan achievement when it means party elites coalescing around corporate welfare. But RFK Jr. “consorts with right figures” when he attempts to meld growing apprehension from across the political spectrum over our blank check to Ukraine into support for a policy of peace. The Times, at least 8 months ahead, with the date not firmly set, is already spinning a potential defeat of Biden by Kennedy in the New Hampshire primary as “cosmetic.” His stands on Big Pharma using its power to put profits ahead of human health, and the Dem nomination process being rigged are mischaracterized and dismissed as ”conspiracy theories” although both represent actual practice understood by much of the population. And in the case of Dem rigging, supported as their right by a court decision.

As reflected by the statements of Rep. Garcia of California, the Biden strategy will be to double down on the fear mongering that the US has used to sell its imperial project to voters for 75 years. “His views and worldview are dangerous.” This from someone supporting an administration that has made the prospect of both direct US involvement in another war and even a nuclear exchange much more likely through the expansionist and aggressive policies that RFK Jr. would walk us back from.

That Trump was elected once, got more votes a second time despite fulfilling very few of his campaign promises, and could conceivably succeed in a third try despite indictments and possible convictions, should have tossed the “electability” canard into the dumpster. Along with the excitement Bernie’s campaigns generated, a lesson should have been learned that the average US voter is not happy with the way our economy is shaping their daily lives. (And again, a plurality doesn’t even bother to vote, and it’s not because they are so happy, but because they have lost hope.) All “electability” has ever meant is that the candidate it’s applied to is a paid up member in good standing of the status quo. Yet here it is being trotted out by Mr Castro as if that could possibly be in doubt about Biden. Perhaps Castro should consider that his “electability” might actually be the problem, and hammering it might make things worse for him. Leadership is based on inspiring people, not convincing them you are “electable” by haranguing voters about your supposed “accomplishments.” (A “summer of events promoting his legislative achievements”? Come on. What malarky!)

Biden is not inspiring. For good or bad, to a large segment of the population, Trump is. Dems tossed aside an inspiring candidate twice in the past two elections. Yet most of the very little they have accomplished when they managed to win anyway in 2020, was based on the inspiration and support generated and mobilized by that discarded candidate. They should be leery of doing it a third time. Perhaps more to the point, they should abandon their systemic advancement of uninspiring drones, who will make no waves, to the top of their political heap.

The poll represented in the photo I posted was not mentioned in the article.

The New York Times article is here (behind a paywall).

New Yorker article on post-Soviet Russia ignores U.S. involvement in 2014 coup and other provocations

In The New Yorker’s How Russia went from Ally to Adversary, (published in the June 19, 2023 print edition as “Eastern Promises”), author Keith Gessen tells some of the history of post-Soviet Russia.

Unusual for mainstream journalism, the article indicates that U.S. policy contributed to the rise of Putin and other authoritarian leaders in Russia and former Soviet bloc nations. via brutal economic policies the U.S. imposed on them. Gessen writes that while some people in the Bush (1) and Clinton administrations wanted to lend Russia a helping hand — arguing that such aid would be more likely to lead to a democratic Russia — the consensus was to treat Russia as a defeated adversary.

Gessen writes:

By the logic of co-transformation, we urged brutal free-market policies on Eastern Europe, and then imposed them on ourselves. Having participated in the creation of the Russian monster, we are now forced to become monsters to battle it, to manufacture and sell more weapons, to cheer the death of Russian soldiers, to spend more and more on defense, both here and in Europe, and to create the atmosphere and conditions of a second Cold War, because we failed to figure out how to secure the peace after the last one.

The article points out that Gorbachev had expressed to Secretary of State James Baker a desire for Russia to be integrated as an equal partner in a new pan-European security arrangement.  But Baker responded, “It is an excellent dream but only a dream.”

So, the article goes half way towards describing partial U.S. responsibility for provoking the war in Ukraine but takes pains to say things like: “The development of Russia in the post-Cold War period was not the result of a Western plot or Western actions. Russian officials chose, within a narrow range of options, how to behave, and they could have chosen differently. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, in February, 2022, was no more inevitable or foreordained than the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003. Still, it’s worth asking what other course we might have followed.”

Moreover, in his discussion of the 2014 Maidan Revolution (aka as the Revolution of Dignity), Gessen doesn’t tell the whole story. He writes:

In the winter of 2004-05, Putin watched helplessly as thousands of protesters in Kyiv demanded and won a new vote after large-scale fraud had seemed to give Viktor Yanukovych the Presidential victory in Ukraine. Yanukovych managed to mount a successful Presidential bid in the next election cycle, but in 2014 vast protests over his refusal to sign an association agreement with the E.U. once again chased him from power. That same week, Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms appeared in Crimea. The invasion of Ukraine had begun.

That summary leaves out the great role that the U.S. played in aiding the 2014 revolution, which can also be called a coup.

In the New York Times’ The War in Ukraine May Be Impossible to Stop. And the US Deserves Much of the Blame, Christopher Caldwell writes “In 2014 the United States backed an uprising – in its final stages a violent uprising – against the legitimately elected Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych, which was pro-Russian.”

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy said in an interview in 2014: “With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there, members of the State Department who have been on the square …. I really think that the clear position of the United States has been in part what has helped lead to this change in regime…. I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovich from office.”

Then there is the infamous recording of a phone call between Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt, in which they discuss who should be next leader of Ukraine.

And what about U.S. involvement in various color revolutions in Eastern Europe, via funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (a regime change auxiliary to the CIA) and NED’s documented aid for Ukrainian opposition groups.

The Gessen piece also ignores the well-documented presence of far right, anti-Russia political and military groups in Ukraine — something even the U.S. Congress tried to deal with. See here for a list of scores of articles in mainstream media documenting their presence.

And while the article points to statements by James Baker that Gorbachev interpreted as a promise not to expand NATO eastward, the article doesn’t tell the story of additional promises made to Russian leaders. See Truthout’s Claims Over Broken Promises About NATO Simmer at the Heart of the Ukraine Crisis.

See How the U.S. provoked Russia in Ukraine: A Compendium for copious quotations and links to articles about U.S. provocations in Ukraine.

Evidence that U.S. Meddling in Brazilian politics helped elect Bolsonaro

The Intercept reports:    “Keep It Confidential” The Secret History of U.S. Involvement in Brazil’s Scandal-Wracked Operation Car Wash.

Leaked conversations between Brazilian officials reveal the inner workings of a secretive collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice on a sprawling anti-corruption effort known as Operation Car Wash. The chats, analyzed in partnership with the Brazilian investigative news outlet Agência Pública, show that the Brazilians were extremely accommodating to their U.S. partners, going out of their way to facilitate their involvement in ways that may have violated international legal treaties and Brazilian law.

Operation Car Wash, or Lava Jato in Portuguese, rocked Brazil’s political and business establishment, leading to the imprisonment of former president Luis Inácio Lula da Silva — a move that barred him from reelection and paved the way for a win for far-right Jair Bolsonaro. …

Last summer, members of the U.S. Congress demanded answers from Attorney General William Barr about the scope of the relationship and whether the Justice Department was aware of wrongdoing by their Brazilian counterparts, but they have yet to receive a response. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat who signed the letter to Barr, said it is “deeply concerning” that the Justice Department has not responded. “The United States has a dark history of intervention in domestic Latin American politics,” she wrote in a statement to The Intercept. “Especially given the cozy relationship between the current Brazilian Administration and the Trump Administration, we in Congress need to be sure that our own Department of Justice was not party to this corruption.” The Justice Department declined to comment for this story.

Brazil Wire’s The Atlantic Council & Latin American “Regime Change”

Together with the Americas Society/Council of the Americas (AS/COA), the Wilson Center and other organisations (between which there is a revolving door for personnel), the Atlantic Council has been an international platform and promoter for both the controversial anti-corruption operation Lava Jato (Car Wash), which helped paralyse the Brazilian economy, and underpinned the 2016 removal of the Rousseff Government from power. (Update: Lava Jato then jailed former president Lula da Silva, opening the door for a Bolsonaro presidency).

The organisation insists it is independent from both the US Government and NATO, however it receives the majority of its funding, of an undisclosed total, from various NATO member governments.

It was recently in the news for donating a million dollars, provided by the US State Department, to an opposition group in Venezuela, the latest in an estimated USD$45+ million in US funding to pro-opposition groups since 2008.

Brazil Wire’s links are almost entirely to its own stories.   Another Brazil Wire story is:

White House admits CIA involvement in “War on Corruption” which jailed Lula and elected Bolsonaro

In July 2017, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco gave a speech at NATO think tank the Atlantic Council in which he bragged of the Justice Department’s informal involvement in Brazilian anti-corruption operation Lava Jato and its prosecution of former president Lula. FBI personnel involved later boasted that it had “toppled presidents“. Lava Jato prosecutor Deltan Dellagnol described Lula’s 2018 arrest which kept him out of the election he was on course to win, as “a gift from the CIA“. The judge who prosecuted Lula, Sergio Moro, became Bolsonaro’s Justice Minister, and both made an unprecedented visit to CIA headquarters in Langley within months of taking office, whilst the DOJ rewarded the Lava Jato task-force with a $682 million dollar kickback. Lava Jato’s origins can be traced back to 2008/09, where Moro and a blueprint for an operation of its type appear in State Department cables.

Rep. Johnson, Colleagues Ask A.G. Garland for Answers on DOJ Role in Brazil Probe and Persecution of Former President Lula da Silva

June 7, 2021

Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman Hank Johnson (GA-04), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding the role of Department of Justice (DOJ) agents in Brazil’s “Lava Jato” (“Car Wash”) anti-corruption operation and what role, if any, DOJ played in the political persecution of former president of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Rep. Johnson sent a letter to the Barr DOJ in August 2019 on the issue but never received an adequate response.

“There is now evidence that the case against Lula was highly politicized and intended to keep him off the ballot in Brazil’s 2018 elections. Lula has now been exonerated. This makes it more important than ever to determine what role anyone at DOJ may have had in Lula’s persecution,” Rep. Johnson said. “This is clearly an important matter in U.S.-Brazil relations.”


FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in the Media) reports on the double standard of the New York Times in its coverage of Brazilian politics: NYT Worries Brazil Goes Too Far to Fight Far Right. In short, the Times saw little wrong when then candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and other members of the leftist Workers Party were prosecuted in trumped up charges. But now that Lula’s government is prosecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro for real offense, the New York Times is critical.

The New Yorker article on the immigration crisis ignores U.S. responsibility for provoking it

The New Yorker article Biden’s Dilemma at the Border (June 19, 2023), by Dexter Filkins, describes the havoc and suffering caused by the large number of migrants fleeing South America towards the United States.

The article says “Some of the biggest groups [of immigrants] were coming from four countries—Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti—with which the U.S. maintained troubled relations.”   But other than that hint of U.S. responsibility for the crisis, the article fails to tell how U.S. foreign and economic policies contribute to the turmoil and poverty in South America. Instead, the article explains migration this way:

Much of the migration to the United States in recent years has been driven by profound developments in Central and South America and in the Caribbean, where economic turmoil, natural disasters, and drug-related violence have brought many states to the brink of collapse, and where gangs and drug cartels often operate beyond state control. It’s not just the U.S. that is besieged by migrants but also countries throughout the region, Biden officials pointed out; unrest in Venezuela has produced at least seven million refugees, most of whom have fled to Colombia and other countries nearby.

The article should have mentioned that the United States imposes economic sanctions on three of the four countries that the article calls “most problematic” with regard to migration: Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. And the U.S. attempted regime change operations against all four countries. Indeed, according to World Population Review, Wikipedia, The Progressive, and The Nation, the United States attempted regime change operations in the following countries in Latin America:  Haiti (1915-1934), Guatemala (1953), Dominican Republic (1961), Cuba (1961), Brazil (1964), Argentina (1964), Columbia (1964, 1999, 2021), Bolivia (1971. 2019),  Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1985, Iran Contras), Panama (1989), and Venezuela (2002 – now). And there is evidence that the U.S. helped elect Boslonaro in Brazil.

The U.S. has a history of overthrowing democratically elected governments in Latin American and supporting oppressive regimes friendly to U.S. business or ideological interests.

And these are just the coups and interventions that have been made public. Much of U.S. foreign policy is executed covertly, with harsh penalties on anyone who exposes the secrets.

Just as NATO expansion helped lead to the war in Ukraine, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America helped cause the migration crisis affecting the U.S., and the mainstream media hides the facts in both cases.

See also:

Time Magazine: Why the Threat of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela Revives Historical Tensions in the Region
The Nation: The US Must End Its Economic War Against Venezuela
The Nation: House Democrats Want to Know the Truth About the Bolivian Coup
The Progressive Magazine: The United States’ Role in Colombia’s Forever War
U.S. Department of Treasury: Sanctions Programs and Country Information
WA Liberals: Evidence that U.S. Meddling in Brazil helped elect Bolsonaro

RFK, Jr. interviews Jeffrey Sachs about the New York Times, Ukraine, and China

In the video RFK, Jr. Interviews Jeffrey Sachs on Ukraine and China, Jeffrey Sachs recalls his fruitless efforts to publish an opinion piece about Ukraine in the New York Times. He says that he had spoken with the editors and they had finalized a version of his piece that incorporated some edits that he was OK with.  The piece was ready to be published. But at the last minute they told him they couldn’t go ahead with it. Sachs asked why. They said that someone else’s piece was in the pipeline that would cover the same material. Sachs read the Times for days afterwards but all he saw were pieces calling for escalation (“give them F-16s”, etc).

Sachs says he was an advisor to Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma, the first president of an independent Ukraine after the breakup of the USSR, and Sachs was a friend and advisor to the third president of Ukraine. But the New York Times adamantly refuses to present his views, “because they don’t want any public debate.”

In this interview with Glenn Greenwald, Jeffrey Sachs describes the history of U.S. provocations in Ukraine and all the stuff the media hides (like Nuland’s role). Sachs was involved closely with the historical events and people. Sachs said that when he went to Ukraine in 2014 (at the behest of the Ukrainian leader) to help with economics advising, the leader of an NGO told him about how the U.S./NED provoked the coup. Sachs was disgusted with what he heard.

The NY Times struggles to explain away the prevalence of neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

It’s disgusting how the NY Times is a mere mouthpiece for the government, and not a watchdog.

In a June 10th New Yorker interview A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, discusses the need for independent journalism. He says that complete objectivity is impossible to achieve but that journalists should pursue the evidence wherever it leads.   So I was shocked by his claim that it is “objectively true” that the war in Ukraine was unprovoked.

Let me just give a very specific example. Since the war in Ukraine started, we have had at least a dozen journalists on the ground every single day of the conflict. There is no “both sides” equivalency of what’s happened in Ukraine. Russia invaded in an unprovoked act of aggression and has committed a shocking string of atrocities. That is just objectively true. I’m not sure there’s another news organization in the U.S. that’s done more to expose those atrocities. One of the things that’s misunderstood about independence is that it doesn’t require you not to have a theory of the case, right? My great-grandfather had a line that he often quoted: “I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”

Interestingly, the sentences in bold font do not appear, apparently, in the recorded version of the interview. Perhaps they were added later, as the written version was “edited for length and clarity.”  At the very least, the question whether the U.S. provoked Russia in Ukraine — surely that’s a matter of degree — is something open to debate. It’s not “objectively true.”

The U.S. government almost always lies about wars….. It’s part of the battle plan. And obsessive secrecy (harshly enforced) guarantees the public is in the dark about the facts.

Sachs says. “A president has one main job in foreign policy, and that is to keep the foot on the brakes, because this war machine is always revving. The military industrial complex is always cooking up new things. The intelligence agencies and their covert operations are always cooking up new things.”

….which is why, I say, the government is so obsessive about maintaining secrecy: to hide all its wrongdoings and provocations.

Sachs said that President Obama had his foot on the brakes for some foreign policy, but was talked into the disasters in Syria and Libya, “engulfing that country into ten years of civil war that’s not over yet. And he presided over the U.S. role in the overthrow of the Ukrainian president.”

“We’ve got a war machine here, and war machines want to be used. They want to bulk up, they want to try new weapons, they want to buy new armaments, they want to open new bases, and a smart president knows to say ‘No! Stop! You’re gonna get us into a lot of trouble.'”

JFK at first went along with anti-Cuban activities, but after the Bay of Pigs fiasco he wanted to break up the CIA, and he fired CIA director Alan Dulles, as David Talbot describes in his excellent The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the C.I.A., and the rise of America’s secret government.

Obama was smart enough, Sachs says, not to escalate more in Ukraine, but Biden doesn’t get it and keeps climbing the escalatory ladder in Ukraine.

Poor Ukraine! Caught between the U.S. and Russia, and being used as a pawn.

Too often, the U.S. news media act as stenographers for the government, rather than as the watchdogs they should be,, as this AI-generated image suggests:
"U.S

On China, RFK, Jr. says that high tech companies such as Microsoft are economically in bed with Chinese industry and so oppose war-mongering towards China. Sachs says the U.S. should compete with China economically, not militarily. (Duh!) I say: the U.S. is like a big, dumb bully who is losing out to the nerdy kids academically and so picks fights to try maintain dominance. The Chinese did a lot of correct things: hard work, emphasis on education, savings, smart central planning, rapid industrialization, etc. “There’s no reason for conflict, none whatsoever. And in the last forty years when the U.S. has been in nonstop wars, I’m sorry to say, China has not been involved in one war, and they had one brief war that was around the Khemer Rouge/Vietnam issue in the late 1970s. Otherwise they’ve been a victim of wars for 200 years and have launched none.” We accuse China of being belligerent and we’re surrounding them with bases. “We outspend them three to one on the military.”

Sachs says that from the start of his administration, President Biden has opposed friendly dialog with China. Some of Sachs’ (former) friends and students work in the Biden administration. When the U.S. met in Anchorage, Alaska with the Chinese, the U.S. accused them of wrongdoing in Hong Kong, with the Uyghurs, and about Taiwan. In other words, the U.S. came out swinging, provoking them, denouncing them publicly. The Chinese want respect. (And the U.S. lacks the moral stature to be talking down to them.)  “What’s Nancy Pelosi doing flying to Taiwan? Don’t provoke! .. We will walk into a war, the way we are going, just like we did with Ukraine.”  Our diplomats predicted that NATO expansion would result in the war in Ukraine, and Sachs predicts a war in China, if we continue along the current path.

The Chinese want peace worldwide, so they can have economic development. The U.S. views that as aggressive, but it’s just smart policy and what the U.S. used to do. Most of the world realizes that China’s approach is better and less militarized.   A majority of world population is skeptical of U.S. leadership.  The U.S. should compete economically. We complain that China is building up its military – gosh, I wonder why — but they still spend a third of what we do.

South American leaders oppose the U.S. approach to Ukraine. Sachs says the U.S. actively attempted to overthrow Venezuela. Leaders of other South American nations complained about U.S. punishment if they didn’t go along with U.S. sanctions. “There’s an arrogance [to U.S. foreign policy] that really is bad” and that causes blowback. The 1966 book “The Arrogance of Power” by William J. Fulbright says, according to Sachs, that “We keep getting into trouble because we don’t listen to the other side.” The book is as relevant now as it was in the 60s, Sachs says.

Fulbright discusses Austria as a model for how the U.S. should treat countries. Allow them to be neutral. Austria became very successful because both the U..S. and the USSR gave them some space. “Give them some space, so were not putting our face right up to the other guy.”

Chat GPT-3.5, write me a poem about unbidden blessings and curses

I asked OpenAI’s Chat GPT-3.5:  “Write me a poem about the fact that both blessings from God and curses from the devil seem to come uninvited. I seem to have little control over my life.” (I don’t really believe in the God or the devil, but the metaphors are apt.)  Here’s what Chat GPT-3.5 wrote:

First version

In the realm where blessings and curses meet,
Unbidden they arrive, in life’s mystic fleet,
Neither invited, yet they dance in stride,
A tapestry woven, with fate as their guide.

From heavens high, where divine blessings reside,
To depths of shadows, where darkness does hide,
They journey forth, like whispers in the night,
Both blessings from God, and curses, their blight.

No map to navigate, no compass to wield,
We drift on the currents fate has concealed,
With little control, our vessel’s course set,
Destiny’s dice rolled, a game of chance, we bet.

Blessings, like gentle raindrops, softly descend,
Nourishing our souls, each one a godsend,
They grace our lives, with joy and tender grace,
A touch of heaven’s hand, an embrace.

Yet, lurking in the shadows, the curses creep,
Their venomous touch, like wounds too deep,
They test our strength, our faith put to the test,
A haunting reminder, life’s hardest quest.

But in this delicate dance of blessings and blight,
We find the power to endure the darkest night,
For within our hearts, a spark of resilience glows,
A flicker of hope, when life’s tempest blows.

Remember, dear soul, as life’s tapestry unfurls,
Though blessings and curses seem to rule our world,
In every hardship, a hidden blessing may reside,
And every blessing, a lesson for us to abide.

For in the ebb and flow of life’s ceaseless tide,
We learn to cherish blessings, and curses, to ride,
Though uninvited they come, in their mysterious way,
They shape us, define us, on this earthly display.

So, let us surrender to the unknown’s grand design,
Embrace both blessings and curses, yours and mine,
For it is in the acceptance of life’s sacred decree,
That we find the true essence of being free.


Second version

In the tapestry of life’s design,
A paradox unfolds, entwined,
For blessings bright and curses grim,
Seem to arrive without a whim.

From heaven’s grace, sweet blessings rain,
Like whispers from an angel’s train,
They descend upon us, unearned,
In moments when our hearts have yearned.

Yet, just as day turns into night,
The devil dances with delight,
His curses cast, like shadows deep,
Disturbing dreams, disrupting sleep.

Both blessings and curses, uninvited,
We stand as humans, all united,
For life’s path we cannot sway,
But find solace in each passing day.

In the tender bloom of dawn’s embrace,
When sunshine paints our hopes with grace,
We see God’s hand, a gentle guide,
Walking steadfastly by our side.

And when the devil’s shadows loom,
Engulfing us in moments of gloom,
We gather strength, our souls held tight,
To weather storms and face the night.

Though control may seem elusive, dear,
Within life’s tempest, void of clear,
We find our purpose, courage strong,
To dance amid the rights and wrongs.

For in the midst of the unknown,
Our spirits rise, resilience grown,
With faith as anchor, hope our light,
We navigate through darkest night.

So fear not, dear soul, in the ebb and flow,
Both blessings and curses freely bestow,
For in surrender, we find release,
And in acceptance, we find our peace.

In every twist and turn we trace,
The tapestry of life finds its place,
With blessings from God and curses grim,
Uninvited, yet we’ll find joy within.

Chat GPT wrote “The Battle Hymn of Peace”

My prompt to Chat GPT: Write me alternative lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic critical of U.S. militarism, endless wars, NATO expansion, overseas bases, and government overthrows.

Version #1:

Mine eyes have seen the ravages of wars so cruel and vast,
Where power and greed collide, and innocence is surpassed,
With each new conflict brewing, under banners held up high,
We question motives hidden, as countless lives pass by.

(Chorus)
Oh, let us rise against the tide of endless strife and pain,
Challenge militarism’s hold, break free from this refrain,
May justice guide our actions, as we strive for lasting peace,
For unity and empathy can bring the wars’ release.

(Verse 2)
From NATO’s expanding reach, to bases overseas,
We witness sovereignty erode, beneath the guise of peace,
Yet freedom cannot flourish, when coercion’s at its core,
Let’s seek a world united, where trust and love restore.

(Chorus)
Oh, let us rise against the tide of endless strife and pain,
Challenge militarism’s hold, break free from this refrain,
May justice guide our actions, as we strive for lasting peace,
For unity and empathy can bring the wars’ release.

(Verse 3)
The echoes of government overthrows resound throughout the years,
Leaving nations torn asunder, soaked in bloodshed, fueling fears,
But true democracy must foster voices, not impose its will,
Let’s honor sovereignty and tread with caution, until.

(Chorus)
Oh, let us rise against the tide of endless strife and pain,
Challenge militarism’s hold, break free from this refrain,
May justice guide our actions, as we strive for lasting peace,
For unity and empathy can bring the wars’ release.

(Bridge)
Together we can change the course, rewrite the history’s page,
Through dialogue and understanding, we’ll break free from this cage,
The Battle Hymn of peace we sing, united hand in hand,
For a world free from violence, where all can firmly stand.

(Chorus)
Oh, let us rise against the tide of endless strife and pain,
Challenge militarism’s hold, break free from this refrain,
May justice guide our actions, as we strive for lasting peace,
For unity and empathy can bring the wars’ release.


Version #2

Oh, I’ve seen the nation’s folly, its endless thirst for war,
From distant shores to foreign lands, it spreads its iron ore,
With bombs and guns, it claims to sow the seeds of liberty,
But the world is left in ruins, drowning in hypocrisy.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, end this endless charade,
Question the militarism, the choices we have made,
Let’s stand against aggression, seek justice and embrace,
A world where peace and empathy forever find their place.

(Verse 2)
NATO’s expansion knows no bounds, a march to dominate,
While shattered lives and broken dreams are left to seal their fate,
Overseas bases dot the earth, a symbol of our might,
But they breed resentment, not harmony, casting shadows in the night.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, end this endless charade,
Question the militarism, the choices we have made,
Let’s stand against aggression, seek justice and embrace,
A world where peace and empathy forever find their place.

(Verse 3)
Governments are toppled, the result of hidden schemes,
Democracy eroded, as power pulls the strings,
Let us not forget our past, the lessons we have learned,
That freedom cannot flourish when the innocent are burned.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, end this endless charade,
Question the militarism, the choices we have made,
Let’s stand against aggression, seek justice and embrace,
A world where peace and empathy forever find their place.

(Bridge)
In unity we’ll rise above, and break this endless chain,
To forge a path of harmony, where love and hope remain,
With open hearts and outstretched hands, we’ll heal the wounds of old,
And build a future based on peace, where truth and justice unfold.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, end this endless charade,
Question the militarism, the choices we have made,
Let’s stand against aggression, seek justice and embrace,
A world where peace and empathy forever find their place.


Version #3:

Mine eyes have seen the horror of endless wars afar,
Where young men and women perish, beneath a distant star,
They march in foreign lands, fighting for a cause unclear,
As politicians make decisions, devoid of conscience or fear.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, U.S. empire’s demise,
We must question the path we tread, open up our eyes,
Let us stand against militarism, seek peace with open hearts,
For true strength lies in compassion, not tearing nations apart.

(Verse 2)
We’ve built a web of bases, strewn across the Earth,
A symbol of dominance, of unchecked imperial worth,
But do these outposts of power bring security or peace?
Or do they fuel resentment, making tensions never cease?

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, U.S. empire’s demise,
We must question the path we tread, open up our eyes,
Let us stand against militarism, seek peace with open hearts,
For true strength lies in compassion, not tearing nations apart.

(Verse 3)
Governments have been overthrown, in shadows cast by might,
Democracy upended, as sovereignty takes flight,
But who are we to judge, and claim a righteous hand,
When our own actions echo in distant foreign lands?

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, U.S. empire’s demise,
We must question the path we tread, open up our eyes,
Let us stand against militarism, seek peace with open hearts,
For true strength lies in compassion, not tearing nations apart.

(Bridge)
Let us learn from history’s lessons, and the mistakes we’ve made,
Instead of waging endless wars, let’s mend the peace we’ve frayed,
In unity we’ll find our strength, with empathy we’ll strive,
To build a world of justice, where peace can truly thrive.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, U.S. empire’s demise,
We must question the path we tread, open up our eyes,
Let us stand against militarism, seek peace with open hearts,
For true strength lies in compassion, not tearing nations apart.
—–
Maybe a poet could tweak these lyrics to improve them.

AI, the great equalizer

Many people fear that AI will replace workers and will be used to surveil, control, or even kill people.

As Geoffrey Hinton, the “godfather of AI” and the inventor of many of the techniques used in generative AI says, fears that AI will be used to spread disinformation and to make the rich even richer.

Those are all valid concerns.

But there’s a huge potential upside to AI that left-leaning people especially should appreciate.

If AI surpasses human-level performance on most skills — which seems likely to happen — this will require a radical restructuring of our economy and society to make sure that people don’t starve to death. Socialism and redistribution of wealth will become necessities that even Republicans will have to accept.

Furthermore, until now, humanity has been divided into winners and losers. Some people are better than others at sports, at math, at music, at fighting, at entrepreneurship, at programming, at writing, or at a myriad of other skills. In the not-too-distant future it is likely that everyone will be bested by AI in all those skills. This is already happening in the realm of art and image generation. It seems inevitable that it will happen in other fields.

Imagine a future in which AI surpasses humans at musical composition, at literature, at engineering, at math, at dance, and at scientific discovery. I believe it is coming.

Such a future will be a great equalizer. No longer will some people feel superior to others and feel worthy of being rewarded with more money, power, and adulation. Instead, everyone will be inferior to the AI programs that run society. Truly, all the important work and thinking will be done by AI and robots.

Humans will be able to just sit back and enjoy life: food, dance, procreation, exercise, and entertainment (with robots or virtual actors performing AI-generated content).

Humans will be forced to have the proper humility. Hierarchy will be dismantled.

Of course, unless the AI programs that run society are programmed to have our best interests in mind, an AI-driven world will instead be a dystopia.

There is, however, another possible future for the relation between AI and humans.   I is possible that people and AI will  merge, via direct neural connections, or via immersive virtual reality headsets.  In either case, AI would not be our masters. Rather, we would be enhanced by AI: smarter, more knowledgeable, and more inter-connected.  Political questions of who controls things will still remain.

Chat GPT-4, write me a poem about U.S. hypocrisy concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, given the history …

Write me a 12 line poem about the hypocrisy of the U.S. concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, given the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other countries, the U.S. occupation of one third of  Syria,  the presence of about 800 U.S. military bases overseas, and the history of provocative NATO expansion.

In webs of power and politics entwined,
Hypocrisy emerges, with secrets aligned,
As Russia invades, Ukraine’s sorrow unfolds,
Echoes of past deeds, hypocrisy unfolds.

For Iraq felt the weight of a foreign hand,
And lands far beyond witnessed the same brand,
In Syria, a third grasped by occupation’s might,
The world watches, questioning what is right.

Around the globe, 800 bases take root,
A projection of strength, yet hypocrisy’s suit,
And NATO’s expansion, a provocative dance,
History’s echo, feeding discord’s advance.

Let’s seek truth beyond the veil of deceit,
Where empathy and justice may find their seat,
For in recognizing hypocrisy’s reign,
We can strive for unity, healing the pain.


In the theater of global strife and sway,
Hypocrisy takes hold, concealed each day,
As Russia marches on Ukrainian lands,
Past echoes of invasions from distant sands.

The U.S., Iraq’s soil once claimed in might,
And elsewhere, interventions took their flight,
While Syria’s soil bears witness to control,
A fragmented land that yearns to be whole.

800 bases, scattered far and wide,
A web of presence, with interests implied,
NATO’s expansion, a provocative course,
Stirring tensions, amplifying discourse.

Amidst the tangled threads of global play,
The paradox of power casts its gray,
Let’s strive for fairness, beyond nation’s pride,
And seek a world where truth and peace coincide.


Amidst the tangled webs of power’s play,
Hypocrisy unfolds, casting shades of gray,
Russian boots tread on Ukrainian soil,
Yet memories of Iraq remain in turmoil.

In Syria’s land, a fraction under sway,
While foreign bases dot the world’s display,
Provocative strides by NATO’s expanding hand,
The dance of geopolitics, a shifting sand.

800 overseas bases, they stand tall,
A stark reminder of the empire’s sprawl,
But let us ponder on the paradox we see,
As we question what it truly means to be free.

In search of harmony, let truth be sought,
For hypocritical actions leave us caught,
Let’s strive for peace, transcending boundaries,
And shape a world that values true equities.