HomeUncategorized6/28 News Roundup & Open Thread
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Don midwest
Don midwest

I am posting these research efforts because many here are very interested and engaged with indigenous people and their efforts.

On academia.edu, many papers published. Here is one from a prof at Mich State

Critical Investigations of Resilience: A Brief Introduction to Indigenous Environmental Studies & Sciences
Kyle Whyte

Abstract: Indigenous peoples are among the most active environmentalists in the world, working through advocacy, educational programs, and research. The emerging field of Indigenous Environmental Studies and Sciences (IESS) is distinctive, investigating social resilience to environmental change through the research lens of how moral relationships are organized in societies. Examples of IESS research across three moral relationships are discussed here: responsibility, spirituality, and justice. IESS develops insights on resilience that can support Indigenous peoples’ struggles with environmental justice and political reconciliation;
makes significant contributions to global discussions about the relationship between human behavior and the environment; and speaks directly to Indigenous liberation as well as justice issues impacting everyone


There are many links that come up on the right hand side when I bring up this page.

(academia.edu is free to join)

And here is another paper

Indigenous Art against Extractivism in North America. By Aurélie Journée

To start I would like to thank the Committee who organized this event and coordinate this panel. I am really honored to be there. Let me now introduce myself first. My name is Aurélie Journée, I am a PhD candidate in Social Anthropology at the EHESS (in Paris, France) and my dissertation focuson the Women and Queer artistic practices using photography into their process, since the 1970s to now. Today I am going to speak about how Indigenous Arts take an important place in the struggles against extractivism in North America.

According to Anna Bednik, « Several definitions of « extractivism » have been presented by different authors, but the one given by the Uruguayan Eduardo Gudynas, director of the American-Latino Center in Social Ecology (CLAES), is the most used since these last years by the militantand scientific books. According to him, « extractivism » is the mass or intense exploitation of a natural resource (renewable or not) mostly for being exported as a commodity non converted or converted in the less way. Then, mostly, the critics of the extractivism in Latino-America concernthe dependance of the states towards their « exports of the nature » ; the stubbornness of the actual powers to pursue this way ; the unequal exchange and the role of the global capitalism margins inwhich latino-american countries are locked (a role that implies the sacrifice of wide territories inorder to obtain resources dedicated to exports)



Kamala Harris now walking back her support for M4A; “I misheard the question”. Riiight.


No surprise. Word was she tore Biden a new #######.


To be more accurate, he tore half of it himself.



her hard core supporters don’t care. It makes me so mad, though, that who knows how many people will have only seen the debate answer and now feel that they can support her. literally flat out, flagrant lying to take voters from Bernie.


Actually, Warren supporters should be the most pissed. Warren was unequivocally for M4A. Harris is competing more in Warren’s lane than Bernie’s


Kamala is a liar.


Just some ammo for Bernie. Harris raises her hand for M4A then backtracks the next day.




It appears as if she has planed this assault for a while.

What will Neera say? /S


This may have begun with a WaPo article titled “Kamala Harris changes answer on abolishing private health insurance.” Then, I guess, it went viral.

The article does not bear out the message in the headline, but I guess this is pretty normal. While the writing does nothing to substantiate the headline, it does continue the psychological message embedded in the title, namely: You Sanders supporters think you gained an alliance with Harris last night, but Harris is now trying to back out of that solidarity with Sanders.

I was expecting a bloodbath for Sanders at the “debate” but that didn’t happen. Instead Harris “ate Biden’s liver” (hat tip to Naked Cap commenter “Scarn” for the expression). Sanders stayed above the fracas throughout the evening, which was the right thing for him to do.

But Biden just collapsed. He looked like he was going to cry. He became disoriented, lost cogency, the camera showed repeated shots of his face looking tired, confused and, in a word, “too old” (OK that’s 2 words) for the job. At one point, even, he seemed to have trouble hearing the moderators (more on this below*), and had to ask for the question to be repeated, yet another sign that Biden must be an old codger, kinda like Grandpa who gradually receded from reality as the years bore down on him.

Harris’ takedown was the jumping off point for this debacle. I have to say, I watched the whole Harris-Biden episode with horrified delight. Biden-demolishing was not what I expected from Debate #2. Harris sounding, looking and thinking like a young, committed and savvy political expert also was not what I was expecting.

In fact, Harris ate Biden’s liver, not Sanders’.

This morning’s WaPo headling and article are payback to Harris for trying to destroy (and doing a good job of it) the Dem’s favorite son Biden. It’s an anti-Harris hit piece that went viral. If this isn’t fake news, it is misleading news.

(Harris’ policy of M4A / private insurance is very much in keeping with Sanders’s plan with regard to keeping some private insurers, if they want to offer services not covered by M4A.)

So the ?? remains why did she do it. I’m pretty sure she was breaking the Dem rules for this crew of candidates, which stipulated a “gentleman’s agreement” not to make war on one another. So why did she break the rules? She may have had many motives, but I’m guessing that her animus toward Biden stems from the California foreclosure trainwreck brought on by Steve Mnuchin when he was head of OneWest Bank. Harris, IIRC, began to investigage Mnuchin for practicing foreclosure fraud (OneWest carried out 36,000 foreclosures in CA while she was AG.) Apparently before her investigation got under way the White House called her to Washington for a meeting on some pretext. Following this meeting she returned to CA and dropped the Mnuchin investigation.

If anything casts a large shadow on Harris’s current political aspirations, it’s the Mnuchin episode. And, in my view, on that trip to DC it’s likely that she was not pressured by Obama directly to put aside the Mnuchin case. My guess is that Obama’s henchman and bank-defender Joe Biden was the one who put the arm on her. And Harris, loyal to the Party, conformed to the pressure. It seems that her Dem party loyalty is wobbling now.

Personally I’m not too worried about what they call “unity”. I find the Dem Party breakaways more interesting. They’re boarding Sanders’ train now, right?

*On Biden’s apparent difficulty hearing: what was going on with NBC’s botched sound system? For one brief moment Bernie also cupped his ear and appeared not to be able to hear, or understand the question. The moderators, as expected, were doing a terrible job altogether, but the sound system went down in the middle of Debate #1, and then there was difficulty hearing in Debate #2. Well, Biden and Sanders were next to each other in the middle of the lineup; it wouldn’t have taken much tech know-how to screw up the sound feed to that part of the lineup.

End of Rant!

Happy Friday and many thanks to all TPWers!


T and R, LD!! Wow, 266 comments last night! That sets a terrific. record on here. I didn’t watch it, but judging from 2 different political junkie commentariats, I didn’t miss much. The craporate MSM took a beating on their ‘presentation.’


“commentariats” lol, you can be so funny orl.

Those debates are tough for me to watch, tbh. I was cleaning the kitchen in the background for much of it trying to burn off my nervous energy, haha, my kitchen looks good now at least!






That’s a sad story. What really got me was the interest the hospital adds on to the debts.

Methodist knew that Barrett was a low-income worker, yet it added interest to her account seven times, in amounts ranging from $46 to $7,340.

Charging that much interest to a low-income patient is “unconscionable,” said Fred Morton, a retired minister of Christ United Methodist Church in East Memphis.

“That’s a 21st-century version of slavery,” said Morton, who serves on the economic justice committee for MICAH, a coalition of community and faith-based organizations. “That kind of indebtedness. … That’s horrible to me.”

Methodist, like its peers, also gets assistance from the state of Tennessee to help offset its costs for providing uncompensated care. In the first three months of 2019, the state gave more than $31 million to qualifying hospitals. Of that, Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare’s hospitals received nearly $5 million, according to a quarterly report submitted to the Tennessee General Assembly.

In 2017, Methodist paid its president and CEO, Dr. Michael Ugwueke, $1.6 million in total compensation. That same year, Gary Shorb, the hospital’s CEO from 2001 to 2016, earned more than $1.2 million for serving as Ugwueke’s adviser. In 2018, the hospital brought in $86 million more than it spent, according to an end-of-year revenue bond disclosure statement.

What was that about the hospital being non-profit again????

Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death
Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death



Schumer is even worse than Pelosi. Go Pocan. He refused to apologize to those poor reps who had their tender feelings hurt.


The big picture: On Wednesday, after rejecting the House version of the bill, the Senate overwhelmingly passed its package in a bipartisan 84-8 vote. Pelosi jockeyed Thursday morning to add supplemental protections to the bill for migrant children and restrictions for how the Trump administration can use the funds. However, moderate Democrats and members of the bipartisan “Problem Solvers Caucus” threatened to block the vote unless Pelosi put the Senate-passed legislation on the House floor.

What they’re saying:

Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.): “Since when did the Problem Solvers Caucus become the Child Abuse Caucus? Wouldn’t they want to at least fight against contractors who run deplorable facilities? Kids are the only ones who could lose today.”

Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.): “I am looking for a new pharmaceutical drug that builds spines … Listen, I think leader Schumer and all the Senate Democrats have to understand that we need them to stand up and oppose.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.): “We didn’t even bother to negotiate. There are House amendments, we could have negotiated in, we could have conferenced, we could have tried to get amendments in to get humanitarian provisions put in, to get consequences for facilities that abuse kids in. … We are the House of Representatives and we are a House majority and we need to act like it.”

Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.): “Today I voted NO on Mitch McConnell’s border bill. The bill was a rush job that reflects the worst of Washington – exactly what I ran against. I would rather have worked a long weekend and drafted a bill that actually keeps kids safe and reflects our values.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.): “I voted no on the Senate bill. Standing up for human rights requires more than providing money. We gave the Administration $40 million more than they asked in 2019 for supplies. But they still deprived children of diapers & soap. We need a law that clearly outlaws the abuses.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.): “We had an opportunity to put forth a humanitarian policy and we wasted that opportunity, and it’s quite sad. And I hope that Americans are as appalled as I am.”


There is undeniably some funny stuff on Twitter.

Skip to toolbar