Indeed there is reason for people whose land is take from them to be more than upset but calling out Israel, boycotting to change the way indigenous people are treated, is seen by far too many as being the real problem.  I would like to hear from anyone who has a sound rationale, based in humanity, why good and sensible people should not feel compelled to take action against a state that allows its people to behave in such ways.

‘This Place Is Only for Jews’: The West Bank’s Apartheid Springs

Settlers have taken over dozens of springs in the West Bank, all of them on private Palestinian land, and are keeping the owners away. Rina Shnerb, a Jewish teen, was murdered last week at one of them

This is a piece in which claims of something rotten in Denmark are debunked.

Watch this!

While this story is about the Amazon and its destruction, it is also about the nastiness of capitalism and the problem of capitalists running governments, this made possible by the ways in which money is by far the greatest influence on who holds power in so called democracies such as ours.  It really is important for us to know of the relationships that exist between those we consider supporting for office and those who own capitalist enterprises, what these enterprises do to make their money and the effect their operations have upon our world.  That Joe Biden is a friend of the head of a company that supports a company that grows beef on Amazon land intentionally deforested is an important thing to know about a candidate.  Supporting Joe just may be lending support to the destruction of the rain forest and, important too is the fact that this kind of person, a successful business person, is more likely to be appointed to important positions in government than, say, a school teacher or the head of a do for the good non-profit organization, one, for instance, that works to protect the environment by promoting laws that are environmentally friendly.

Is the friendship really a mark against Joe Biden?  Maybe not the one but, if there are many, if he, a candidate for president, then those who are going to vote should consider what those relationships mean in terms of how the candidate sees the world and whose way of being he or she supports.  It was important that Hillary Clinton was taking money from Goldman Sachs in big chunks to do speeches for them!  As it is important to understanding Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in terms of their relationships with Jeffery Epstein or George Bushes the Cheney and Cheney to Halliburton.

Good to read this article then.

Larry Fink, Joe Biden’s Wall Street Ally, is Deeply Invested in Amazon Cattle Ranching, a Force Behind Deforestation

Those who are pushing hard for a centrist candidate for the democratic party should consider that if that candidate loses the presidential election, the re-election of Trump is on them and not those who find it impossible to enthusiastically support a candidate “who can win” but has no political appeal beyond that.  “Any democrat” may not be the electable opponent to Trump.  Pushing that line is dangerous.  A just enough to win candidate may bring about results similar to last election and not because a bunch of hard headed liberals refused to support other than Trump but because a bunch of not so liberally minded democrats pushed another not so liberal candidate upon them.

“With whatever.”  A leader whose ideas deserve to be followed, right?  “With whatever,” is a great solution and it deserves to be applied because the logic for using it is so…so…convincing for those who are convinced by logic that is based in whatever.  Anyone who ever uttered such at anyplace where intelligent handling of issues was required would be fired upon uttering such and for good reason–the lack of it.

Our president (yikes!) is explaining how Obama should have responded to Russia’s taking over Crimea, saying it was not Russia that was to blame but Obama for not doing whatever.

Trump advocates for Putin at G-7 summit in move to soften Russia’s pariah status

“President Obama was pure and simply outsmarted,” Trump said. “They took Crimea during his term. That was not a good thing. It could have been stopped, it could have been stopped with the right, whatever. It could have been stopped, but President Obama was unable to stop it, and it’s too bad.”

More from the great leader.  Another quote from same press conference, this reported in a Mother Jones article.  “Whether or not he could come psychologically, I think that’s a tough thing for him to do.” (about his asking Putin to attend next G7 (8) meeting”).

Galena Creek Educational Project invitation for partnerships

The link above leads to a detailed description of the Galena Creek Visitor Center educational projects we currently offer and enhancements we are in the process of developing to make our Center, our School visitation and camp programs, and our teacher education programs even better.

The Galena Creek projects are sponsored by the Great Basin Institute (GBI), a non-profit organization that runs a multitude  environmental preservation and restoration programs.  GBI operates the Galena Creek Visitors Center on the Mt. Rose Highway under an agreement with the Forest Service and Washoe County Parks Department, the Center residing in Galena Regional Park, a forested area ten miles from the Reno city center.  As the document shows, GBI uses the park as the setting for youth science camps during fall break and the summer.

We are hoping to enlist people to support our programs.  If interested, contact me at lafer@unr.edu or at 775-343-6888.  We have a great thing going here and are working toward magnificent and better.

Bernie Sanders is not popular with those who are defenders of the current capitalist system.  Most candidates for office in the USA are, for many reasons–most self-serving–unwilling to properly critique that system and, for this, a good many suffer year after year after year.  And many of these support their own suffering because they have been educated to believe that the system we have is a good one even when they are done harm by it.  That is the sad state of the American electorate.

The Nation: “Bernie Sanders Welcomes the Hatred of Billionaires”

“One of the points of this campaign is to ask questions the corporate media will not. Where is the power in America? Why aren’t things changing? I want to force discussions on those issues because—I’ve said it a million times, and I’ll say it again—no president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. We can’t transform this economy, this government, unless millions of people are involved in a grassroots political movement to challenge the power structure of this country.”

From article about Dr. Jill Biden ad for her husband.

Consider how truly screwed up things are when such is other than a ridiculous reason for voting for a particular candidate.  The problem is that voting for a candidate who qualifies by such reasons, whose main appeal is that he or she is electable, offers no hope for the kind of meaningful change that might prevent the kind of bad that people are voting against from occurring again.

How Jill Biden gave away the secret to Joe Biden’s 2020 plan

Could this be the result of fear of the public beginning to embrace socialism of some sort?  Until there is proof that such is true no one in their right mind should believe that a new era responsible corporate ownership of the nation has begun.  The changes are, I suspect, a tactic rather than a new ethic, but bottom line motive still the bottom line.

If the new “function,” as a tactic actually leads to the kind of behaviors being promised, that is, of course, a good thing.  But, to keep the corporations, if they ever really adopt and operate according to their “new definition,” it is the public that must oversee and force the corporate work to abide by what is promised.  The proper test would be a push for new laws that are strong enough to keep corporations doing what they now say they should be doing and strong enforcement of those laws endorsed and supported by the newly ethical corporate sector.  See if they fight for such as a sign of their sincerity.

The CEOs of nearly 200 companies just said shareholder value is no longer their main objective

The Business Roundtable, a group of chief executive officers from major U.S. corporations, issued a statement Monday with a new definition of the “purpose of a corporation.”