28 March 21
The Key is, “Reasonable Support”
RSN is actually built to function with a small fraction of the readers contributing on a monthly basis. When we struggle to get 1% of the Readers to respond with a contribution during the course of a funding drive, that simply isn’t reasonable.
When people help to the extent that they can RSN becomes a powerful voice.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
28 March 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Robert Reich | Mark Zuckerberg Must Be Held Accountable for His Complicity in the Surge of Far-Right Extremism
Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
Reich writes:
s Mark Zuckerberg testifies in front of Congress today on the proliferation of extremism on his platform, hundreds of far-right militias are still using Facebook to organize and recruit new members. A new report finds that more than 200 militia pages and groups were active on the platform as of March 8 — despite promises from Facebook leadership to crack down on such activity after militias played a key role in leading the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. The report also found the platform directs people who “like” certain militia pages to look at other pages, essentially helping the groups recruit new members. The groups have posted content supporting the Capitol attack, cheering on the Proud Boys, and promoting broader anti-government violence.
Time and time again, Facebook leadership has failed to properly address the radicalization and extremism rampant on the platform. They’ll release a carefully worded statement purported to show their commitment to tackling the problem, and then not follow through. And as we’ve seen multiple times now, this refusal to truly crack down results in real-world violence and even death. Mark Zuckerberg must be held accountable for his complicity in the surge of far-right extremism.
That’s my view. What do you think?
Mourners at the funeral on Sunday for protester Kyaw Win Maung in Mandalay. (photo: Reuters)
Myanmar Coup: At Least 90 Killed as Army Opens Fire on Protesters During Deadliest Day
BBC News
Excerpt: "The killing of more than 90 anti-coup protesters in Myanmar has drawn global outrage, with defence ministers of 12 nations condemning the military."
he US accused the security forces of a "reign of terror" on Saturday, the deadliest day since last month's coup.
Coup leader Min Aung Hlaing and his generals still threw a lavish party that night for Armed Forces Day.
On Sunday, funerals were held, with some reports the military had tried to intervene in the mourning.
More than 400 people have now been killed in the suppression of protests in Myanmar since the 1 February coup.
The military seized control of the South East Asian country after an election which Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) party won by a landslide.
What has been the international response?
The defence chiefs of a dozen nations, including the UK, on Sunday issued a rare joint statement condemning the military's violent actions.
The US, Japan and Australia were also among the signatories of a statement that said: "A professional military follows international standards for conduct and is responsible for protecting - not harming - the people it serves."
The US said it was "horrified" by the killings. Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused the military of "sacrificing the lives of the people to serve the few."
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "deeply shocked" by the violence, and British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab called it a "new low".
UN Special Rapporteur Tom Andrews called for an international emergency summit.
China and Russia have not joined the criticism, which means taking action through the UN Security Council - where they have vetoes - could be difficult.
What's the latest on the streets?
On Sunday, families held funerals for some of those killed the day before.
One was for Kyaw Win Maung, who was shot dead in Mandalay.
Another service in the city was held for Aye Ko, a father of four.
"We are told by the neighbours that Aye Ko was shot and thrown into the fire," one relative told AFP news agency. "He was the only one who fed the family, losing him is a great loss for the family."
Reports from Myanmar are difficult to confirm, but some local media said security forces had tried to intervene in funerals. Burmese-language outlet The Irrawaddy said police tried to arrest people at a service for a student union member killed in the town of Phaya-Gyi.
Protests are also reported to be continuing despite Saturday's crackdown, with rallies in towns including Katha and Hsipaw.
How has the military responded?
The military has not commented on the killings.
Early on Saturday it held a parade for Armed Forces Day and heard a speech from the coup leader Min Aung Hlaing, who said he wanted to "safeguard democracy" but also warned against "violent acts".
Representatives of Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand attended.
On Saturday evening a luxury military party was held in the capital Nay Pyi Taw, drawing an angry response from some on social media, including Burmese activist Maung Zarni:
A number of Twitter posts placed pictures of the party alongside images of victims.
What happened on Saturday?
Anti-coup activists had called for peaceful protests but they soon turned violent as the security forces opened fire in more than 40 locations.
The commercial centre, Yangon, saw dozens of deaths, but killings were recorded from Kachin in the north to Taninthartharyi in the far south.
The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) monitoring group confirmed more than 90 deaths. Local news site Myanmar Now puts the death toll at 114, while the United Nations said it was receiving reports of "scores killed" and hundreds injured.
The director of the Burma Human Rights Network in UK told the BBC the military had shown it had "no limits, no principles".
"It's a massacre, it's not a crackdown anymore," Kyaw Win said.
Children among the dead and injured
Moe Myint, BBC Burmese
Fourteen-year-old Pan Ei Phyu's mother says she rushed to close all the doors when she heard the military coming down her street. But she wasn't fast enough. A moment later, she was holding her daughter's blood-soaked body.
"I saw her collapse and initially thought she just slipped and fell. But then blood spurted out from her chest," she told BBC Burmese from Meiktila in central Myanmar.
It was the randomness of the killings that was particularly shocking. Armed with battlefield weapons, the security forces appeared willing to shoot anyone they saw on the streets. The brutality they showed they were capable of is on another level from what we have seen since the coup.
Neither side - the military nor the pro-democracy movement - is willing to back down. The military thinks it can terrorise people to achieve "stability and security". But the movement on the streets, led by young people, is determined to rid the country of the military dictatorship once and for all.
It's painful to have to count the mounting dead, especially the children.
California's Supreme Court decided an arrestee could not be detained solely because they lack the resources to post bail. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
California Supreme Court Rules It's Unconstitutional to Detain People in Jail Because They Cannot Afford Bail
Julie Gerstein, Business Insider
Gerstein writes:
alifornia's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that it is unconstitutional to keep people behind bars simply because they cannot afford bail.
The unanimous decision signals that going forward, California judges will be required to assess a defendant's ability to pay bail when they set it.
"What we hold is that where a financial condition is nonetheless necessary, the court must consider the arrestee's ability to pay the stated amount of bail - and may not effectively detain the arrestee 'solely because' the arrestee 'lacked the resources' to post bail," Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote in the decision.
The justices concurred that there may be circumstances where the "need to protect community safety may conflict with the arrestee's fundamental right to pretrial liberty," but said that, "in order to detain an arrestee under those circumstances, a court must first find by clear convincing evidence that no condition short of detention could suffice and then ensure the detention otherwise complies with statutory and constitutional requirements."
The decision came out of a case brought forth by Kenneth Humphrey, a San Francisco man accused of robbing a man for $7 and a bottle of cologne. In 2017, Humphrey was charged with first-degree residential robbery and burglary against an elderly victim, inflicting injury on an elder adult, and misdemeanor theft. A judge initially set Humphrey's bail at $600,000 before reducing it to $350,000.
It is unclear how the state will maintain a standard threshold for the "need to protect community safety," Santa Clara University law professor David Ball told the the East Bay Times.
According to the American Bar Association, around 500,000 people are currently in jail because of their inability to pay bail while they wait for their cases to be heard.
The problem of being unable to make bail disproportionately impacts communities of color, according to the Northern California American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU also found that Black and Latino people are far more likely than whites to be denied bail and held in pretrial detention.
In one of the most well-known examples, 16-year-old Kalief Browder was sent to New York City's Rikers Island after he was accused of stealing a backpack. A judge denied Browder the right to bail, and the teen spent three years - two of which were in solitary confinement - at the jail. He died by suicide at 22.
The Prison Policy Initiative, a non-profit that works on prison reform, found that Black defendants are at least 10 to 25% more likely than white defendants to be denied bail or detained pretrial.
Additionally, the PPI said, "Black and brown defendants receive bail amounts that are twice as high as bail set for white defendants - and they are less likely to be able to afford it."
Bail reform organizations hope California's decision will help set precedent in other states.
"I am pleased other people will have the same opportunities I had to change their lives and they will not have to wait in jail for years because they are too poor to pay bail," Humphrey said in a statement Thursday, according to the Huffington Post.
Demonstrators stand outside of the Georgia Capitol building, to oppose the HB 531 bill on March 3, 2021 in Atlanta, Georgia. (photo: Megan Varner/Getty Images)
How Trump's Big Lie Is Fueling the Voting Rights Battle in Georgia
Tessa Stuart, Rolling Stone
Stuart writes: "The 2020 election isn't over in Georgia, where a fractured Republican Party is staging an all-out assault on voting."
t was a cold December morning outside the Georgia State Capitol and a man named Jerry was rattling off numbers like they were fantasy football statistics.
“They had 150,000 absentee ballots that went to neighborhoods all over New York City. People in New York, a lot of them, filled ‘em out and sent ’em back to Georgia,” Jerry explained. (He didn’t want to give his real last name — “I’m going to give ‘Trump’ instead,” he told me.) “10,500 felons voted in Georgia illegally. There was about 2,500 dead people that voted — “
A woman lingering nearby broke in: “ — 18,000 people that voted that weren’t 18 yet.”
Jerry nodded sagely. “And then you get about 160,000 ballots in those four briefcases that they voted late that night when they ran everybody out of the Georgia Convention Center… ”
There is no evidence for any of these claims — multiple investigations discredited them as fictions promoted by Donald Trump and his allies in the wake of the November election — but Jerry, one of about 30 demonstrators who were milling around outside the state capitol’s barricades on a Sunday morning, cited them as articles of faith. (“You can look on the computer at the numbers,” he told me.)
Besides him, there was an 88-year-old grandmother leaning on her walker, an Uncle Sam teetering on a Segway, and several armed men, including one outfitted head-to-toe in tactical gear, with a long gun dangling from his shoulder and a handgun fastened to his hip.
The night before, almost everyone had made the pilgrimage to a regional airport in Valdosta, where Trump railed against the injustices visited upon him in Georgia for more than 100 minutes, telling the crowd, “They cheated and rigged our presidential election… When the numbers come out of ceilings and come out of leather bags you start to say ‘What’s going on?’ ”
“Your governor could stop it very easily if he knew what the hell he was doing,” Trump added, as the crowd chanted back: “Stop the Steal!”
Nse Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, a voter registration and engagement group, remembers being unnerved when armed militia members started showing up outside the [Georgia] capitol. “People were like, ‘You’re being hysterical, the guns are just like a show of force.’ And then they burst into the [U.S.] Capitol and killed people,” Ufot says. “And it’s all based on the same lie: the lie that there’s widespread voter fraud.”
In the immediate aftermath of the November election, Georgia was cited as proof that the system still worked. Yes, the president pressed the secretary of state to “find” more votes for him and, yes, he tried to enlist the governor in an effort to overturn the results and, fine, he sort of threatened both with the prospect of jail. But in the end, they did refuse — and that’s something, right? The guardrails held. Kind of.
But as time has worn on, it’s become clearer just how corrosive Trump’s insistence on that alternative reality was and continues to be. On January 6th, it drew thousands of die-hard supporters to D.C., where five people died in the riot at the Capitol. Now, it’s fueling a furious effort to limit voting rights around the country. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, legislators have introduced more than 250 bills that would make it harder to vote in 43 states — more than seven times the number of bills compared to the same point in 2020.
And Georgia — the most closely contested state in the country — is at the white-hot center of that fight. In November, Trump’s lie split the Georgia Republican Party in two, pitting the officials in charge of administering the state’s elections — like Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger and Gov. Brian Kemp — against Republicans in the state legislature and their constituents protesting outside.
It is still dividing Republicans in the state today. Most have spent the past few months lining up behind a raft of new voting restrictions that respond specifically to the fictions Trump promoted — efforts that include a crack-down on mail-in voting. But there are others in the GOP who worry the changes could end up backfiring by making it harder for their own party members to vote Historically, Republicans in Georgia “were very intentional about making vote-by-mail easier because it was largely the province of older white voters,” Stacey Abrams told Rolling Stone in November. “For years, Republicans beat us at vote-by-mail. They had a practice history of it. They took advantage of it.”
In the last few weeks, as Republicans debated the new restrictions — several of which explicitly target the Black voters who helped secure Democrats’ victories in November and January — a handful of GOP members walked out of the debate in protest. Among them was Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, who presides over the state senate, though he doesn’t vote on legislation.
“Republicans have lost a lot of credibility when we walk into the room to try to talk about electoral reform because of the misinformation campaign that was spread for nearly 10 weeks,” Duncan tells Rolling Stone.
He’s remained adamant that no widespread fraud took place in November, but he hedges when asked if his colleagues subscribe to the same belief. “I think there’s some out there that have a deep-felt conviction that there were some election anomalies,” Duncan says. “I think that there’s a number of folks that are reacting to their district — or their district genuinely wants them to take steps forward — and I understand that. There’s those out there that would rather see small incremental steps taken around election reform, and that’s really where the camp I sit in is.”
Duncan is not alone in that camp, but it is a small minority within his party. Despite the controversy and attention paid to the bills in the House and the Senate, both measures passed this month with the support of the majority of Republicans without much suspense.
The Georgia House bill would require a photo ID for absentee voting, limit the amount of time voters have to request an absentee ballot, impose new restrictions on ballot drop boxes, and limit early voting hours on weekends. The Senate bill that would end automatic voter registration, ban drop boxes for mail ballots outright, while seriously restricting absentee voting and early voting.
Abrams has denounced the effort in Georgia — and similar efforts underway in Arizona and New Hampshire — as “the largest push to restrict voting rights since Jim Crow.”
The separate pieces of legislation went through a conference process to reconcile their differences. The Georgia House of Representatives passed the bill on Thursday. It will need to be passed by the Senate before being sent to Gov. Kemp for his signature.
Some of the most odious provisions — like banning no-excuse absentee voting and ending the Sunday voting favored by black churches — were stripped out in conference. But Lauren Groh-Wargo, CEO of Fair Fight, a group co-founded with Abrams to stop voter suppression, is raising alarms about language that was inserted without any previous debate in the House or Senate. If the new provisions had been law this past November, she says, the outcome in Georgia could have been very different.
The first, Groh-Wargo says, would allow people — anyone, really — to challenge any voter’s registration and ability to cast a ballot. Advocates fear the measure could be used to racially profile voters, with the goal of either intimidating them from voting or knocking them off the voter rolls completely.
That fear is rooted in recent history. In 2015, State Representative Barry Fleming, sponsor of the bill and former Hancock County attorney, defended the majority-white Hancock County Board of Elections and Registration when it was sued, accused of systematically questioning the registrations of more than 180 black citizens in the city of Sparta.
The new language could easily empower a well-funded organization to do it at a much greater scale, Groh-Wargo says: challenging and knocking hundreds of thousands of voters off the rolls. A conservative Texas-based voter-fraud watchdog called True the Vote already tried it in Georgia in November.
“They challenged 360,000 registered Georgians, many of whom were in the military, many of whom were out-of-state taking care of relatives with Covid,” Groh-Wargo says. (Fair Fight sued to stop True the Vote; that litigation is still underway.) The language as it’s written would make it easier for groups like that to prevail: it allows for an unlimited number of challenges to a person’s registration and their ability to cast a vote. And it would require the local board of elections to hold a hearing on each challenge within 10 days. If the board of elections doesn’t comply, it would be grounds for state officials to remove them and install their own people to run the elections.
“It would allow what True the Vote did to really upset the apple cart,” Groh-Wargo says. “I could stand outside a polling location and if I am racist against Asian-American women, I could look up everybody on the voter rolls that [has the name of] an Asian-American woman, or take pictures of people standing in line and then go try to figure out who they are and challenge their eligibility.”
Targeting and challenging the registration of enough Black, Asian, or Latino voters — the multiracial coalition that helped push Joe Biden over the top in Georgia in 2020 — is one way to shrink Democrats’ margins, but it’s the ability to issue those challenges at scale, combined with the newly created power to take over the local board of elections, that would make it possible to do exactly what President Trump unsuccessfully tried to pressure officials in Georgia to do in November.
The more pointed provisions of the law strips power from Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger – who rebuffed Trump’s attempts to change the election results — and puts it in the hands of the state legislature, removing him from the state election board and allowing the legislature to install more than half of the board’s members.
“In practical terms,” Groh-Wargo says, “that could have meant in big Democratic counties, the state election board could have completely interfered, taken over their county board of elections’ certification process or their audit process, and delayed, mucked around and screwed around with certification — basically play ball with the Trump team in a different kind of way.”
With the new provisions combined, she warns, “you can just see that the far right fringes can really just take over election administration… These things work together to allow these conspiracy theorists to have a lot more power than they did last year.”
With the end of the legislative session rapidly approaching, the outlook in Georgia is bleak. Democrats and advocates for voting rights are considering the options they have left: petitioning Gov. Kemp to veto the bill, or pressuring corporations with ties to Georgia to bring their influence to bear against the legislation. Several civic groups, including the New Georgia Project, are waging a pressure campaign on companies urging them to end their financial support for the Republicans supporting the bill. “There’s no doubt in my mind that Coca-Cola or Georgia Power or U.P.S. could have stopped this in its infancy,” Ufot says.
Failing that, they are looking to the federal government for action that could blunt some of the measures under consideration in Georgia. Democrats took control of the U.S. Senate in January by winning both of Georgia’s Senate seats — seats they won, ironically, with some help from Donald Trump’s lies about the election. Depending on who you ask, Trump either convinced enough Georgians their vote didn’t count that they simply didn’t show up to the polls for the January runoff, or he fired them up so much that on January 5th, some of his most devoted supporters were traveling to D.C. to storm the Capitol rather than voting in the runoff that day.
“Even though I’m a Republican, and even though I voted for him, I’m mature enough to look at the scenario and realize that he beat himself in [the 2020] election cycle,” says Duncan. “And unfortunately, that same rhetoric and that same approach beat two Republican U.S. senators here in the runoff.”
Whatever the reason, the dual victories of Sens. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff could prove critical to passing the kind of federal voting-rights protections that would render many of the measures presently under consideration in Georgia moot. But to pass legislation like S1, the For the People Act, which would protect and expand voting rights, Democrats would still need to change the Senate rules by reforming or ending the filibuster.
Warnock addressed that issue in his first speech on the Senate floor in March. “This issue is bigger than the filibuster,” he said. “This issue — access to voting and preempting politicians’ efforts to restrict voting — is so fundamental to our democracy that it is too important to be held hostage by a Senate rule, especially one historically used to restrict the expansion of voting rights. It is a contradiction to say we must protect minority rights in the Senate while refusing to protect minority rights in the society. We must find a way to pass voting rights — whether we get rid of the filibuster or not.”
For now, legislators not just in Georgia, but in states around the country retain a broad authority to restrict voting access — although there are questions about whether it’s good politics to do it. There are already indications of a backlash brewing in Georgia: State Rep. Barry Fleming, sponsor of the legislation, was asked to resign from his other role, as Hancock County attorney, after locals there protested his role in crafting the voting restriction package. Research from 2016 suggests that attempts to suppress the vote actually had a motivating effect on Democratic turnout. And Republicans have spent so much of the legislative session avenging Trump’s loss, that they’ve failed to adequately address the needs of their constituents in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Out of all 50 states, Georgia — a state of 11 million people and an early coronavirus hotspot — currently ranks 49th in vaccinations. “They are playing with fire,” Groh-Wargo says of the Republicans. “Georgians want to get their vaccine. They want to get back to normal. They want to get the kids in school… In this legislative session, [the Republicans] did not expand Medicaid, hospitals have been closing, they did not go to the Department of Health to get more money. They’ve been focusing on all this voter suppression crap.”
The suspect accused of killing 10 people at a Colorado grocery store this week follows a deadly pattern among mass shooters: 98% of perpetrators are male. (photo: Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews/Denver Post/Getty Images)
Why Nearly All Mass Shooters Are Men
Michel Martin and Emma Bowman, NPR
Excerpt: "A staggering 98% of these crimes have been committed by men, according to The Violence Project, a nonpartisan research group that tracks U.S. mass shooting data dating back to 1966."
his week, a shooting attack at a grocery store in Boulder, Colo., left 10 people dead. Just days earlier, eight people were fatally shot in a rampage targeting spas in the Atlanta area.
As with almost every mass shooter in recorded U.S. history, both of the suspects in the recent attacks are men.
A staggering 98% of these crimes have been committed by men, according to The Violence Project, a nonpartisan research group that tracks U.S. mass shooting data dating back to 1966.
"Men just are generally more violent," said the group's president, Jillian Peterson, a forensic psychologist and professor of criminology and criminal justice at Hamline University. "There are many theories as to why that is."
As NPR has reported, researchers say that men, more than women, tend to externalize their problems and look for others to blame, which can translate into anger and violence. And when women do choose violence, guns are not typically their weapon of choice.
If men vastly outnumber women as mass shooters, those perpetrators are often a model for the next male shooters who "see themselves in them," Peterson said, a phenomenon she noted is particularly true in young, white men. Violence Project data show that white men are disproportionately responsible for mass shootings more than any other group.
"They study the perpetrators that came before them," she said. "Many school shooters study Columbine, for example; other university shooters study the Virginia Tech shooting. And they really are kind of using those previous shootings as a blueprint for their own."
The following excerpts have been edited for length and clarity.
Interview Highlights
On why mass shootings were largely nonexistent during the pandemic
During the pandemic, we saw this type of shooting fade away for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is places just weren't open. We weren't gathering en masse, we didn't have public spaces like schools and workplaces for this to take place.
Second of all, these mass shootings really faded from the headlines. We weren't talking about them, we weren't thinking of them. And because of that, that social contagion aspect of mass shootings really faded away.
And then the third piece is we were all kind of collectively grieving. We were all collectively going through this trauma and suffering through this global pandemic. So it's possible that individuals didn't feel as personally aggrieved during the past year.
But at the same time, as a psychologist, I've been worried about all the risk factors that we know of for mass shootings that have been exacerbated in the pandemic. So, trauma, experiencing a mental health crisis, suicidality, time online and access to firearms have all increased.
On what needs to happen to prevent mass shootings in the future
There's no one answer to the policies that we need to have in place. We can kind of work our way backwards and say, these are individuals who are in crisis, who have very easy access to firearms. And are there simple things we can do like universal background checks or safe storage that prevent that ease of access?
But we can also go further back and talk about things like, how do we make sure everybody's trained in crisis intervention and suicide prevention? How do we build trauma-informed schools, and go even further back? I think there's a lot of things that we can do as a society and even as individuals to help disrupt that pathway to violence.
On encouraging signs that show future mass shootings can be prevented
I would say, in particular, the media coverage seems to have shifted. I'm not seeing as much of the perpetrator in the news cycle. I'm not seeing the perpetrator's name and face everywhere, which we know is what contributes to the social contagion.
I think we are having these conversations about gun policies that we could put in place — like red-flag laws, waiting periods — that might have prevented this type of shooting. I am hopeful that people are really done with this and really ready to make the changes that we need to make to prevent future victims.
Sunday Song: Edwin Starr | War
Edwin Starr, YouTube
Starr writes: "Oh, war it's an enemy to all mankind. The point of war blows my mind."
Edwin Starr's groundbreaking 1970 album War and Peace.
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, why’all
War, huh, good god
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
Oh, war, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears to thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives
I said, war, huh good god, why'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing say it again
War, whoa, lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) friend only to the undertaker
Oh, war it's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die, ah, war-huh, good god why'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart breaker
(War) it's got one friend that's the undertaker
Oh, war, has shattered many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away
Oh, war, huh good god why'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing say it again
whoa, lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing listen to me
it ain't nothing but a heart breaker
(War) friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But lord knows there's got to be a better way
Oh, war, huh good god why'all
What is it good for you tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it
Huh good god why'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it nothing
Marines extinguish a blaze using Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), during a training exercise in 2013. (photo: Lance Cpl. Shawn Valosin/U.S. Marines)
The US Military Is Poisoning Communities Across the US With Toxic Chemicals
David Bond, Guardian UK
Bond writes: "The Department of Defense has ordered the burning of 20m pounds of AFFF - despite risks to human health."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.