It should come as no surprise that Greenspan was an acquaintance and admirer of American writer and economic philosopher Ayn Rand, whose books advocated the very direction the nation has been going as corporate power has been slowly eroding the thinking of elected state and national leadership.

Noam Chomsky, author and professor of analytic philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out the Greenspan testimony in a recent published commentary. In the article, Chomsky noted how American universities, that depend on corporate financial support, have all fallen into lock step with a corporate business model that insures a shortage of jobs for graduates.

Thus there can be an understanding why we have so many college graduates working for minimum wage jobs in fast food joints while holding masters degrees in specialized fields where jobs do not exist.

Adding to the horror is the bank sponsored student loan fiasco, which leaves graduates indebted to the banks, to the government, and to any employer they may happen to have.

There was a time when a college degree meant an expansion of thought and personal enlightenment. Students read fine art and studied philosophy, sociology and psychology. Now they study bookkeeping, computer skills, engineering and other fields that they are led to believe might offer them good paying employment.

It is all a lie. Once they enter the work force, that college diploma in hand, they find themselves in a long line of other candidates just like them, all competing for the few jobs that may be available. They made a big investment with borrowed money, often for naught.

... and his rating wasn't that high to begin with. Also, a majority believe he's a lying idiot:

American voters believe 55 - 28 percent anonymous allegations that senior aides to President Donald Trump work behind his back to keep him from making what the aides believe are bad decisions, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

Republicans don't believe these accounts 52 - 27 percent, the only listed party, gender, education, age or racial group which does not believe that aides are working behind the president's back, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds.

But American voters say 51 - 39 percent that the person who wrote the allegations did the wrong thing by submitting them to the media to be published anonymously.

American voters disapprove 54 - 38 percent of the job President Trump is doing, compared to a 54 - 41 percent disapproval August 14.

The only listed groups approving of the president are Republicans, 84 - 7 percent and white voters with no college degree, 51 - 40 percent.

A total of 70 percent of American voters say the nation's economy is "excellent" or "good," matching the all-time high rating for the economy. Another 28 percent say the economy is "not so good" or "poor."

"American voters believe those tales of intrigue coming from the Trump White House, but they think it's wrong to tell those tales anonymously," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"The economy booms, but President Donald Trump's numbers are a bust. An anemic 38 percent approval rating is compounded by lows on honesty, strength and intelligence.

"But Trump's base remains loyal." American voters give President Trump his lowest grade for honesty since he was elected, saying

60 - 32 percent that he is not honest. Trump gets low grades on most character traits:
57 - 38 percent that he does not have good leadership skills;
55 - 41 percent that he does not care about average Americans;
65 - 30 percent that he is not level-headed;
57 - 39 percent that he is a strong person;
51 - 42 percent that he is intelligent;
60 - 33 percent that he does not share voters' values;
55 - 41 percent that he is not fit to serve as president;
48 - 42 percent that he is mentally stable.

Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

Wide gender, racial and partisan gaps leave American voters divided on whether the U.S. Senate should confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court as 41 percent say yes and 42 percent say no.

Support for confirmation is 81 - 3 percent among Republicans and 45 - 39 percent among independent voters, with Democrats opposed 76 - 9 percent;

Men support confirmation 46 - 37 percent, with women opposed 47 - 36 percent;

White voters support confirmation 49 - 37 percent, with opposition at 66 - 13 percent among black voters and 53 - 33 percent among Hispanic voters.

Jeff Sessions, Robert Mueller

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions gets a negative 17 - 43 percent favorability rating, with no listed group giving him a positive rating.

But American voters would disapprove 50 - 29 percent if Trump fired Sessions. Republicans are the only listed group who would approve, 49 - 23 percent.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is conducting a fair investigation into possible coordination between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government, voters say 55 - 32 percent, compared to 51 - 33 percent August 14.

This racist, conspiratorial, authoritarian wingnut faction is always with us. But it appears to be reducing down to its bare essence which is about a third of the country.

That would be many tens of millions of people, by the way.

Update: Uh oh, here's another one.

President Donald Trump's approval rating has fallen 6 points in the last month and stands at a new low among political independents, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

Overall, just 36% approve of the way the President is handling his job, down from 42% in August. Among independents, the drop has been sharper, from 47% approval last month to 31% now. That's 4 points below his previous 2018 low of 35% approval among political independents in CNN polling, and 1 point below his previous all-time low among independents in CNN polling, reached in November 2017.

[...]

The President's favorability rating -- a measure of whether people like him, rather than approve of his job performance -- has also taken a hit in this poll, with 61% saying they have unfavorable views of Trump, up from 55% in June. That unfavorable number is the worst since he won the presidency, and it matches the worst level seen during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump has also lost ground on several personal attributes, most notably perceptions of his honesty:

Just 32% say they see the President as honest and trustworthy, the worst read in CNN polling. About a third, 32%, say he's someone they are proud to have as President, down 6 points since March and the lowest since Trump took office. Only 36% say he "cares about people like you," another new low. Just 30% say he'll unite the country and not divide it, matching his previous low on that measure from November 2017. Four in 10 say the President can bring the kind of change the country needs, down 5 points from March and matching a November 2017 low. And 60% say the President does not respect the rule of law, not significantly changed since March.

As on the President's approval rating, the shifts in Trump's favorability rating and attributes are driven largely by movement among independents. The share saying they have an unfavorable view of the President is up 10 points since June (from 55% to 65%), and there have been 10-point declines since March among independents in the share who say Trump is someone they are proud to have as President (from 36% to 26%), who cares about people like them (from 42% to 32%) and who can bring needed change (from 46% to 36%).

Saved by the whales! The federal Appeal Court decision on August 30 to quash the government's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project was largely based on the National Energy Board's failure to consider the environmental impacts of a sevenfold tanker traffic increase off the B.C. coast, including how it would affect endangered southern resident orca whales.

"The unjustified exclusion of marine shipping from the scope of the Project led to successive, unacceptable deficiencies in the Board's report and recommendations," the decision states. "As a result, the Governor in Council could not rely on the Board's report and recommendations when assessing the Project's environmental effects and the overall public interest."

Not to diminish the efforts of Indigenous Peoples, environmental groups, politicians with integrity and citizens from all walks of life who stood strong for protection of land, air, water and climate - but it's interesting that the whales we're trying to save may have saved us from this anachronistic project.

Another key element was Canada's failure to properly consult with Indigenous Peoples. The court found that, although "Canada acted in good faith and selected an appropriate consultation framework," it "failed in Phase III to engage, dialogue meaningfully and grapple with the real concerns of the Indigenous applicants so as to explore possible accommodation of those concerns."

The decision doesn't spell the end of the 1,150-kilometre project. The government is determined to go ahead, with Finance Minister Bill Morneau calling it "critically important for our economy." The court has ordered the government to redo Phase 3 of the NEB process if it wants to proceed.

Elevation of short-term economic considerations over reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and the fact that Kinder Morgan shareholders immediately voted to accept our government's generous offer to buy this white elephant on our behalf - for $4.5 billion! - illustrate the momentous challenges we face to transition off fossil fuels.

For some pipeline proponents, sacrificing a pod of whales is justified by the possibility of increased profits from selling oilsands bitumen to expanded markets. For many politicians and business people (and their supporters in media and business-oriented "think tanks"), economic growth is the highest aspiration and they've convinced many citizens no goal is more important. If that means devastated landscapes, extinction of plants and animals, polluted air and water, and climate disruption, at least the economy's growing and jobs are being created.

Election cycles and the bottom line stand in the way of long-term thinking. The Trans Mountain project is just one of many fossil fuel developments. It was stopped because of a failure to consider impacts on the marine environment and to properly consult with Indigenous Peoples. Those are incredibly important, but so too is the fact that projects like this are predicated on expanded fossil fuel development and use, which is pushing Earth's climate into a more unpredictable, less hospitable phase.

Projects like Trans Mountain and the expanded oilsands development on which they depend conflict with our Paris Agreement commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures. As people choke on smoke-filled air and refugees flee drought-stricken lands, and as polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise, it often feels like we're playing whack-a-mole with fossil fuel development. We stopped the Northern Gateway pipeline only to see Trans Mountain emerge. Keystone XL was halted by one U.S. administration and revived by the next.

It's good that courts and governments are recognizing that they must address issues around the environment and the duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples for resource development to proceed, but there's much to sort out in those areas. And we can't continue to ignore the climate impacts of increasing fossil fuel development. Think what could be accomplished if the $4.5 billion Canada plans to shell out to buy Trans Mountain and the many billions more to complete the project were invested in energy efficiency and clean energy!

Until we shift from short-term economic thinking that pits the environment, Indigenous rights, species at risk and human health and well-being against short-term profit and "growth," we'll likely be stuck in this rut for some time.

My first reaction to the news of the atrocities committed on September 11, 2001 was to think about all my good friends who'd regularly made a habit of eating breakfast at Windows On The World, and then praying to God that they'd all eaten at their desks that morning. (Which they had, thank heavens.) In Washington, however, the reaction of Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, was quite different from mine. With lower Manhattan, and the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania all still smoldering, this was Donald Rumsfeld's reaction. From a 2002 CBS News report:

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H."-meaning Saddam Hussein-"at same time. Not only UBL"-the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Things related.

While most people were thinking and praying for friends and relatives in New York City, and just generally walking around stunned and hurting, there were people in government already planning to use the attacks as an opportunity to carry out the imperial projects about which they'd been dreaming for decades. (There were other people in government who saw the attacks as a chance to put in place authoritarian measures that had been gathering dust on the shelf since COINTELPRO was exposed in 1971.)

For all practical purposes, the Iraq War, with all its terrible consequences, intended and unintended, was launched on September 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked that morning. A country's grief and pain was hijacked later that day.

Donald Rumsfeld in 2001.

Many of them are Never Trumpers now. Many of them will share their memories of that awful day in which so many of them found a dark opportunity to take the country into the shadows from which it has yet to emerge. Keep all those people and their memories at arm's length. Treasure your own. Console yourself with them if you must. But keep away from the anesthetic banalities that were used to shield effectively the plans and connivances of the people who saw opportunity in the still-burning places that morning. Remember things related.

And not.
(c) 2018 Charles P. Pierce has been a working journalist since 1976. He is the author of four books, most recently 'Idiot America.' He lives near Boston with his wife but no longer his three children.

As the U.S. government simultaneously threatens the International Criminal Court for even acting as if it might prosecute the United States for crimes in Afghanistan (a topic "investigated" for years now, while the ICC has yet to actually prosecute any non-African for anything) and (with little apparent cognitive dissonance) uses the implausible claim that the Syrian government might violate a law as an excuse to threaten to violate the supreme international law (that against war) by escalating the killing in Syria, the choice between war and law could not be more stark or critical.

This question will be taken up by many talented speakers and workshop facilitators at #NoWar2018 later this month in Toronto. The conference will focus on replacing mass killing with nonviolent prevention and resolution of disputes. Participants can be expected to agree on that much and little else.

Has law been used more for war or peace thus far? Has it done more harm or good? Should it be a significant focus of a peace movement? Should it focus on local laws, laws on the national level, on tweaking existing international institutions, on democratizing such institutions, on creating a new global federation or government, or on advancing particular disarmament and human rights treaties? No universal consensus, or anything even close to it, exists on any of these points.

But consensus can and will be found, I believe, on particular projects (whether or not there is agreement as to their prioritization) and might be found - and would be very beneficial if found - on broader principles if thoroughly and openly discussed and considered.

I've just read James' Ranney's book, World Peace Through Law. I find myself in as much disagreement as agreement with the details of it, but in far more agreement with it than with the status quo of Western common sense. I think it's important that we think through some of the details, and press forward together as we're able, whether or not we agree on everything.

Ranney proposes a "moderate" vision that stays far short of the utopia of world federalism. Citing the recommendations, now centuries old, of Jeremy Bentham, Ranney writes that "the prospects of adoption of Bentham's 'world peace through law' proposal are almost literally infinitely greater than world federalism being adopted any time soon."

But wasn't arbitration, as proposed by Bentham, put into law over 100 years ago? Well, sort of. Here's how Ranney addresses that in a list of past laws: "Second Hague Convention (outlaws war to collect debt; accepts 'principle' of compulsory arbitration, but without operative machinery)." In fact, the primary problem with the Second Hague Convention is not a lack of "machinery" but a lack of actually requiring anything. If one were to go through the text of this law and delete "use their best efforts to" and "as far as circumstances allow" and similar phrases, you'd have a law requiring that nations settle disputes nonviolently - a law that includes a fairly elaborate description of a resolution process. Ranney similarly, but with less basis, dismisses a law that was put in place 21 years later: "Kellogg-Briand Pact (normative principle outlawing war, but no enforcement mechanism)." However, the Kellogg-Briand Pact doesn't include any of the hedge words found in the Second Hague Convention, or anything whatsoever about normative principles. It requires nonviolent dispute resolution, full stop. In fact the "normative principle outlawing war" - on an actual reading of the text of this law - is exactly the outlawing of war and nothing else. Nothing accurate is communicated by tacking on the words "normative principle." The need for "machinery," if not "enforcement" (a troubled term, as we'll see in a minute) is a real need. But institutions of dispute resolution can be added to the ban on war that exists in the Kellogg-Briand Pact without imagining that the ban does not exist (whether or not one accepts the loopholes purportedly opened up by the UN Charter).

Here are the three steps Ranney proposes to replace war with law:

"(1) arms reductions-primarily the abolition of nuclear weapons, with necessarily concomitant reductions in conventional forces;"

Agreed!

"(2) a four-stage system of global alternative dispute resolution (ADR), utilizing both law and equity;" ("compulsory negotiation, compulsory mediation, compulsory arbitration, and compulsory adjudication by the World Court")

Agreed!

"(3) adequate enforcement mechanisms, including a UN Peace Force." ("not pacifism")

Where does this belief in UN war-making for the cause of peace take us? Places like this (the belief in proper illegal occupations): "Despite the opposition of a recent American president, the use of UN troops to assist nation-building is something that obviously should have happened much earlier in Iraq and Afghanistan, now costing the U.S. trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and gaining us nothing but the contempt of a large segment of the world." The identification of "us" with the U.S. government is the deepest problem here. The notion that these genocidal wars imposed costs on the United States worth even mentioning in comparison with the costs to the wars' principle victims is the ugliest problem here - uglier still in the context of a paper proposing to use more wars to "prevent genocide."

In fairness, Ranney favors a democratized United Nations, which would suggest that its use of its armies would look very different from how it does today. But how one squares that with occupying Iraq and Afghanistan I cannot say.

Ranney's support for a global improved-UN war machine runs into another problem raised in his book, I think. He believes World Federalism is so unpopular and implausible as not to be worth promoting any time soon. Yet I believe that handing over a monopoly on warmaking to a democratized United Nations is even more unpopular and implausible. And I agree with the popular sentiment this time. A comprehensive world government able to attempt to restrain the destruction of the environment by homo sapiens is badly needed, while strongly resisted. A war-fighting world institution out from under the thumb of the United States is even more strongly resisted, and a terrible idea.

I think the logic of why it's a terrible idea is fairly clear. If the use of deadly violence is needed to accomplish some good in the world that cannot be accomplished nonviolently (a very dubious claim, but a very widely and deeply believed one) then people will want some control over deadly violence, and national leaders will want some control over deadly violence. Even a democratized United Nations would move control further from the hands of parties that very much want it. If, on the other hand, we believe the data that nonviolence is more effective than violence, then no war machine is needed - which is of course the reason many of us see for trying to get rid of war.

Ranney gives some examples of what he calls "strong" international law, such as the WTO, but they do not involve militarism. It's unclear why a strong use of the laws against war need use war in violation of itself. Discussing enforcement of a nuclear weapons ban, Ranney writes: "a recalcitrant international outlier must be treated in basically the same manner as a domestic murderer." Yes. Good. But that requires no armed "peace force." Murderers are not typically dealt with by bombing everyone around them (the justifications for attacking Afghanistan in 2001 being an obvious and disastrous exception to that rule).

Ranney also supports as an afterthought what I think ought to be central to this project. He writes: "Not that a UNPF [United Nations Peace Force] ought to be engaged in nothing but the application of force. On the contrary, there ought to be a 'peace and reconciliation' force that makes full use of conflict resolution and other nonviolent approaches, something like the existing Non-Violent Peaceforce. There would need to be diverse types of peace forces, appropriately staffed and trained to focus on diverse challenges."

But why make this superior approach a side note? And how does doing so differ from what we've got right now?

Well, again, Ranney is proposing a democratized U.N. not dominated by five big war makers and weapons dealers. This is a major point of agreement. Whether you cling to violence or not, the first question is how to bring the United States and its allies into the world community of law - including how to democratize or replace the United Nations.

But when envisioning a democratized world body, let's not envision it using the tools of the Middle Ages, albeit with horrific technological advances. This parallels in my mind science fiction dramas in which humans have learned space travel but are extremely eager to initiate fist fights. That's not a likely reality. Neither is a world in which the United States has abandoned rogue-nation status while the customary interaction between nations consists of bombing people.

After hearing so much of this state's bad press over the years regarding Jeb Bush, Rick Scott, Florida's hellish foster-care system, the violent Trump rallies, the brutal murder of Trayvon Martin, the climate catastrophe and all the other horror tales about Flora-duh, I was totally dreading my trip to St. Petersburg -- but still had to go there. Had an important book conference to attend at the historic Vinoy Hotel.

But guess what? I actually liked St. Petersburg. Everything there was so green and balmy and lush. They had great public transportation. The Cuban hot-pressed sandwiches were almost biblically delicious. I totally went off my health-food diet and ate Key Lime pie in an actual diner. I walked around in the swamps, er, wetlands. I got caught in the tail-end of Tropical Storm Gordon (not Gordon Ramsey, BTW, but it was definitely a bit like being in Hell's kitchen). I visited two excellent libraries. I stayed in a trailer. I had a fabulous time and came home with an actual suntan and 40 pounds of free books!

I also talked with a social worker there who said that, yes, there was a problem with the foster-care system. "Some retirees supplement their income by taking in foster kids, receiving $500 a month from the state, feeding their wards on rice and beans and then pocketing the rest. And some of the charter schools here are atrocious too." Okay. So those rumors are true.

But geez Louise. The beaches, the balmy night air around midnight, the kindness of strangers and the fact that everywhere you look you see tropically green plants smiling back at you. Just imagine what this place looked like before 1492!

PS: Another big reason that I had such a great time in Flora-duh is that I had just finished reading a rather scary article in Dissident Voice about how it is totally possible that the human race may become extinct as soon as 2026 -- and that's only eight years from now! So I'd better start trying to "live fast, die young"? Too late for that! But at least I will die knowing that I'd been to almost-paradise.

According to this article, "There is a group of courageous and prominent climate scientists who offer compelling climate science evidence that human beings, along with millions of other species, will be extinct by 2026 (and perhaps as early as 2021) in response to a projected 10 degree celsius increase in global temperatures above the pre-industrial level by that date."

Oops.

Dear Unter Fuhrer Lockman,

Congratulations, you have just been awarded the "Vidkun Quisling Award!" Your name will now live throughout history with such past award winners as Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, George Stephanopoulos, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Prescott Bush, Sam Bush, Fredo Bush, Kate Bush, Kyle Busch, Anheuser Busch, Vidkun Quisling, and last year's winner Volksjudge John (the enforcer) Roberts.

Without your lock step calling for the repeal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, your statement, "If a woman has (the right to abortion), why shouldn't a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman?," Yemen, Syria, Iran and those many other profitable oil wars to come would have been impossible! With the help of our mutual friends, the other "Rethuglican Whores" you have made it possible for all of us to goose-step off to a brave new bank account!

Along with this award you will be given the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds presented by our glorious Fuhrer, Herr Trump at a gala celebration at "der Fuhrer Bunker," formally the "White House," on 09-28-2018. We salute you Herr Lockman, Sieg Heil!

Signed by,
Vice Fuhrer Pence