Daily Archives: April 6, 2021

On March 24th, Ukraines President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.

The declaration that Ukraine would take back Crimea from Russia also followed, and was perhaps instigated by, President Bidens inflammatory and foolish statement that Crimea is Ukraine.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a chief architect of the US-backed coup against Ukraine in 2014, continued egging on the Ukrainians, promising full US support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Many Americans wonder why they are not even half as concerned about the territorial integrity of the United States!

Not to be outdone, at the beginning of this month US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin who previously served on the board of missile-maker Raytheon called his counterpart in Ukraine and promised unwavering US support for Ukraines sovereignty. As the US considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, this is clearly a clear green light for Kiev to take military action.

Washington is also sending in weapons. Some 300 tons of new weapons have arrived in the past weeks and more is on the way.

As could be expected, Moscow has responded to Zelenskys decree and to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Kiev and Washington by re-positioning troops and other military assets closer to its border with Ukraine. Does anyone doubt that if the US were in the same situation for example, if China installed a hostile and aggressive government in Mexico the Pentagon might move troops in a similar manner?

But according to the media branch of the US military-industrial-Congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more Russian aggression.

The unhinged US experts behind the 2014 coup against the elected Ukrainian president are back in power and they are determined to finish the job even if it means World War III! The explicit US backing of Ukraines military ambitions in the region are a blank check to Kiev.

But it is a check that Kiev would be wise to avoid cashing. Back in 1956 the US government pumped endless propaganda into Hungary promising military backing for an uprising against its Soviet occupiers. When the Hungarians, believing Washingtons lies, did rise up they found themselves all alone and facing Soviet retaliation.

Despite the cruel US propaganda, at least Eisenhower was wise enough to realize that no one would benefit from a nuclear war over Budapest.

Why is it any of our business whether Crimea is part of Ukraine or part of Russia? Why is it any of our business if the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine prefer being aligned with Russia?

Why, for that matter, are unproven allegations of Russian meddling in our elections a violation of the rules-based international order but an actual US-backed coup against an elected Ukrainian government is not?

We are seeing foreign policy made by Raytheon and the other US military contractors, through cut-outs in government like Austin and others. Feckless US foreign policy experts believe their own propaganda about Russia and are on the verge of taking us to war over it.

It seems as if Americans are sleepwalking through this dangerous minefield. Let us hope they soon wake up beforewere all blown up.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

See the rest here:
Ron Paul: Why Is Biden Administration Pushing Ukraine To Attack Russia? OpEd - Eurasia Review

Former congressman Ron Paul has warned of a government crackdown on bitcoin and safe-haven assets may not be safe from government intervention. The government is the threat, he said, noting that they will crack down because they have the ability to do it.

Former presidential candidate Ron Paul shared his view on the governments intervention on bitcoin in an interview last week with Kitco News Michelle Makori. Paul is an American author, physician, and retired politician. The former congressman from Texas launched The Ron Paul Liberty Report in 2015 to bring provocative opinion and analysis to the breaking issues affecting our lives and finances, its website describes.

Paul was asked about the threat of potential gold confiscation or one form or other of government intervention because that concern is rising. Several well-known hedge fund managers, like Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio and The Big Short investor Michael Burry, have said that safe-haven assets are not necessarily going to be safe from government intervention, Makori recalled. They expect possible tax changes or regulations that will prevent a flight of capital to these assets that could be viewed as an alternative to the dollar, like gold, like bitcoin. She then asked Paul, Could they be at risk of a government crackdown?

The former congressman replied:

Absolutedly the government is the threat because they will crack down because they have the ability to do it.

He added: We had a taste of [a free society]. If you dont know where to start, just start with the Constitution, that might give you an idea of what a free society is all about.

Paul was also asked: What form of a crackdown do you think this could take when we talk about assets, like gold and even bitcoin, potentially being at risk of government intervention at higher taxes and regulation what do you think could happen to those assets?

The former congressman replied, I think all of that can happen. He elaborated that Either the tax system will be used or the government will just print more money, resulting in the devaluation of the currency.

He further opined: But they will do it for public relations reasons. They will have to show that theyre putting a heavy tax on the very wealthy because of the civil strife thats going on.

On President Joe Bidens proposed infrastructure bill, Paul expects its outcome to be worse than average. He opined: Most likely it will do what those kinds of programs always do, they spend a lot of money, theyre inefficient, they always cost more than they thought they should. Besides, its built on some mystical belief that you shouldnt have any concern about the deficit everybodys just in a dream.

What do you think about Ron Pauls warning about bitcoin and government intervention? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Read the original here:
Ron Paul Warns of Government Crackdown on Bitcoin 'The Government Is the Threat' Regulation Bitcoin News - Bitcoin News

Bitcoin is becoming very popular, and its pretty evident that all governments are following it closely. Many analysts and those who believe in the coin are referring to the safe investment that everyone needed. It is also being referred to as a replacement to fiat curreny by many. Considering that it is really obvious that if Bitcoin comes too close to replacing fiat, it could be banned by the government. This is why Ron Paul, the former congressman, said, The government is the threat. He thinks that the government could take down BTC just because they can.

There is a huge threat to Bitcoin from the US government. In an interview, Ron Paul said that he thinks that the government could take out Bitcoin. With cryptocurrency becoming more popular every day, the usage is increasing, and so is the adoption. And we are sitting awfully close to the time when it will be either BTC or fiat. In that case, I am sure to maintain the monopoly of the government, BTC could be banned. This could be similar to the gold ban that happened in 1934.

Image Source: Bitcoin News

Back then, gold became very popular as an asset, and it was banned and confiscated by the government. Even that could happen here. Note that we are not talking about BTC being fundamentally wrong as an asset but the governments view on it. Even the Big short investor Michael Burry pointed out that even if BTC could be a safe investment, it will not necessarily be safe from the authorities. And considering the government doesnt ban Bitcoin, seeing that there are too many businesses and individuals linked to it, there could be new laws and regulations for the same.

Ron Paul said that he thinks the crackdown could happen either by using a complete ban or tax policies. Whatever they plan on doing will not be great for Bitcoin and could ultimately lead to its downfall. And so that people think that the government is doing the right thing, they will just show public causes for the same.

The Indian government had a very strong want to ban Bitcoin, but they didnt. And I think this is partly because no other major democracy did it. But if the US bans BTC and other cryptocurrencies, there is a good chance that India and many other nations that see it as a threat will follow in its footsteps. Ultimately this could lead to a huge price drop, and people cashing out means that Bitcoin could run to the ground once again.

Do you think that The government is the threat to the ultimate growth of Bitcoin? And do you really think they could ban it? Let us know in the comments below. Also, if you found our content informative, do like it and share it with your friends.

Also, Read: Bitcoin payments are becoming increasingly common as more companies embrace it.

See the rest here:
"The government is the threat" says Ron Paul on Bitcoin - Techstory

The governments of the world have not fully sympathized with the idea of Bitcoin, some more than others, but it is still a minority. In the case of the United States, positions vary widely between individuals, but there is generally a dislike for security. Along those lines, former Congressman Ron Paul warned of a government crackdown on Bitcoin and safe-haven assets. He also mentioned that they may not be safe from government intervention. The government is the threat, he said, noting that they will crack down because they have the capacity to do so.

During an interview with Kitco News Michelle Makori, former presidential candidate Ron Paul shared his thoughts on the governments intervention in Bitcoin. Paul is a retired American author, physician, and politician. At the time, Paul was asked about the threat of possible gold confiscation or one form or another of government intervention. Do you expect possible tax changes or regulations that will prevent a capital flight to these assets that could be seen as an alternative to the dollar, like gold, like Bitcoin? He was asked.

In response, Ron Paul replied: Absolutely andThe government is the threat because it will crack down because it has the capacity to do so. He added: We tried. If you dont know where to start, just start with the Constitution, that might give you an idea of what a free society is.

Paul was also asked: What form of repression do you think could be taken when it comes to assets, such as gold and even Bitcoin, that are potentially at risk of government intervention with stronger taxes and regulations? The former congressman replied: I think all that can happen. He explained that either the tax system will be used, or the government will simply print more money, resulting in the devaluation of the currency.

He also opined: But they will do it for public relations reasons. They will have to show that they are imposing a high tax on the very rich because of the civil strife that is going on. On the infrastructure bill proposed by President Joe Biden, Paul expects it to be worse than average.

He opined: Most likely they do what those kinds of programs always do, they spend a lot of money, they are inefficient. They always cost more than they thought they should. Also, its based on a mystical belief that you shouldnt worry about the deficit everyone is in a dream.

Do you think Ron Paul is right to maintain his reservations about the actions of the US government with Bitcoin? Or do you think hes exaggerating about it? Tell us in the comments.

See the original post here:
Ron Paul: The government is the threat against Bitcoin Explica .co - Explica

Veteran WWE Superstar Kane, who is also known as Mayor Glenn Jacobs of Knox County in Tennessee, is being honored locally for his induction into the WWE Hall of Fame 2021 Class.

Knoxville Senator Becky Duncan Massey has introduced a Senate Joint Resolution to formally honor and celebrate Mayor Jacobs as he prepares to enter the WWE Hall of Fame as Kane.

When he is inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame, Kane will take his rightful place alongside such legends as Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, and Dusty Rhodes; both Kane and his real-life alter ego, Mayor Jacobs, are worthy of our praise and recognition on this special occasion, the resolution reads.

The resolution (SJR0384) was introduced into the Tennessee General Assembly on Monday of this week, and then passed on first consideration today, April 1.

As Knox County Mayor, Glenn Jacobs has earned the respect and admiration of his constituents through his honesty and integrity, but no matter what measure of popularity he achieves in Tennessee, he will never match the approbation and adoration that wrestling fans have heaped upon Kane, the resolution reads.

The resolution also details some of Jacobs career accomplishments since debuting in 1997 as the Kane character.

Mayor Jacobs tweeted a response to the resolution and wrote, Thank you to my friend @MasseyForSenate for this wonderful honor!

Kane recently announced his re-election campaign, as reported at this link.

You can see Kanes tweet below, along with a congratulatory tweet he received from Ron Paul, and a local news story on the resolution from WBIR Channel 10 in Knoxville:

Originally posted here:
Kane Honored With Senate Joint Resolution For His WWE Hall Of Fame Induction - Wrestling Inc.

STARKVILLE Bobby Thigpen has no shortage of baseball accolades.

The former standout Major League Baseball relief pitcher set a major league record for most saves in a single season (57) in 1990 for the Chicago White Sox, earning him an All-Star Game appearance and the Rolaids Relief Pitcher of the Year award. His record stood for 18 seasons, and he made more than $10.7 million in career earnings according to BarryCode.com.

Yet, after being in attendance for the first-ever Ron Polk Ring of Honor class in 2019 that included former teammates Will Clark and Rafael Palmeiro, he was told by Polk himself it wouldnt be long before he gets his own name called. One year later, Thigpen did. That just hit differently for the former Mississippi State pitcher and outfielder.

There is no other award I could get at this point that would be better, Thigpen said.

The ceremony was supposed to occur in 2020, but it was pushed back to 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. When Thigpen was inducted in a class that includes MSUs career strikeout leader in Eric DuBose and the first coach to lead MSU to a College World Series in Paul Gregory in the middle of the Arkansas series March 27, emotion took over.

This was an honor that exceeds anything Ive ever done individually, he said. I look at this from the view of the fans, school, and coach Polk. Im eternally grateful for the school giving me the opportunity to come here and play and will forever be a Mississippi State Bulldog.

While Thigpen is remembered by many pro baseball fans for his contributions as a reliever, MSU fans remember a two-way player who helped lead MSU to the 1985 Collegiate World Series. At the plate, his first and last career at-bats were grand slams. Over a two-year career with the Bulldogs, Thigpen drove in 101 runs, hit seven home runs and racked up seven saves.

At Mississippi State, I liked being in the outfield, Thigpen told The Dispatch. Pitching was a secondary hobby. Obviously in the big leagues I wasnt good enough to be a big league hitter. But as far as college goes, being in the outfield took your mind off things. One of the last games I ever played in, I had a tough pitching game, so you definitely try to forget about that.

Meanwhile, DuBose, who racked up a school-leading 428 strikeouts from 1995 to 1997, also got a bit emotional after receiving the honor from the school.

Its overwhelming to have the honor to be inducted in the second class with Bobby Thigpen and Paul Gregory, DuBose said. I really lived a fairy tale for my three years at Mississippi State. Getting to play here, I had a great career and the story book ending of my last game being pitched here in 1997 against Washington to go to the College World Series and getting the dog pile on the mound. It was a perfect ending for me in my three years.

After being picked 21st overall by the Baltimore Orioles in the 1997 draft, DuBose carved out a five-year big league career for himself, pitching 188.1 pro innings. DuBose is also the first player from the 1990s era to be inducted into the ring of honor.

It was like the 85 Ring of Honor (last year), so its good to bring a little 90s taste into the ring, DuBose said. Its a great accomplishment and something Im very honored to be a part of.

Gregory, who coached at MSU from 1957-1974, was inducted posthumously. He led MSU to its first four NCAA tournament appearances in program history, including the first trip to the College World Series in 1971, and four Southeastern Conference titles. Gregory won 328 games and was named SEC coach of the year on four occasions.

Read the original:
MSU inducts Thigpen, Gregory, DuBose into Ron Polk Ring of Honor - The Dispatch - The Commercial Dispatch

It was around noon and I was texting a friend about who-knows-what when I added, almost as an afterthought: "tho they seem to be invading the Capitol at the mo." I wasn't faintly as blas as that may sound on January 6th, especially when it became ever clearer who "they" were and what they were doing. Five people would die due to that assault on the Capitol building, including a police officer, and two more would commit suicide in the wake of the event. One hundred forty police would be wounded (lost eye, heart attack, cracked ribs, smashed spinal disks, concussions) and the collateral damage would be hard even to tote up.

I'm not particularly sentimental about anyone-can-grow-up-to-be-president and all thatin 2017, anyone didbut damn! This was democracy under actual, not rhetorical, attack.

As the list of people charged in connection with that insurrection rose, ways of analyzing their possible motivations grew ever more creative: at least nine of the rioters who broke into the Capitol had a history of violence against women; almost 60% had had money troubles; and above all, 50, or 14.5%, of the 356 people arrested at last count, had military connections, as did the woman killed by a policeman that day. (Veterans and active-duty personnel account for 7.5% of the U.S. population.) More than a fifth of the arrested veterans have been charged with "conspiracy."

The need to understand why an estimated 800 people ransacked the Capitol, attacked the police, and threatened elected representatives, journalists, and the basic functioning of American democracy is both practical and emotional. Thinking that we know what motivated the rioters makes their rebellion feel a little more manageable (at least to me) and might just help prevent something like it from happening again.

Given my backgroundI've been writing about soldiers and veterans for yearsmy management technique has been to look at the military links to that assault.

I'm hardly alone. In one of the few times other than Veterans Day in this century when American journalists seem to have remembered that our military was crucial to our national experience, a number of them began covering that link. A regularly updated NPR list shows that almost all of those with military affiliations in the Capitol that day were veterans. Several had previously been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan; one had worked on presidential helicopters and so (like another of the rioters) would have had a top-secret security clearance; one, who wasn't actually at the Capitol but whom the FBI is eyeing for conspiracy charges, was on the staff of former congressman Ron Paul; and one had even been in the Peace Corps. Nearly all of them were men and nearly all were white. Two were Citadel cadets, but only two were active-duty personnel. (One of those had, in the past, come to work at a Navy yard in New Jersey decked out in a Hitler mustache and hairdo and reportedly made anti-Semitic comments daily. He got admonished for the mustache; the comments continued.)

I admit that I was surprised by all this, although I probably shouldn't have been. After all, last year, even in the age of Trump, the FBI had opened 68 investigations into domestic extremism involving current or former members of the military.

I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that many of those veterans were affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys or Oath Keepers and much has been made of why such groups would want to engage people with military experience who bring with them training, skills, possible access to weaponry, and the twisted credibility of government-issued hero status. Far less was said about why people in the military might be attracted to far-right groups.

The Link Between Extremist Culture and the Military

A week after the Capitol invasion, 14 Democratic senators wrote a letter calling on the Pentagon's Inspector General to investigate "white supremacy" and "extremism in the military." The next month, a House subcommittee held a hearing under the rubric "Alarming Incidents of White Supremacy in the MilitaryHow to Stop It?" Meanwhile, on February 5th, the first Black secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, directed commanding officers at all levels to conduct a one-day stand-down before April 1st to address extremism in the military and provide training in avoiding involvement with extremist groups. At the same time, the Pentagon admitted that it didn't have a handle on the scope of the problem or what to do about it.

The link between extremist culture and the military goes way back, as do efforts to track and deal with it. The names of the groups have changed over the yearsthey used to sound German, now they sound moralisticbut the problem hasn't. For instance, in 2009, Operation Vigilant Eagle, an FBI program focused on the recruitment of veterans by white supremacist groups, came to light, and that same year a Department of Homeland Security assessment warned that "right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans"returning, that is, from America's distant, never-ending wars. Conservative politicians, media personalities and veterans' groups found that DHS report insulting to veterans and got it withdrawn.

Keep in mind that active-duty service members are officially restricted in their political activities, so there were undoubtedly many still in uniform who didn't show up at the Capitol but would have liked to do so. And though the Proud Boys have focused their recruiting on the military and law enforcement, it's hardly necessary to join such loosely structured groups to support their ideology and aims. A 2019 Military Times survey, for example, found that 36% of military respondents had "witnessed examples of white supremacy and racist ideologies" in the ranks.

Military rules tend to delineate the rights soldiers don't have more than those they do, but Department of Defense Directive 1325.6 gives active-duty members the right to participate in political demonstrations as long as they are off base, out of uniform, within the United States, representing only themselves, and not slandering the president or high officials. However, activities like fundraising for, distributing the political material of, or wearing the totemic clothing of white supremist and other extremist groups could indeed get you kicked out of the military, as could certain kinds of social-media posts.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) has been pushing to track the social media activities of all enlistees and the Pentagon claims that it's looking for a "scalable way" to add that into background checks.

Members of the armed forces have a duty to report such behavior, though don't count on that, since it's probably seen as snitching. Commanders also have considerable leeway when it comes to how they might respond to the proscribed actions

It goes without saying, of course, that soldiers are not supposed to engage in any kind of violenceexcept the violence they're ordered to take part in as soldiers.

That's Not Okayish

America's military was designed to be politically neutral and has prided itself on being nondiscriminatory and merit-based, traits theoretically crucial to maintaining an all-volunteer force (though in racial terms over the years it's been anything but, at least when it came to the high command). All branches now purport to screen for supremacist, extremist, or criminal-gang involvement at the time of enlistment and military leaders, who probably don't want troublemakers in their commands, are reportedly taking pains to confirm that such extremists will not be tolerated.

Except when they are.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

The design of military justice makes it hard to track advocates of extremist violence, as there is no centralized record-keeping for such things and, often enough, such behavior is simply brushed aside.

In my own unscientific survey, I recently asked two active-duty soldiers and three Iraq War veterans if they had encountered right-wing extremism while in the service. Four initially said nothe fifth, a Black sailor, at one point had had a noose dangled in his facebut then began recounting tales of what was permitted or considered normal behavior: a U.S.-based paramedic talking about avoiding a Black neighborhood where he would encounter "animals"; a call from a friend and Stryker platoon leader in Germany who found arbeit macht frei, the slogan at the gates of the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, carved into the interior of some of his unit's vehicles; a fellow recruit at basic training revealing a giant swastika on his back. He was soon sent packing, but had made it through the enlistment process where such things are supposed to be caught. (My source thought his quick dismissal came only because his training instructor was Black. He didn't consider such a response typical.)

Nobody I talked to was okay with any of this, but one active-duty soldier admitted, "When I was most brainwashed, I saw it as cathartic, being comfortable without having to worry about 'cancel culture.'"

Extremism in a World of Never-Ending War

Organizing within the military isn't easy. At least, it wasn't for antiwar activists during the Vietnam and Iraq War years (as I found out when researching my book, War Is Not a Game: The New Antiwar Soldiers and the Movement They Built). But maybe what's going on now among the soldiers of the far right isn't organizing as much as a signaling or sharing of interests and affinities, particularly on the Internet. Or maybe it's "self-radicalizing"reading extremist material, following the websites of supremacist groups, or connecting on social media; what, in other circumstances, we might call educating yourselfwhich breeds sympathy, if not membership.

As separate as the military may seem from civilian culture, it's anything but immune to the vicious discord which now plagues this country. But the military was fertile territory for right-wing sympathies long before Donald Trump became president or the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers came along. The turning of the post-Vietnam War military into an all-volunteer force only seems to have exacerbated such tendencies. As an Army captain emailed me, "The military recruits heavily from the same population that extremist organizations dosocially isolated, downwardly mobile, and economically vulnerable young men." Jonathan Hutto, a Black veteran who challenged the racism he encountered in the Navy, wrote that his shipmates didn't need to be "inculcated with Racist-Fascist Ideology" because they had arrived primed for it by their families and communities.

A former captain in the Marines told me that veterans often find themselves battling with the VA over benefits and services they thought they'd been promised when they went to war and that leaves them embittered against the government. Their difficulty in even talking honestly about their war experiences, not to speak of the PTSD they may be experiencing, often leaves them feeling out of sync with the countryand so they become ready recruits for extremist and white supremacist groups that offer them a sense of belonging.

Active-duty service members also often feel betrayed by recruitment promises which never pan out and multiple deployments in distant war zones which accomplish little or nothing at all. Speaking of that sense of resentment, Garett Reppenhagen, executive director of Veterans For Peace, says, "They just can't pinpoint where it comes from. The frustration is legitimate. It's just focused wrongly."

Kathleen Belew, a historian much cited in the wake of the January 6th insurrection, studied the appeal to veterans of white-power groups in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. In her book Bring the War Home, she explains how they came to see the state as the enemy and patriotism as something other than defending the nation. The parallels to today, while striking, lack one reality of this moment: unlike in the Vietnam era, America's wars in this century have simply never ended and so continue to produce alienated veterans.

It's striking, after all, that the veterans who joined the Capitol insurrection weren't exactly kids. In fact, only seven military-connected rioters arrested so far are 30 or younger.

Unlike with Vietnam (long as it was), when wars never end but continue, as if on a Mobius strip of belligerency and repetitious deployments, there is no aftermath, no recovery. People now old enough to enlist have never known a United States not at war. As a result, the pressures now at play and producing extremism in the military could be seen as related to what one veteran I interviewed termed a larger "cultural project" that, however unexamined, is aimed at creating an ever-more-militarized (which also means an ever-more-extreme) society.

Here, war is sold, not just as acceptable, but as necessary to maintain the vaunted American way of life. Meanwhile, its actualities are largely cloaked from scrutiny until they shimmer into a very pricey item loved by both parties. It's called the Pentagon budget.

An Increasingly Militarized Heritage

However many military-related figures broke into the Capitol on January 6th, what if the tendency toward violent extremism is more endemic to that military than we'd like to think? What if the very purpose of such a military creates the conditions for the racism and violence we're now seeing? What if far-right radicals aren't some enemy out there but a seamless outgrowth of the institution we think of as so categorically American? And if all that's so, what have we really been thanking service members for, so devotedly all these years?

A military is, of course, innately hierarchical, authoritarian, and adversarial, and war, by definition, is terror. Tenets inculcated from basic training onvenerating tradition, idealizing heroism, valuing action for action's sake, equating masculinity with militarism, and thinking of anyone who disagrees with you as potentially treasonousare eerily similar to the ideology of far-right groups. And don't forget this either: American wars of the past 70 years have functioned by reducing the enemy to gooks, sand n***s, and hajis (the last, a term of respect in Islam twisted into an epithet by American troops)in other words, using baked-in racism to dehumanize enemies and make it easier to hate and kill them.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm by no means saying that everyone in the U.S. military is racist or enamored of violence, or that they condone or support racist, violent ideologies. What's true, however, is that the military's actions are based on dividing the world into friends and foes: the first to be protected out of all proportion to the threat, the second to be humiliated and defeated out of all proportion to the needthough, in this century, ironically enough, the defeated have turned out to be us.

Such overkill in attitude and approach naturally bleeds into society as a whole (even when its members are paying remarkably little attention to the wars being fought in distant lands). Of his country's treatment of Palestinians, the Israeli novelist David Grossman wrote, "I could not understand how an entire nation like mine, an enlightened nation by all accounts, is able to train itself to live as a conqueror without making its own life wretched."

Only a small crew of people in the military actually join radical right-wing groups and there's little question that its leadership is concerned about those who do. But there is an inheritance of violence in our increasingly militarized land that ought to concern us all, too.

Go here to read the rest:
America's Far-Right in Uniform - Common Dreams

Maybe part of it has to do with where we start. Whites drawn to Madison are often among the most highly educated attracted to our world-class university or the regions burgeoning technology sector.

Some people of color who come here dont start with the same privileges and thats also true for their children at school, but generalizations are perilous and theres much more to the achievement gap story than that. Well-educated people of color often report that their children dont get the same treatment at school here that white children do.

Many do, but not all Madisonians care much about delving deeper into racial justice.

I noticed after Black Lives Matter protests here last year an unrelenting buzz about the property damage on State Street and the suggestion that there were lawless hordes downtown. Madison police, criticized by some Black leaders as racially insensitive, are criticized by others as overly conciliatory.

Racial animus was stoked by Donald Trump, and some subset of Madison buys into that. They probably like the law-and-order message and would be less likely just as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said he was to fear the predominately white crowd at the U.S. Capitol insurrection than Black Lives Matter activists. Yes, Madison is generally liberal, but I have been surprised at how prominent that vibe has been.

Read more from the original source:
Paul Fanlund: Listen more than you talk, and other advice on racial justice - Madison.com