Keith: Three years after neoliberal warmonger Hillary lost to Donald Trump because of her abysmal record, she is still running against Putin and the Russians!
———————————————————
Btw, Hillary’s vile McCarthyistic tactics significantly predate her loss to Trump. Back in 2014 she was portraying anti-fracking environmental groups as part of a Russian plot.
———————————————————-
Hillary Clinton Expresses Support For Fracking In Wikileaks Document
[…] In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.
“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world.”
In another excerpt of the same speech, Clinton outlines why she supports a continued push for fracking.
“The ability to extract both gas and oil from previously used places that didn’t seem to have much more to offer, but now the technology gives us the chance to go in and recover oil and gas,” the document shows her saying. “Or with the new technology known as fracking, we are truly on a path — and it’s not just United States; it’s all of North America — that will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right.”
She added: “We ought to be committed enough to ensure that we set the example for the world about how to do it with the minimal amount of environmental damage.”
In a purported excerpt of another speech in 2014, the document shows Clinton portraying some environmental groups’ opposition to fracking and pipeline construction as a Russian plot.
“We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media,” the document shows her saying.
“We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”
The excerpts contrast with Clinton’s statements during the Democratic primary, in which she depicted herself as an opponent of fracking.
* * * * *
[….]Oil and gas industry donors have given more than $1 million to Clinton’s political campaigns and millions more to the Clinton Foundation. As a senator, Clinton broke with other Democrats such as then-Sen. Barack Obama to cast some key votes to expand offshore drilling.
Later, the Clinton-led State Department promoted fracking, approved a tar sands pipeline, and cemented a pact to potentially expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Her 2016 campaign has been financially supported by those with ties to fracking, and her transition team chairman, Ken Salazar, has been an outspoken proponent of fracking.
Yeah, well, Gabbard is being groomed by the Russians as a third party candidate to keep Trump in power. ““She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”
echinococcus: …ulemas and rabbies both profit from a supposed (and statistically faulty, controversial) advantage in homosexual men. So, in all logic, they are essentially recommending circumcision… in order to allow the circumcisee the practice of sodomy.
——————————————————————-
Hard to see what your “ulemas and rabbies/sodomy” argument is based on. The claimed health benefits of male circumcision are in no way confined to homosexual men.
————————————————————-
Conclusions of the 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision
Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure.
Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections.
The procedure is well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management. Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare. Male circumcision performed during the newborn period has considerably lower complication rates than when performed later in life.
Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner.
Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in in the best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices. The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.
Findings from the systematic evaluation are available in the accompanying technical report.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.
—————————————————————————————-
Male circumcision confers immediate and lifelong protection against numerous medical conditions. Medical Conditions That Male Circumcision Protects Against Over the Lifetime
Urinary tract infection
Penile inflammation, for example, balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosus
Candidiasis
Phimosis and paraphimosis
Inferior hygiene
Sexually transmitted infections including high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), trichomoniasis, mycoplasma, syphilis, chancroid, and HIV
Physical injuries to the foreskin, including coital injuries
Cancers of the penis, prostate, and cervix
Sources: CDC technical review2 and draft policy recommendations,3 AAP review5 and infant MC policy statement,4 risk-benefit analyses by Morris et al.7–9
——————————————————————————————
The evidence shows the CDC is correct in concluding that findings from sub-Saharan Africa concerning circumcision of adult males for protection against heterosexually-acquired HIV and certain other STIs also apply to men in the United States. The findings also apply to boys when they grow up.
Moreover, the cumulative lifetime benefit is greatest if circumcision is performed early in infancy since early infant circumcision is simpler, more convenient, and carries lower risk than when performed later, and circumcision confers immediate protection against urinary tract infections, phimosis, balanitis, and, when older, specific STIs and genital cancers.
MC also protects the female partners, as confirmed in randomized controlled trials.
The male circumcision debate continues– the issue is anything but cut and dried (and certainly a distraction from the Palestine/Israel issue). See for example:
CDC’s Male Circumcision Recommendations Represent a Key Public Health Measure (2017)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478224/
——————————————————————————————
INTRODUCTION
After an extensive evaluation of the scientific evidence, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released draft policy recommendations in December 2014 affirming male circumcision (MC) as an important public health measure. 1–3 The CDC’s summary1 (Box 1) was accompanied by a 61-page literature review.2
The CDC supported the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) infant MC policy4,5 (Box 2) and recommended that providers: (1) give parents of newborn boys comprehensive counseling about the benefits and risks of MC; (2) inform all uncircumcised adolescent and adult males who engage in heterosexual sex about the significant, but partial, efficacy of MC in reducing the risk of acquiring HIV and some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) through heterosexual sex, as well as about the potential harms of MC; and (3) inform men who have sex with men (MSM) that while it is biologically plausible that MC could benefit MSM during insertive sex, MC has not been proven to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV or other STIs during anal sex.3
[…]The CDC has a mandate to use the best available evidence to inform the public on interventions for disease prevention. In the case of early infant MC, there are few public health interventions in which the scientific evidence in favor is now so compelling.
Despite this, opponents of MC do not accept the CDC’s position. Two prominent opponents, Frisch and Earp, published arguments that led them to conclude that “from a scientific and medical perspective, current evidence suggests that circumcision is not an appropriate public health measure for developed countries such as the United States.”6
Here, we critically assess the evidence used by Frisch and Earp to support their thesis and respond to their main criticisms (summarized in Box 3).
* * * * *
[…]In summary, the current scientific evidence shows that MC provides protection against numerous adverse medical conditions and infections, and the benefits of the procedure, including cost-savings over the long-term, greatly exceed risks, with benefits found in both poor and wealthy countries such as the United States.
In addition, MC has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure, nor is there reliable evidence for any long-term adverse psychological effect of MC. Furthermore, complication rates following the procedure are low, especially following early infant MC. Finally, pain that may be associated with the procedure during the first week of life can be negligible when local anesthesia is used.
Criticisms of the AAP and CDC policies by MC opponents have been consistently exposed as flawed (AAP policy42,128–131; CDC policy132,133). Convincing arguments have been made that it would be unethical to withhold information about the risks and benefits of MC from parents of boys.130–132,134,135 as recommended by the AAP and CDC.
Curiously, those who condemn parent-approved infant MC are not as quick to condemn procedures that provide no medical benefit to children (e.g., cosmetic orthodontia, correction of harelip, surgery for tongue-tie, treatment of dwarfism by growth hormone injections, and surgery for removal of supernumerary digits).135 Why then do some regard MC as controversial?135
Article 24(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health” and “shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health care services.”136
Therefore, we assert that the CDC’s draft MC recommendations do nothing more than advocate appropriately the right of male infants, children, adolescents, and adults to access health care services with medical benefits—that is, MC—and that adoption of the draft CDC recommendations into formal policy should improve public health in the United States.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu faces pre-trial corruption hearing
Defence lawyers representing Benjamin Netanyahu are due to begin their arguments against looming bribery, fraud and breach of trust indictments as a long-awaited pre-trial hearing begins.
Wednesday’s closed-door hearing, the culmination of three years of investigations, arrives at an especially fraught time for Israel’s longest-serving leader. Netanyahu is also fighting for his political life after failing to secure a clear win in two elections this year.
Clinching the premiership for a historic fifth term is seen as a way to protect himself if indicted, as Israeli prime ministers are not required under law to step down unless they are ultimately convicted. That process could take months or even years.
Political survival for Netanyahu is also potentially tied to his personal freedom as some of his parliamentary allies have suggested they would back laws to grant him immunity if he remains prime minister.
Netanyahu has denied all allegations as a politically orchestrated “witch-hunt” to oust him from office.
However, both the attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, and the police have already suggested indictments are likely in three cases, including multiple fraud and breach of trust charges, and a bribery charge.
He could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted of bribery and a maximum three-year term for fraud and breach of trust […]
Darcha: Strange to imagine that an MA in art history makes a hack into a ‘professional historian’
The “professional historian” in question is Tom Segev.
———————————-
Tom Segev (Hebrew: תום שגב; born March 1, 1945) is an Israeli historian, author and journalist. He is associated with Israel’s New Historians, a group challenging many of the country’s traditional narratives.
[…]Tom Segev was born in Jerusalem to parents who had fled Nazi Germany in 1933. He earned a BA in history and political science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a PhD in history from Boston University in the 1970s.[1]
RoHa: …the “we’re all doomed” nonsense that has been fed to Greta.
—————————————–
Greta’s comin’ for ya!
Jss2019: Ask yourself why we want to be left alone and have our own country? Not at the expense of others…
————————————-
But that’s exactly the problem. The Jewish State had to be and was built at the expense of the Palestinians. Vast expense: land theft, ethnic cleansing, war, oppression, denial of the right of self-determination, denial of human rights, imposed statelessness, apartheid, incalculable suffering.
And even if there were some small sliver of a rationalization for all the suffering and abuse heaped upon the Palestinians which the initial creation of Israel required, there is no conceivable rationalization for the continued expansion of the Jewish State since 1967, the continued ethnic cleansing and denial of rights, the continued imposition of statelessness and the continued daily oppression under the Israeli apartheid regime.
Let’s Fight Racism!