페이지 정보

작성자자연산홍어젓 조회 2회 작성일 2022-07-03 16:44:36 댓글 0


The New Fight for Reproductive Freedom

The far-right Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade in a 6-3 decision, decimating the constitutional right to abortion. In 22 states with trigger laws ready, total or near-total bans on abortion from even the earliest stages of pregnancy go into immediate effect; four more states are expected to soon follow.

How did we get here? Where does the reproductive rights movement go next? What can be done right now to minimize the impact of this decision on the most vulnerable people? The Intercept’s Natasha Lennard talks with professor Rachel Rebouché, interim dean of Temple Law School and author of a new report titled “The New Abortion Battleground,” which looks at the legal issues that will arise across state borders and between the state and federal government; Dani McClain, a Puffin fellow at Type Media Center and the author of “We Live for the We: The Political Power of Black Motherhood”; and Hayley McMahon, an abortion access researcher and doctoral student at Emory University.
I am Ukrainian. I now understand why I've had a Billy Jack complex. I've matured but I will not accept the unacceptable. Women's Lives matter. Black Lives Matter. Indigenous lives Matter. Human beings matter.
**The Time Has Come To Show People That Nobody is Nobody**
Never Give Up and we will win. All civil rights are human rights. We are the "patchwork majority" of all oppressed and dehumanized groups.
Together, we will win.
jaykay415 : Is Rachel using the word "dicta?" What does that mean?
Okay, I looked it up: it simply means "a formal pronouncement from an authoritative source."
Battalion Search and Rescue : #fightback ✊
Bill Billards : There is a world where you can be honest with health care provider. It's just not in the for profit US.
Jamie Ashton : Fascism alive and well in Britain now in various states in USA

The Threat of Nuclear War: Four Decades After “The Day After”

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its threats against the United States and NATO have made nuclear war a top-of-mind issue for Americans once again. Nearly 70 percent of Americans now worry about a nuclear attack, a level of concern unparalleled since the Cold War.

Back then, the ever-present risk of nuclear annihilation was popular culture fare. On a Sunday night in 1983, more than 100 million people in the United States tuned in to ABC’s made-for-TV film “The Day After.” The film dramatized the fictional account of a Kansas town caught in the terror of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The film is said to have led then-President Ronald Reagan to support his first arms control agreement with the USSR, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (which President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2019).

Please join us for a live virtual conversation with Jeff Daniels, who made a documentary on the making of “The Day After” and its impact; Katrina vanden Heuvel, publisher of The Nation and a board member of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; and nuclear weapons expert Sharon K. Weiner to explore the history and the legacy of the film and its lessons for today. Nausicaa Renner, senior politics editor at the Intercept, will moderate.

This event is co-sponsored by The Intercept, the Quincy Institute, and The Nation.
William Tam : Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers after a meeting with Kissinger at the West Coast White House in which Ellsberg realized Nixon was considering the use of nuclear weapons along the DMZ
Levi De Cauwer : I saw Testament when I was young and that made a big impression on me too. Especially because it was very unspectacular, but rather impressive in its modesty and lack of drama.
Ana Lewa : Bendiciones hermosa Celina que Dios te cuidel donde quiera que encantan tus videos.
Tatchik77 : I would have been 6 when this movie was made & I don't recall seeing it but I have been TERRIFIED of a nuclear war my whole life so I suspect I did see it...
Костя Колесников : I wonder if there are any historians who read this? Prepare this is the long one but interesting I promise you! Do you remember how WW1 has begun? There's no one wanted to fight in WW1. Why? Because all that ignite the conflict was the clashes between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.

But the Russian Empire was for the Serbian and Germany for the Austria-Hungary. And once Russia supported Serbs and Germany Austria. Bang, WW1 has begun by luring all other countries into the war. Yet no one wanted war, right? Results? Casualties estimate something around 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. Wait a minute.

Read on, I'm just beginning. WW2 was the second-largest war of the 20's century. Again, no one wanted the war. But basically, WW2 was the continuing of WW1 - because Germany and specifically Hitler and rich people wanted the rematch. Now Hitler attacked Europe and lure the countries into the war.

From 1939 till 1945, heavy casualties 85 million approximately by the end of 1945. But no one wanted the war, right? Now, we have Ukraine and Russia clashes... No one wants the war, right? And nearly all countries are involved indirectly, just like in WW1 and WW2. But let me tell you the difference. In WW1 and WW2 there were no nukes by the end of the war (The only US in 1945).

And today we have heavily armed countries with nukes that according to the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institut), nuclear powers are planning to expand and modernize their nuclear capacities. Do you want to know what to expect then? Let me tell you one thing and then you judge it.

Who knows about Cuban Missile Crysis? That was from 1962? Do you know that we were on the edge of the nuclear conflict? And the David Rockefeller was forced to travel to the Soviet Union to negotiate. He said: "We're on the edge of the thermo-nuclear conflict.

One mistake and neither Soviet, nor United States, and the entire world will be any more". The matter was solved. But listen back then there were only 2 nuclear powers in the world. And today we have 9 countries if I'm not mistaken. Right?

And afterward, when Robert McNamara (United States Secretary of Defense, serving from 1961 to 1968 under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson) was asked about what prevented the nuclear conflict between US and USSR, he respond: "the luck".

Well, today we have the "luck" divided by 7 (nuclear countries in addition to the US and Russia) chances for the starting of the last conflict of this civilization. (Casualties in the case? Well, one - everyone on the Earth) I wonder who wants to play this game?

But this is still too optimistic to think so... Because... Unfortunately, there're also concealed nuclear weapons in some countries...

You know, I've heard what Henry Kessinger has said about how Iran can become a nuclear power. There're just 3 things between having and not having the weapon of destruction: 1) Enrichment capabilities. 2) Delivery capabilities. 3) Military enrichment (warheads). Thus once a country achieves good enough technological development, it can develop some of the capabilities for nuclear power.

The danger is whether it is controlled or uncontrolled because if it's uncontrolled - it can make a lot of problems. For example, some of the greatest nuclear powers can think that attacked by the opposite greatest nuclear power... Which can be not true at all... That's how nuclear war can start accidentally...

So for those who have these concealed capabilities - they must probably disclose their arsenals for this to countries, at least on the level that "they know it".

They need to seat immediately at the negotiation table. And start to talk. Because the consequences are unpredictable and not towards the humanity odds. And are decreasing from year to year.

For those who have skepticism. Well, do you bet your life on this? That there's no concealed nuclear weapon in the world? Or most likely it is. But you need to settle the matter slowly and steadily without "aggressive moves". It's better to talk than not when you deal with a weapon of this kind.

So I urge the US, Russia, and G8 countries to seat at the table with those countries and between each other about the subject of concealed nukes and the ways to disarm all the nuclear arsenal, steady and slowly but down.

Because rich and poor have their kids. I think they want to see their children's children playing around, walking to the high school, marriage, work, and so on and so forth.

Thus I'm asking them: What's the point to be rich when there's no option to live? Why have power, when you can't use it? Why have authority that there's nothing relevant in it? And lastly how long somebody can live when there're all nuclear plants filled with Uranium (nuclear plant's fuel).

Today we have 442 nuclear reactors or more in the world? Well, guess even if 10% which means 44,2 of these reactors will be destroyed. We know that there will be much more - 50%-80% or more. So 44,2- (the super optimistic forecast) will be destroyed. Then what? Do you remember the damage after the Chornobyl? Back then it was only 1 reactor.

And the radiation was damaging in Europe. So multiplying the Chornobyl by 44,2... I don't know how you can survive it. And guess what? The radiation that is produced damaged nuclear reactor is stable-high. For how long? I don't know, maybe scientist does.

And what about other reactors 90%? There's no one who fixes them. So potentially all 100% - 442 reactors are going down. But wait, nobody tested the EMP pulse after the explosion and particularly the effect on the control system of the nuclear plant.

Or conducted? Anyway even if someone thinks he's smart and does not blow around the nuclear plant, but nuclear emp (NEMP) shut down the system... Not smart that he thought right? Because we all understand that there's no chance to survive.

Even if someone rich the bunker somehow and survive the blast and radiation. I wonder how they evaluate their filtration systems, food stock capacities, etc?

For those who survive the blast, there're mutations are waiting that no one hasn't seen... That's how the human cell reacts to the high level of radiation...

What to do? It's so simple I don't get why they're waiting for: Immediate meeting of (G8) nations at the table in the United Nations Office.

And negotiating about the end of conflicts. Ask what exactly each one of them one, in the face. About Ukraine. Use international law, the referendum, and observers from G8, United Nations, countries, and Ukraine and Russia. Make everything to make this - this referendum (In Ukraine) was legal! What's the problem?

Make a referendum in each of the cities of Ukraine. If the vast majority of each one of Ukraine's cities wants to join one or refuses to do so. Then let it be! This is fully compliant with the international laws and the theory of democratic peace right? The motivation for meeting in the UN Office I described to you above. Isn't enough? United Nation was designed to do such things.

The referendum is a legal and international law practice that... The way Russia used the referendum as a way to unite Crimea and Russia. Why Ukraine can't do the same? And slash the blood&destabilization. Yes, it's changing the borders of the country. But it's a legal way to do it, in the frames of the theory of the democratic peace that works today in the world!

I will tell you the effects of what will not happen: If VIP people think they can rely on policies from the previous centries, that's just gambling. I always thought that approach when you have such a powerful weapon must be scientific, not the lay-people approach and gambling. So, meeting today, on the subject without objections!

The days of the World Wars are over, either these wars but basically the disagreement on the territories and authority (not talking about Ukraine, there are a lot of countries with the same problems that can be solved with the referendums.) will end now or one more time... Just think about it - one more time... and humanity will face the consequences... The last consequences of the civilization...

Please re-post it, please! It takes some time to write such long monologues :)

How Vinyl Flooring Made With Uyghur Forced Labor Ends Up at Big Box Stores

The industry calls it “luxury vinyl tile.” In reality, the popular plastic flooring is produced using toxic chemicals — and forced labor.

A new report, by researchers at Sheffield Hallam University’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice in England and at the Maine-based toxic chemical investigative outfit Material Research, details the toll taken by the flooring industry, painting a devastating picture of oppression and pollution in the Uyghur region, all to help consumers in the United States and other wealthy countries cheaply renovate their homes.

Read the full story at
crouching normie hidden dragon : It's really not different from the American prison industrial complex. We need to call coerced racially targetted labor forced labor as well.
Rob Long : All this concern about forced labor in China, but the forced labor in prisons in merica is not a human rights abuse issue? that doesn't make sense. Also poverty in merica is worse than anywhere else because it is the richest country ever.
Orlando : It is interesting to see the downfall of The Intercept in real time. They're getting desperate with their reporting
A Beg : Whatever with your racist rants The Intercept!!!




등록된 댓글이 없습니다.

전체 9,832건 1 페이지
게시물 검색
Copyright © All rights reserved.  Contact :