There’s a story here, not well reported, about how both the United States and Russia have, apparently, been supporting political opposition movements in each other’s “spheres of influence.”.
So here is U.S. Ambassador Nuland’s discussion of her government’s interference in the Ukraine, in supporting it becoming more tied to Europe, as opposed to Russia, with the help of $5 billion dollars over the last 20 years.
In addition, here is a discussion of the whys and how-could-it-be’s of support for such a Ukrainian opposition,
Brzezinski Mapped Out the Battle for Ukraine in 1997
It's all about maintaining the US position as the world's sole superpower
Strangely, I think, here’s a discussion in the journal Foreign Affairs of the claim that Russia has been meddling in the politics of Europe by supporting, of all people, the far right,
Putin's Western Allies
Why Europe's Far Right Is on the Kremlin's Side
Given that one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stated reasons for invading Crimea was to prevent “Nazis” from coming to power in Ukraine, it is perhaps surprising that his regime is growing closer by the month to extreme right-wing parties across Europe. But, in both cases, Putin’s motives are not primarily ideological. In Ukraine, he simply wants to grab territory that he believes rightly belongs to him. In the European Union, he hopes that his backing of fringe parties will destabilize his foes and install in Brussels politicians who will be focused on dismantling the EU rather than enlarging it.
“…With the Authorization of Federal Authorities, FAA complied with the request to ban media helicopters from covering police conduct during the protest, but does it really matter asks Glen Ford, Executive Editor of The Black Agenda Report….”
“…Now joining us to talk about all of this is our regular commentator Glen Ford. Glen, as you know, is joining us from Plainfield, New Jersey. He is the editor of the Black Agenda Report.
Thank you so much for joining us, Glen.
GLEN FORD, EXEC. EDITOR, BLACK AGENDA REPORT: Thanks for the opportunity.
PERIES: So, Glen, tell us what's going on in Ferguson now.
FORD: Well, as you said, we learned that the police were able to institute a no-fly zone over the no-justice zone with the collaboration of federal authorities. One of the restrictions was that planes or helicopters--that's what they were really afraid of, news helicopters--couldn't go any lower than 3,000 feet. That's about three times the height of the Empire State building. You can't see much in terms of police misbehavior from that kind of height.
But does it really matter, since even if you catch police on video killing innocent civilians, it's not likely in the United States that they're going to be punished or even fired? We see rumors now reported by msnbc that Darren Wilson, the cop who killed Michael Brown, is going to be "eased out"--that's the quote--"eased out" of the Ferguson Police Department--not fired, but eased out somehow. We also see those same sources claiming that the police chief in Ferguson, Thomas Jackson, is going to resign, but Jackson denies that.
The main expectation in St. Louis and around the country is about the grand jury and what it's going to do in terms of Michael Brown's killing. The betting is on. Las Vegas would like you to bet as much as you'd like that there will be an indictment, and you'd be almost certain to lose, because cops are almost never indicted in the killing of unarmed blacks in the United States. We don't have really good data on how often this occurs, but from what data the FBI does gather, we do know that about half of all the young men--that is, 20 years old and younger--half the young men who are killed by police are black. And from that we can conclude that the federal government's failure to even gather data on how often cops kill black people should be viewed, we should look at it as part of a national conspiracy on a vast scale. It is quite clear that the entire national criminal justice system conspires to confer immunity on police who kill black people. So they don't really have to go through all these antics about declaring no-fly zones. They operate in no-justice and immunity zones.
Naturally, then, blacks rebel. And it is just and understandable that folks would rebel against a system that conspires to methodically, institutionally deny them not just their rights, but life. And, in fact, black people have rebelled against this police system of murder ever since the Harlem riots of 1935.
But even setting aside the problems with the judicial system, which does not operate in terms of police killing of blacks, we can't even get a killer cop fired. And we contrast this with another category of civil servant, teachers. It is fashionable now all the way up to the White House to call for lopping off the heads of teachers. And in California, a judge has even ruled that giving teachers tenure so that they can't be so easily fired violates the rights of poor children. But cops can kill black children and it's almost impossible to fire them. And if you're a cop in Ferguson, you can wear an arm band expressing solidarity with your fellow killer cop and nothing happens to you.
So I think we can conclude that in this sick society, in America, teachers would do a service for themselves, for their profession, they would get more respect, and certainly more job security, if they agreed to act as police and carry guns in the classroom, and especially they would get more respect and job security if they regularly used those guns against their students….”
For nearly two weeks in August, the US Federal Aviation Administration imposed a “no-fly zone” over the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, where protests raged over the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The stated reason for the “no-fly zone” was that shots had been fired at a police helicopter.
Now, thanks to an Associated Press investigation, we learn that the real purpose of the airspace exclusion was to hamper media coverage of the protests. Commercial and law enforcement traffic flew unhindered over Ferguson, which lies across major flight paths into and out of Lambert-St.Louis International airport, a major hub. The helicopter shooting incident likely never happened: Per the AP account, “police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting” and an FAA official described the incident as an unconfirmed rumor….
The following stories are about ways in which the CDC has made false assumptions about Ebola, the infection becoming widespread in Africa and threatening , as yet, a few places in the United States. But, beyond making false assumptions about Ebola as a disease, we are disserved by the CDC because it has misrepresented the science involving Ebola as being of one mind. The CDC would have us believe there is only its own understanding of Ebola, and anyone who would disagree would have so backing for their view. So, The CDC would have us believe that it would be difficult to get Ebola if one was just standing or sitting next to an Ebola-infected person. Yet, it has been suggested that Ebola virus can exist within the sputum coughed into the air in droplet form, and that if this material should get in contact with people the disease can thereby spread. This method of transmission is common. It does not seem implausible for a virus to so spread. It is a misrepresentation of the science to suggest, as the CDC has been doing, that there is no controversy amongst the scientific community about how to understand Ebola, and what to do about it. Given that there are disagreements, as I will show in the following arguments, the prudent position for the CDC and the American people is to err, if at all, on the side of caution. The CDC has seemed to only recommend less than the most cautious strategies against the disease. In doing this it seems to me, and the writers represented below, that the CDC is doing us a disservice. It actually might be causing people harm.
I want to present these arguments as a way to discuss the problem of Ebola, and infections in general, in order to show that Americans are like “Ma Barker,” and in denial, not just because the boys rob banks when they leave the house, but because the world is an unpleasant place in many other ways , too. “Ma,” unfortunately, can’t handle any of it.
The problem with the war in Viet Nam, etc., or the epidemic in Africa, is that Americans are most accurately described as being like the Barker gang. Ma Barker stayed at home while her boys went out to rob banks. They refuse to deal with reality. Ma, representing the people left at home, were in denial about what the boys did when they left the house. In order for us as political and philosophical activists to do something about the wars, or the health catastrophes, one not only has to do something about what the boys are doing when they leave the house, that is, get them to stop robbing banks, but, also, one has to get Americans to do something about the boys, and not just actively ignore or enable their criminality. This makes political or philosophical activism difficult. Not only do you have to stop the robberies, but you have to somehow get the people who have the power to stop them to actively do that when it seems to these Americans that their existence depends on not doing so. It’s the boys and their bank robberies, after all, who bring home the bacon and pay for all the other “nice” things around the house.
…Here are the five dangerous -- even deadly -- assumptions still being made by the CDC, an agency that is clearly behaving in a way that threatens the health and safety of the American people:
Assumption #1) Ebola only spreads via "direct contact"
The CDC continues to dangerously assert that Ebola only spread through "direct contact." This false claim openly encourages health and government officials to avoid donning necessary isolation gear (such as full face respirators) when mingling near infected Ebola patients. It also makes the idea of touching Ebola-contaminated surfaces (such as doorknobs, bed sheets, countertops and even vehicle door handles) seem perfectly safe. But virologists are now openly questioning this dangerous CDC assumption. As reported by the LA Times:  ...some also question the official assertion that Ebola cannot be transmitted through the air. In late 1989, virus researcher Charles L. Bailey supervised the government's response to an outbreak of Ebola among several dozen rhesus monkeys housed for research in Reston, Va., a suburb of Washington. What Bailey learned from the episode informs his suspicion that the current strain of Ebola afflicting humans might be spread through tiny liquid droplets propelled into the air by coughing or sneezing. "We know for a fact that the virus occurs in sputum and no one has ever done a study [disproving that] coughing or sneezing is a viable means of transmitting," he said. Unqualified assurances that Ebola is not spread through the air, Bailey said, are "misleading." Peters, whose CDC team studied cases from 27 households that emerged during a 1995 Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo, said that while most could be attributed to contact with infected late-stage patients or their bodily fluids, "some" infections may have occurred via "aerosol transmission."
Say a crime has been committed. You are a detective and your task is to determine who committed the crime. Who should be charged with this crime? The thing you do is try to tell the story of the crime, given the evidence, in such a way that all the pieces fit together. You have some idea of how the crime was committed. Say it was a robbery. You have some account of the motive. The criminals, whomever they were, thought there was a lot of cash collected on site on that day. You have some idea of how it was done. There must have been an insider who gave the thieves information. That’s the only way, say, that they could have obtained access to the actual cash at a time when it was most vulnerable. And you have a list of suspects who were available, people without alibis, who might have done the deeds.
I was at work, chit chatting, and one of my co-workers brought up philosophy. For some reason he was taking a philosophy class at our local community college. He liked it, he said.
I told him that my degree was in philosophy. He wanted my thoughts on philosophy, classes, and so forth. I delayed our conversation until we were going home.
I told him that if we were interested in philosophy, the only goal we should have, or, our most important goal, would be to try to understand reality. In general, come up with an answer to the question, “What’s it all about?”
I said a lot of what you get in philosophy classes is going to be related to becoming some philosophy professor, or someone who knows something about the history of philosophy. You’ll be able to say which philosopher said what outrageous thing. And so forth.
But, if you just wanted to do the most important thing, then you have to develop for yourself some account of how reality is put together.