Mediaboss Marketing

By Steven L. Hall By Steven L. Hall July 14 at 6:00 AM

Steven L. Hall retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of running and managing Russian operations.

Several events led to the controversial meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer on June 9, 2016. (The Washington Post)

Lets begin with an analogy: The United States of America is but one home (a pretty well-off home, to be sure) in a larger world neighborhood. Many of the neighbors generally share our values (Europeans and other democratically based countries), and we get along well. We help each other when we have to, but we all also understand the need to take care of our own family first. We have a few disagreements with other families, but generally, we work through the issues. There are a few miscreants in the neighborhood, though, and one of them Russia is behaving badly.

The United States is one big, raucous family in this neighborhood, a family whose various branches dont always get along. Partisan issues divide the American family health care, income disparity, aging infrastructure and how to fund repairs but they are internal disputes. Like most families, we believe we can and should handle these disputes from the inside, and advice from even well-intentioned friends is not usually helpful. Having an unfriendly neighbor take advantage of family rifts is even worse. This is what happened when Russia worked to undermine the U.S. presidential election last year. Its like Vladimir Putin saw the tensions and divisions in the American family, and decided to try to set fire to the family home in our moment of weakness.

The divided American family has known for a while that the neighborhood thug Russia, and more specifically Putin has been fanning the flames he hopes will eventually consume the United States. The consensus assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia tried to undermine our elections last year using influence operations, and that Russia broke into DNC computers to steal data as part of that effort, has been widely accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike (with the apparent exception of the Republican president). The Republicans who control both the House and Senate have agreed on the need to investigate, as have law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies (the FBI) and an independent counsel. The problem of Russia attacking our electoral process is one on which all sides of the American family should agree.

[I was in the CIA. We wouldnt trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.]

Which is why the recent revelation that Donald Trump Jr., a key player in President Trumps campaign last year, agreed to a meeting with a Russian lawyer who he hoped had derogatory information on Hillary Clinton, is such a shock. The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskay, offered to provide derogatory information on the Clinton campaign during the meeting with Trump Jr., ostensibly on behalf of the Russian government. Which makes it clear that Russia was hoping to go much further than just propaganda operations to undermine American democracy.It is also becoming increasingly clear that the Trump family and its advisers were willing to discuss working with the Russians to ensure that they won the election. This is something that should gravely concern all of the political branches of the American family, regardless of whom they supported for president, and regardless of what other partisan issues divide them.

That the Russian attack on American democracy remains such a partisan issue today is itself gravely disturbing. (One recent poll found that 73 percent of Republicans believe Trump did nothing wrong in connection with Russia, comparedwith only 13 percent of Democrats who feel that way.) There is no doubt that the 2016 campaign reached new lows in negative messaging, new nadirs of name-calling and generally bad behavior on all sides. And, of course, Trumps victory was a profoundly dividing event in and of itself (as Hillary Clintons would have been if she had won). But again, those should be internal family matters. Family disagreements can be deep and damaging. An external attack on our body politic, however, should cause us to close ranks, even with family members with whom we have the most serious disagreements. This is the reasonable response to an external threat.

The latest revelations regarding a Russian lawyer offering to pass derogatory information on Clinton take us into uncharted territory. When Trump Jr. agreed to meet with the lawyer in hopes of obtaining information that could help his father win the presidency, the younger Trump betrayed the larger American family and went over to the other side. He agreed to help Putin the arsonist burn down our house. And while it will be tempting for Republicans and others critical of Clinton to engage in knee-jerk support of Trump, it is important to step back and get perspective. The American family cannot allow itself to be taken advantage of by Russia, no matter how strongly you believe in your candidate, your party or your cause. There are reasonable criticisms that can be made about Hillary Clinton how she handled her emails while secretary of state, questions about speaking fees on Wall Street, specific policy positions she advocated but none of these faults justify cooperating with Russia to ensure her loss. For that matter, none of Trumps faults would have justified working with Russia to ensure that he lost, either.

[I was an FBI agent. Trumps lack of concern about Russian hacking shocks me.]

Family meetings dont usually resolve internal conflicts immediately, and likewise, neither side of the American political divide is going to have a sudden epiphany here. And so it falls upon the family elders to take the lead and set the example. Americas family elders should be the members of Congress, but to date, no leader or group of leaders has emerged to pull everyone together.

There is a bright side, however; Trump Jr.s brazen willingness to consider cooperation with Russia to the detriment of America is a unique moment. It could be a moment in the divided family history where circumstances allow for the thinnest area of agreement, a tiny but crucial overlap in the Venn diagram of American political interests. In this small window of opportunity, Republicans, Democrats and independents can come together and responsibly call out Russia for the damage it has done. And if it turns out as it certainly now appears that an important member of the Trump campaign was open to the idea of accepting assistance from Russia, a foreign power hostile to the United States, then all parts of the political spectrum must join in a rebuke.

Nobody ever said being a member of a family especially one fraught with the deep disagreements of the American family would be fun or easy. Families bring obligations. The primary obligation of any member is to protect the family in the face of external attacks, no matter how deep the disagreements and sometimes even dysfunction that occurs within. If we as Americans cannot accept this, then Russias attacks will have been successful. And if Putin learns that it worked once, he will most certainly try again, until his fondest hope the undermining of American democracy becomes a reality.

Read more:

Donald Trump Jr.s Russia meeting may have been legal. But thats a low bar.

The Clinton campaign tried to warn you about Trump and Russia. But nobody listened to us.

Why would Russia interfere in the U.S. election? Because it sometimes works.

Congress cant resolve the questions about Trump and Russia on its own

The rest is here:
Why Americans need to close ranks against Putin's attack on our democracy - Washington Post

The career of writer and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo intersected often with China's pro-democracy movement. He considered the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests a turning point of his life and his death provoked grief and dismay from fellow activists, who vowed to not let his influence wane. A look at the milestones in the Chinese democracy movement and Liu's involvement.

1978 DEMOCRACY WALL Citizens are briefly allowed to call for political and intellectual freedoms. Liu is a student of Chinese literature at Jilin University.

1986 STUDENT PROTESTS Students protest for democracy, leading to the ouster of reformist Communist Party Secretary General Hu Yaobang. Liu gains renown as a writer and lecturer.

1989 TIANANMEN SQUARE PROTESTS Massive student-led pro-democracy movement is crushed by the army. Liu leaves a job at Columbia University to join the protests and is jailed after the crackdown.

1998 DEMOCRACY PARTY OF CHINA Efforts to form an opposition party result in several arrests and lengthy sentences for organizers. Liu is not involved after having been detained for issuing an appeal on behalf of those who took part in the Tiananmen protests.

2008 CHARTER 08 Liu joins other activists in drafting a call for greater freedom and democracy and an end to one-party rule. He is detained on Oct. 8, 2008, and sentenced a year later to 11 years in prison for inciting subversion of state power.

2010 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE The honor is bestowed on Liu in recognition of his peaceful struggle for human rights and democracy, although, imprisoned, he is unable to attend. China responds with fury, but the award renews awareness of the struggle of China's pro-democracy activists.

2011 ARAB SPRING CRACKDOWN Communist leaders disturbed by uprisings against authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and online calls for protests dubbed the "Jasmine Revolution" within China ratchet up monitoring of perceived dissidents and critics. Among those detained is activist artist Ai Weiwei, who was held for three months and then barred from leaving the country for a period.

2012 BLIND LAWYER ESCAPES Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer, makes a daring escape from house arrest in his rural town into U.S. diplomatic custody in Beijing, setting off a standoff over his case. Chinese officials later let Chen move to the U.S.

2012-13 NEW CITIZENS MOVEMENT Legal workers, civic groups and human rights defenders step up their activism against corruption and other abuses, leading to multiple arrests for crimes such as "disrupting public order."

2015 JULY 9 CRACKDOWN The party steps up attacks on legal activists and others, detaining and arresting scores, some of whom are tried and given relatively light sentences as a warning to others.

2017 ILLNESS AND DEATH OF LIU XIAOBO After eight years in prison, Liu is diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer and is moved to a hospital on medical parole. China rebuffs calls from supporters and foreign governments for him to be allowed to seek treatment overseas. He died Thursday at age 61.

See original here:
Milestones in China's pro-democracy movement - ABC News

East Aurora High School senior Joaquin Oscar Miranda has been named the first place honoree of the Union League Club of Chicago's annual Democracy in Action Award.

He won the award because of his exemplary civic leadership, advocacy and commitment to democratic principles, according to a press release from the club.

The Union League Club of Chicago presents the Democracy in Action Award annually to Illinois junior and senior high school students who demonstrate exemplary civic leadership. During the Union League Club of Chicago's annual meeting on June 6, Miranda was presented his award.

As the first-place winner, Miranda got a check for $3,000.

Democracy in Action Award candidates are nominated by teachers or faculty members who have direct knowledge of the students' achievements and character, according to the press release. The club's selection committee reviews the nominations and judges nominees on their civic participation and leadership in the community for such actions as leadership in student government or facilitating civic participation and public service initiatives that emphasize the values of citizenship.

Miranda is described by Nicole Sales, East Aurora High School counselor who nominated him, as "one of those once in a lifetime students," according to the release.

Miranda was cited for his leadership, service to others, academic excellence and positive attitude.

In addition to completing hundreds of hours of community service, Miranda is a member of the Academic Team, Drill Team, Orienteering Team, Physical Fitness Team, and Color Guard Team, where he has served as a leader for four years.

Miranda is ranked number one and serves as the Cadet Captain in the nation's largest NJROTC program at his high school.

"Academically, he has shined in the classroom and ranked in the top 6 percent of his graduating class," Sales said.

Here is the original post:
East Aurora student wins Democracy in Action Award - Chicago Tribune

Trump attends the Bastille Day military parade on the Champs-Elysees, Paris. Photograph: Lichtfeld/Sipa/Rex/Shutterstock

I would really love for one week to go by when I dont have to think about Russia. Or the Trumps. Or the seemingly never-ending threat to democracy that were currently dealing with. Cant a girl have a week off?

Lets try to focus on the positive: at least this stuff is coming out; at least there are emails proving what so many suspected. At least its looking unlikely that Trump Jr will be able to weasel his way out of being held accountable. (Though if I see any more pieces calling this nearly middle-aged man a kid I will lose it.)

So yes: this is all truly bizarre and scary, that much hasnt changed. But it does feel like were starting to get somewhere. At least, thats what Im telling myself.

When a family was pulled out in a riptide, Florida beachgoers formed a human chain to save them this story is exactly what I needed this week.

Michelle Goldberg on Trump and reproductive rights; April Wolfe at LA Weekly on the tricky politics & skill of filming a rape scene; and Tamara Walker on black tourists and racists abuse.

Besty DeVos met with organizations this week working to end campus rape, but somehow also made time for those claiming that that sexual assault at colleges isnt that big a deal.

On a scale of one to ten, this airline requiring women applying for crew jobs to take a pregnancy test has me at a full ten. Peeing on a stick shouldnt be part of a job application.

My friends opened a new bar in Brooklyn, and Im spending an awful lot of time there drinking incredible cocktails and thinking about how exciting it is that Cecile Richards is writing a book. There are still good things in this world.

Read more:
The never-ending threat to democracy continues. Can't a girl have a week off? - The Guardian

It was 1881, and German chancellor Otto von Bismarck had a serious socialist problem. Hed passed the Anti-Socialist Law of 1878, which banned Social Democratic meetings, associations and newspapers, but he couldnt remove the party outright from the Reichstag. The socialists still found favor with too many constituents.

The political climate of the era was a result of German unification, the period stretching across the 19th century and culminating in 1871, when 26 small states, principalities, duchies and territories formed the German Republic. But thanks to the German constitution, Bismarck didnt have to worry about pleasing the populace; his chancellorship was approved solely by Wilhelm I. But with the European economy in free fall, a nearly successful assassination attempt on the kaiser, and a short-lived but bloody socialist uprising in France, Bismarck was determined to undermine a party that he saw as a danger to the volatile new nation state. So the Iron Chancellor came up with a masterful plan: beat the socialists at their own game by offering health insurance to the working class.

That was a calculation, says historian Jonathan Steinberg, the author of Bismarck: A Life. It had nothing to do with social welfare. He just wanted some kind of bribery to get social democratic voters to abandon their party.

Bismarck didnt care what the programKrankenversicherungsgesetzwas called or how it was described, as long as citizens knew that the statehis statecoined the idea. Call it socialism or whatever you like, Bismarck said during the 1881 Reichstag public policy and budget debates. It is the same to me.

So in 1883, with the passage of the Health Insurance Law, Bismarck made Germany into a welfare stateall to stymie the socialists. The law was the first national system in the world, Steinberg says. Both employers and employees paid into insurance funds, and the German government verified workers enrollment by comparing employer records with fund membership lists, threatening employers of uninsured workers with fines.

Over the next several decades, the initial law would be expanded with accident insurance (1884), disability insurance (1889) and unemployment insurance (1927)and before long, the rest of Europe had taken note of Germanys program. (Great Britain, for example, went in a different direction; its health care laws stipulated treatment be financed by the government through taxes.)

Bismarcks insurance scheme wasnt an entirely original idea. European governments had implemented public health measures since the 14th century, when the Italian city-states took measures to control the spread of bubonic plague through quarantines. And community organized health insurance groupscalled mutual societies or sick fundsappeared around the same time in certain professions. Miners in Bohemia, for example, had Knappschaftskassen, whose members paid into a common pot. The money went towards hospitals and the care of widows and orphans of miners killed in work accidents. The idea only grew in popularity during the Industrial Revolution, which dramatically reshaped the workforce. By the time Bismarck got around to his proposal five centuries later, 25 to 30 percent of workers in northwest Europe had sickness funds.

Factory work harmed worker health. There was a demand for healthcare that they needed to finance, says John Murray, an economist at Rhodes College and the author of Origins of American Health Insurance: A History of Industrial Sickness Funds. But a key part of the Industrial Revolution thats overlooked is that once workers got paid in cash once a week or every few weeks, they had cash that could be spent on what we would call health insurance.

In other words, the availability of currency in densely populated cities made it logistically much easier to organize sickness funds. Farmers and workers like domestic servants were often paid with the goods they produced or in room and board rather than with cash, which made paying into a sickness fund much more complicated.

Those hurdles in the way of universal coverage remained unsolved under Bismarcks law. Anyone who earned a living through in-kind compensation (like farmers) werent required to join the insurance groups. But as the population grew in cities, coverage boomed. In 1885, the enrollment was 4.3 million Germans; by 1913, that number had jumped to 13.6 million. And this came with a number of surprising repercussions.

In the 19th century, Germany had been one of Europes largest labor exporters, with more than 1 million leaving the country between 1851 and 1860 alone. Most made the U.S. their destination. At the time, the combined effects of industrialization and the war against France had heightened a new sensitivity to the consequences of migration, both in economic and military terms, writes economic historian David Khoudour-Castras. By providing workers with government-mandated health insurancesomething they couldnt find anywhere elseGermany made itself more appealing to its citizens. Emigration decreased dramatically in the years leading up to World War I, in part because workers could take sick days if they stayed in Germany.

Meanwhile, the United States only started organizing mutual funds in the 1870s, and workers compensation in industrial accidents was limited before World War I. It wasnt until the Social Security Act of 1935 that the federal government got involved in a meaningful way, and even then most health insurance was employment-based, not unlike the Bismarck system but without the government mandates. As Khoudour-Castras writes, The level of protection of American workers against the main threats was very low before the Great Depression and virtually nonexistent before World War I. By contrast, most German workers were covered by social insurance mechanisms by 1913.

As for the German economy, it did grow in the decades after Bismarcks law passed; whether that was a direct response to the increasing number of people covered by insurance is hard to say. Yes, there was a correlation, but its not clear to me whether the growth caused greater insurance coverage or the other way around, Murray says. He adds that part of the benefit to the economy and the government was that with insurance, workers who fell sick were less likely to fall into poverty and strain the governments poor law institutions.

But did Bismarcks new insurance actually improve worker health? According to economists Stefan Bauernschuster, Anastasia Driva and Erik Hornung, it did. Between 1884 and the end of the century, blue collar worker mortality rates fell 8.9 percent, they write in a recent study. Surprisingly, the insurance was able to reduce infectious disease mortality in the absence of effective medication for many of the prevailing infectious diseases.

The German model evolved over the 20th century, but remained effective and popular. When the system was exported to the Netherlands, Belgium and France during World War II, each of the countries kept the model, despite the fact that it was imposed under Nazi occupation.

All told, Bismarcks system was a massive successexcept in one respect. His goal to keep the Social Democratic Party out of power utterly failed. The vote for the Social Democratic Party went up and by 1912 they were the biggest party in the Reichstag, Steinberg says. Perhaps fortunately for Bismarck, he wasnt around to see their rise. He died in 1898 without another chance to remove the socialists from power.

That Bismarck was able to create the system at all is thanks to a series of unlikely events, Steinberg says. After all, Bismarck only remained in power long enough to establish the law because of the longevity of Wilhelm Iwho survived multiple assassination attempts and lived to be 90 in a period when the life expectancy was around 40. If the kaiser had died sooner, his heir wouldve immediately replaced Bismarck, probably with a less conservative chancellor, and who knows what wouldve happened with the healthcare law.

[The insurance law] was manipulative, clever, worked well, and left a great inheritance, Steinberg says. But I think Bismarck never cared much that he was the founder of the welfare state in Germany.

View post:
Bismarck Tried to End Socialism's GripBy Offering Government Healthcare - Smithsonian