The introduction addresses the nature of the RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT, AND POSSIBLE "COLLUSION" WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. TEXT FROM THE REPORT: "As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that
Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities." END TEXT.
How can we make sense of this? At one point, the report comments about the contacts between the TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT: "The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign." Yet, at another point, it seems to exonerate the TRUMP CAMPAIGN with the following: "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Further Down, we see the reasoning used in evaluating any CRIMINAL LIABILITY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MAY HAVE, INVOLVING THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS ACTIVITIES TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS HERE THAT WE FIND OUT HOW MUCH OF A "WITCH HUNT" THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN. THE TRUTH MAY SUPRISE YOU. TEXT FROM THE REPORT. 1) "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation.2) But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, 3)we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears
in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,4)"coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood "coordination" to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. 5)That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
END TEXT.
THE NUMBERS 1-5 ABOVE CORRESPOND WITH THOSE BELOW, IN GIVING A BASIC INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE TEXT. 1) THE POPULAR TERM "COLLUSION" HAS NO BASIS IN LAW, THE LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY" WAS USED. 2) JOINTCRIMINAL LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED BY THE FEDERAL LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY." 3) DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN "COORDINATED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. 4)THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNCEL DECIDED THAT TO ACCUSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF "COORDINATING" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOTH BODIES, "TACIT OR EXPRESS." 5)"That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? A MEMBER OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE ENGAGED IN "CONSPIRITORIAL CONDUCT" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND/OR AFFILIATED INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS, BUT IF IT WAS NOT DONE AT THE EXPRESS ORDER OF THE CAMPAIGN ITSELF, with the approval of the Russian Government, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. CUTTING THROUGH THE NOISE, HERE IS WHAT IT MEANS: THAT NO ONE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS EXONERATED. BY THIS VERY NARROW DEFINITION, ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE "CONSPIRED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OR ANYONE WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO EXPRESS AGREEMENT AMONG BOTH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THE FINDING WOULD BE THAT OF NO "COLLUSION" OR NO "CONSPIRACY." THIS IS A TRAVESTY. IT LITERALLY GIVES INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS A FREE PASS TO HAVE COMMITTED ELECTION FRAUD, AS LONG AS THE "LEADERSHIP" DID NOT FORMALLY APPROVE IT.
The greatest threat we face — which will
test our country, our democracy, every single one of us — is climate change.
The planet has warmed more than 1-degree
Celsius just since 1980 — helping to cause historic fires, floods, hurricanes
and droughts seen throughout the world and in the U.S. This warming is caused
by our own excesses, our emissions and our own inaction in the face of the
facts and the science.
But we have 12 years to shift course and
avert the deadliest impacts that will follow warming of 3 or 4 degrees, or
even more. The next president must ensure that we unleash the ingenuity and
political will of hundreds of millions of Americans to meet this moment
before it's too late.
That’s why today I want to share our plan
to fight climate change. The action steps enclosed begin on day one. But
given the gravity of the work that lies ahead, we know that this fight will
require much more than a president signing a handful of executive orders. We
will need a full mobilization of our democracy and economy — every single one
of us, joining together — to defeat the gravest of threats to humanity.
We begin by cutting pollution on day one,
reentering the Paris Climate Agreement and curbing fossil fuel production on
public lands. We continue by making a historic investment in infrastructure,
innovation, and people that mobilizes $5 trillion over the next 10 years to
confront climate change head on. And we will leave nothing to chance: our
administration will establish legally enforceable standards to guarantee that
we achieve net-zero emissions by the year 2050 and get halfway there by 2030.
In all of this, we will be there for and
lift up the people and communities most affected by the dangers and
destruction of global warming. Our administration will increase funding
ten-fold to help vulnerable communities prepare for extreme weather. And we
will be there for these communities when disasters do strike.
Much as The Greatest Generation met the
existential threat to the western democracies nearly 80 years ago, and at the
same time helped to lift millions of Americans into the middle class, we have
an opportunity now to meet an existential threat to this planet by ensuring
that public health policy, economic policy, and the engine of a far more
conscientious capitalism is put to work in service of our ability to meet
this challenge.
Today, our campaign is traveling
throughout the Central Valley of California to discuss our plan. This is a
region that has borne many of the most devastating consequences of climate
change but also exemplifies the innovation and ingenuity necessary to take on
this challenge.
This moment of maximum peril may also be
our moment of maximum potential. Let us show ourselves, our children, and the
world that when we come together, there is no limit to what we can achieve.
Dear Philosopher or Philosophically-Minded Person,
PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT BORDERS, which is home-based on Patreon, here— www.patreon.com/philosophywithoutborders is an open-source, open-minded forum for sharing original philosophy, produced by critically thoughtful, insightful, reflective people for other critically thoughtful, insightful, reflective people, with no restraints on what form the philosophy may take; and with no restriction by borders or boundaries of any kind, be they restrictions inherent in schools of thought, educational institutions, states or national boundaries, or legal or moral systems.
PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT BORDERS assumes universal enfranchisement and emancipation as a goal, so that all people may participate in the generation and discussion of philosophy. Its only requirement is that the cultural products shared, whether they may be philosophy in the strict sense, being the continuation world’s history of philosophy from all parts, including western and eastern or any other philosophy; or whether they be other thought provoking cultural products including conversations, serious or humorous writing, the visual arts, crafts, multimedia, and future art, so long as they contain real philosophical thinking.
By “real philosophical thinking,” we mean thinking that is unhindered and not self-censored by subservience to any so-called philosophical authority or canon, aimed at least in some way at generating, elucidating or commenting on philosophical ideas; and respectful of the assumed universal enfranchisement and emancipation of all people and therefore communicating in a spirit of love, peace, and understanding – not hate, conflict, or vilification.
PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT BORDERS belongs to a radical phase in the philosophical project that flowered in the period of western culture which has become known as the Age of Enlightenment, occurring mostly in Europe during the 18th century. The ideas of the Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchy, church, and state, paving the way for subsequent emancipatory political revolutions in the cause of freedom from oppression of any kind. Radically enlightened philosophers have existed in all cultures and all ages, readily recognised by their support of unrestricted reason and universal respect for human dignity as the two primary vehicles for creating understanding real and imagined worlds, and for disseminating the idea that disputes and conflicts can be resolved or avoided by means of the search for logically-guided, evidence-based truth rather than personal beliefs, creeds, mysticisms, or other oppressive, mind-enslaving ideological constructs.
PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT BORDERS is a safe haven for thinkers to explore and warn against the incursions against radical enlightenment by abuses of greed, power, control, oppression, obedience, censorship, hate, derision, bullying, xenophobia, nationalism, feudalism, group-think, enforced zeitgeists, and other crimes against and limitations of humanity. PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT BORDERS in this sense can be thought of Enlightenment Redux, not just a passing phase, but the underlying principles of all humane activity. Radical enlightenment opposes oppression by complacency, stupidity, and evil, which persist all around the world, not only in despotic regimes, but also in supposedly enlightened ones, mostly as a result of an obsession with self-interested competition and the possession of coercive power, rather than on mutual aid and constructive cooperation as the bases for rational human activity.
THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MUELLER REPORT. GIVEN ITS EXTENSIVE LENGTH, I WILL ATTEMPT TO BREAK IT DOWN SECTION BY SECTION. (IT'S OVER 400 PAGES.) THE ANALYSIS WILL ATTEMPT TO STICK TO THE MOST PERTINENT POINTS, ADDRESSING WHAT I FEEL TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES IN TERMS OF A LASTING IMPACT ON OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, AND THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS BEING SET BY IGNORING OR DENYING CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN BE REASONABLY DEDUCED OR INFERRED FROM THE DATA. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 1. In a very telling and dramatic way, this section begins with the following Statement: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion..." This is an unqualified conclusion that tells us that the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT had an active role in attempting to influence and determine the outcome of the 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. It does not say "...could have interferred..." or "...may have interferred...", it's a direct accusation that the MUELLER REPORT MAKES, arrived at by the evidence that was uncovered. Further on, the following is stated in the report. "As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that
Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents." Part of what was uncovered, and prompted the FBI to begin an investigation into possible TRUMP CAMPAIGN coordination with the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT in its activities, is the following taken from the REPORT: "...a foreign
government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy
advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign
government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that
it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton." What is interesting about this revelation, because it was a major reason that the FBI began its initial investigation into possible ties between the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT and the TRUMP CAMPAIGN, was the fact that it became known to the FBI from an outside source,and not from any member of the TRUMP CAMPAIGN. TO BE CONTINUED...
More than 80% of parents in the U.S. support the teaching of climate change. And that support crosses political divides, according to the results of an exclusive new NPR/Ipsos poll: Whether they have children or not, two-thirds of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats agree that the subject needs to be taught in school.
A separate poll of teachers found that they are even more supportive, in theory — 86% agree that climate change should be taught.
These polls are among the first to gauge public and teacher opinion on how climate change should be taught to the generation that in the coming years will face its intensifying consequences: children.
And yet, as millions of students around the globe participate in Earth Day events on Monday, our poll also found a disconnect. Although most states have classroom standards that at least mention human-caused climate change, most teachers aren't actually talking about climate change in their classrooms. And fewer than half of parents have discussed the issue with their children.
When it comes to one of the biggest global problems, the default message from older generations to younger ones is silence.
Parents and the general public
Laine Fabijanic, a mother of three living in Glenwood Springs, Colo., says her part of the country is feeling the effects of climate change, from an unusually snowless winter last year to scary fires. She and her family recycle and eat organic; they are even installing solar panels on the house.
Still, she says she hasn't talked about the big picture of climate change with her young daughters. "I don't think we've talked much about it at all," she said in an interview. "Probably because it hasn't come up from them."
About 3 in 4 respondents in our nationally representative survey of 1,007 Americans agreed that the climate is changing. That figure is in line with previous results from Ipsos and other polls.
Parents are even more likely than the general public to support teaching students thoroughly about climate change, including its effects on our environment, economy and society. Among parents with children under 18, 84% agree that it should be taught in schools.
A plurality of all parents support starting those lessons as early as elementary school. And though it may be a controversial subject, 65% of those who thought climate change should be taught didn't think parental permission was necessary. Among Republicans, the corresponding figure was 57%.
However, parents like Fabijanic aren't necessarily holding these conversations themselves. Just 45% of parents said they had ever discussed the topic with their own children.
Teachers support teaching climate change more in theory than in practice
If they don't hear about it at home, will kids learn about climate change in school? To answer this question, NPR/Ipsos also completed a nationally representative survey of around 500 teachers. These educators were even more likely than the general public to believe in climate change and to support teaching climate change.
In fact, 86% of teachers believe climate change should be taught in schools. In theory.
But in practice, it's more complicated. More than half — 55% — of teachers we surveyed said they do not cover climate change in their own classrooms or even talk to their students about it.
The most common reason given? Nearly two-thirds (65%) said it's outside their subject area.
Let's not forget that teachers are busy, and often underresourced and overworked. When asked to rank the importance of climate change, it fell to near the bottom of a list of priorities for expanding the curriculum, behind science and math, basic literacy and financial education.
Parents seen as obstacles to teaching climate
But there are other factors at work, too, in the decision of whether to cover climate change.
For example, almost a third of all teachers say that when it comes to teaching climate change, they worry about parent complaints.
In our poll, teachers who do not teach the subject were allowed to choose more than one reason. They named many obstacles.
17% say they don't have the materials.
17% also say they don't know enough about the subject to teach it.
4% say their school does not allow the subject to be taught.
Moreover, there also seems to be a divide in terms of resources, attitudes and support between teachers who cover climate change in their classrooms and those who don't.
Mallory Newall of Ipsos said for some teachers, maintaining that it's not their job to teach climate change "may just be a way to rationalize why they're not talking about it."
That's because teachers who do talk about climate change are also more likely to say:
There should be state laws that require teaching it (70% versus 38% of teachers who don't talk about climate change).
They have the resources they need to answer students' questions about climate change (77% versus 32%).
Their students have brought up climate change in the classroom this year (78% versus 14%).
Their school encourages them to discuss climate change (64% versus 18%).
In our NPR Ed newsletter, we did a callout to teachers to find out more about how they teach climate change. Some teachers we heard from mentioned the divisiveness of the issue and the difficulty in dealing with students whose parents are deniers of climate change.
"There's so much political jargon around climate change that I would either have to dismiss their concerns that they bring up or burn a lot of time talking about something that is outside my content area," said Jack Erickson, a science teacher at Cienega High School in Vail, Ariz., in response to our callout.
Some teachers get creative in teaching climate change
On the other hand, about 42% of teachers in our survey said they are indeed finding ways to address climate change in the classroom.
In our callout, we heard from far more than just science teachers. Preschool, English, public speaking, Spanish, statistics, social studies teachers — even home economics teachers and librarians — all are finding ways to approach the topic.
For example, Rebecca Meyer is an eighth-grade English language arts teacher at Bronx Park Middle School in New York City. Meyer's students researched water scarcity and then read a "cli-fi" (or climate-fiction) novel by Mindy McGinnis called Not a Drop to Drink.
"The main character, Lynn, lives in a version of the U.S. where physical water scarcity is the norm. As we read the novel, kids made connections between what is happening today and the novel," she told NPR. "They were very engaged; they loved it. They learned so much they didn't know."
Debra Freeman teaches family and consumer science — what used to be called home economics — at McDougle Middle School in Chapel Hill, N.C. Her curriculum includes healthy food choices.
"Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health is directly connecting the overconsumption of animal products to our global warming dilemma," she says. "We also touch on the role of food waste (a huge problem in the U.S.) and its effect on climate change. Students in middle school are at a pivotal age for developing a multifaceted lens for thinking, evaluating and problem-solving. I place great hope in them!"
Erin Royer's mixed-age classroom at Steele Elementary School in Denver comprises fourth- and fifth-graders. Does she cover climate change in elementary school? "Hell yes!" she says. "If you teach from a problem-based learning style, students will repeatedly arrive at climate change as the cause and effect of many problems/issues in their world."
Whether the topic is animals, energy, or hurricanes and wildfires, "When they read information, through their research, put out by reliable scientists, they arrive at climate change again and again."
And Lily Sage teaches "really little people" at the Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education's nature-focused preschool in Philadelphia. "It's a little above their heads, but we talk about Earth changes and ways we can avoid the ones that are causing mass extinctions. Because dinosaurs are accessible to them, that is often the framing for that conversation."
State school policies mostly include climate change
Since 2013, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards, created by a consortium of states and science authorities to strengthen the teaching of science. The standards instruct teachers to cover the facts of human-caused climate change beginning in middle school. According to an analysis done for NPR Ed by Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, 36 states in total currently recognize human-caused climate change somewhere in their state standards. But, he says, "the fact that human-caused climate change is included in a state's science standards doesn't mean that teachers in that state do teach it," and vice versa.
Moreover, this year alone, there have been numerous bills and resolutions introduced in statehouses that would restrict the teaching of climate change.
In Connecticut, a recent bill would have cut climate change materials from the state's standards. An Iowa bill would have directly repealed the state's use of Next Generation Science Standards.
Others — including in Arizona, Maine, South Dakota and Virginia — would prohibit the teaching of any issue included in a state political party platform, on the grounds of anti-indoctrination. Florida's bill prescribes "balanced" teaching for "controversial" science subjects.
While most of these bills were tabled or failed to pass (Florida's is still live), Branch sees them as part of a concerted and continuing effort to block the teaching of mainstream science. For example, some of these bills resemble model legislation created years ago by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that brings businesses together with lawmakers to write bills that are often industry-friendly.
Students are feeling the effects
As the political debate continues, more and more students don't have to wait to learn about climate impacts in the classroom. That's because they are experiencing them in their daily lives.
High school junior Celeste Palmer holds a burned piece of paper that drifted into her neighborhood during the California Tubbs Fire in 2017.
The Schools for Climate Action Summit in Washington, D.C., in March, was instigated by students in Northern California whose communities were ravaged by wildfires. They also brought together students affected by Hurricane Harvey in Houston and by agricultural droughts on tribal lands in New Mexico to lobby at the Capitol.
Celeste Palmer, a high school junior, came to the summit with scraps of burned paper that had drifted into her Santa Rosa, Calif., neighborhood from the Tubbs Fire in 2017. She calls climate change "a generational justice issue for my generation in particular ... because it's affecting us now."
