This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
A skydiving adventure park in a National Party electorate was showered in bushfire grants, getting far more than it asked for, while a host of bushfire recovery projects in the Blue Mountains were ignored, even badly needed toilet facilities for firefighters. Callum Foote reports on new documents in the bushfire rorts scandal.
-
The DC Circuit has ruled that the CIA is under no obligation to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests pertaining to its involvement with insurgent militias in Syria, overturning a lower court’s previous ruling in favor of a Buzzfeed News reporter seeking such documents.
As Sputnik‘s Morgan Artyukhina clearly outlines, this ruling comes despite the fact that mainstream news outlets have been reporting on the Central Intelligence Agency’s activities in Syria for years, and despite a US president having openly tweeted about those activities.
“In other words, the CIA will not be required to admit to actions it is widely reported as having done, much less divulge documents about them to the press for even greater scrutiny,” Artyukhina writes, calling to mind the Julian Assange quote “The overwhelming majority of information is classified to protect political security, not national security.”
My latest: Despite extensive reporting by the @WSJ & CIA-vetted @nytimes confirming it happened, a DC court has sided with the @CIA, finding that a Trump tweet doesn't constitute proof that it funded al-Qaeda in #Syria. https://t.co/NFaQBrggV5
— Morgan Artyukhina (@LavenderNRed) February 13, 2021
The CIA’s brazen collaboration with dangerous extremist factions seeking to topple Damascus, and its equally brazen refusal to provide the public with any information about the extent of its involvement in Syria from the earliest stages of the violence in that nation onwards, will necessarily provide fodder for conspiracy theories.
It is public knowledge that the CIA was involved in the Syrian war to some extent, it is public knowledge that the CIA has a well-documented history of doing extremely evil things, and it is public knowledge that the US government has long sought control over Syria. Due to the agency’s refusal to be transparent about the exact nature of its involvement in that nation, people are left to fill in the knowledge gaps with their own speculation.
Of course they will do this. Why wouldn’t they? Why would anyone give the lying, torturing, propagandizing, drug trafficking, coup-staging, warmongering, psychopathic Central Intelligence Agency the benefit of the doubt and assume their actions in Syria have been benevolent just because the hard facts have been hidden behind a wall of government secrecy?
Yet they will be expected to. Anyone with a sufficient degree of influence who comes right out and says the CIA knowingly armed violent jihadists with the goal of orchestrating regime change in Syria will be attacked as a crazy conspiracy theorist by the narrative managers of the establishment media. If their words are really disruptive to establishment narratives, there will be calls to deplatform, unemploy, and ban them from social media.
I'd forgotten how shameless and demented the imperialist narrative managers get whenever anyone in a position of influence contradicts the imperial narrative about what's happening in Syria. Mentally replace their words with "STOP INTERFERING IN OUR GLOBAL PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN!" https://t.co/Sd5HCCklkW pic.twitter.com/O9XonJBHfo
— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) January 15, 2021
And really such is the case with all the melodramatic garment rending about the dangers of conspiracy theories today. All the fixation on the way unregulated speech on the internet has contributed to the circulation of conspiracy theories conveniently ignores the real cause of those theories: government secrecy.
If the most powerful government in the world were not hiding a massive amount of its behavior behind increasingly opaque walls of secrecy, people would not need to fill in the gaps with theories about what’s happening, because there would be no gaps; they would simply see what’s happening.
“But Caitlin!” one might object. “How could America engage in all its military operations around the world if it didn’t keep information about its behaviors a secret?”
Exactly, my smooth-brained friend. Exactly.
Government secrecy is indeed necessary for winning wars. Government secrecy is also necessary for starting those wars in the first place. US government agencies have an extensive history of using false pretenses to initiate military conflicts; if they could not hide the facts behind a veil of government opacity, the public would never engage in them. The American people would never have allowed their sons to go to Vietnam if they’d known the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie. They’d never have sent their sons and daughters to invade Iraq if they’d known weapons of mass destruction were a lie. They would lose the support of the public, and the international community would refuse to back them.
Protecting the lives of foreign military and intelligence personnel is the primary argument against government transparency in the United States, a premise which takes it for granted that there need to be foreign military and intelligence personnel at all. The only reason the lives of troops and intelligence officers would be endangered without massive walls of government secrecy is because those personnel are out there facilitating imperialist acts of mass murder and tyranny. The argument is essentially “Well we can’t tell you the truth about what’s happening in our government, because it would mean we’d have to stop doing extremely evil things.”
The argument that the internet needs strict censorship to eliminate dangerous conspiracy theories takes it as a given that simply eliminating government secrecy is impossible, which in turn takes it as a given that the US government cannot simply stop inflicting grave evils around the world. Our ability to share information with each other online is therefore ultimately being increasingly choked off by monopolistic Silicon Valley megacorporations because no one in charge can fathom the idea of the United States government ceasing to butcher human beings around the world.
That is the real underlying argument over internet censorship today. Should people have free access to information about what their own government is doing, or should their government be permitted to do evil things in secret while people who form theories about what they’re doing are shoved further and further away from audibility? That’s the real debate here.
Here's how politicians, media and government could eliminate conspiracy theories if they really want to:
– Stop lying all the time
– Stop killing people
– Stop promoting conspiracy theories (Russiagate)
– Stop doing evil things in secret
– End government opacity
– Stop conspiring— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) January 9, 2021
The powerful should not be permitted to keep secrets from the public. They should not be permitted to jail journalists who try to reveal those secrets to the public, and they should not be permitted to collaborate with monopolistic corporations to censor people who form theories about those secrets. The amount of secrecy you are entitled to should be directly inverse to the amount of power that you have.
The US government has powerful agencies whose literal job is to conspire. The fact that people are punished and condemned for forming theories about how that conspiring might take place, even while those agencies are completely lacking in transparency, is abusive.
If the government was not doing evil things in secret, then it wouldn’t need secrecy. If the government didn’t have secrecy, there would be no conspiracy theories. Stop pointing your attacks at powerless people who are just trying to figure out what’s going on in the world amidst a sea of government secrecy and propaganda, and point your attacks instead at the power structures that are actually responsible for the existence of conspiracy theories in the first place.
________________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my new book Poems For Rebels (you can also download a PDF for five bucks) or my old book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.
-
“I suspect Orwell would see, as he did back in the 1930s, the rich and outrageous irony of governments using the resources of the people to manipulate them and to keep them acquiescent, passive and apathetic.”
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Is the Covid-19 vaccine the Liberal Party’s vaccine or the Australian Government’s vaccine? It’s not their money but the Liberal Party has its logo plastered across advertisements for millions in Government grants. This #AdRort campaign is but the latest in a grotesque throng of rorts, such that this must surely be the most corrupt government in Australia’s history. Elizabeth Minter and Michael West report.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Prime Minister Scott Morrison chose an interesting day this week to deliver his address on the future of the nation; it was Monday, the one day in the year when the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) releases its annual data dump of political donations.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
A company part-owned by Liberal MP David Coleman was given a government grant that put him in breach of section 44 of the Constitution. Jommy Tee investigates the trail of the Defence Department grant, which also involved Coleman making false declarations to the Australian Electoral Commission and breaching ministerial standards.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
When Scott Morrison became prime minister in 2018, the Coalition poured an extra $4.6 billion over a decade into Catholic and independent schools. Productivity Commission figures released this week show government funding for non-government schools continues to grow at a faster rate than for public schools. Judging by statements the new federal Education Minister Alan Tudge made to Parliament, that inequality will deepen.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
The Pork Barrelling Inquiry will be expanded to hear claims that bushfire funding has been diverted to Coalition political mates and even the industrial projects of billionaire Anthony Pratt. The move follows an investigation here by Elizabeth Minter into a $177 million bushfire recovery scheme which only a handful of Coalition figures and the MP for Wagga Wagga seem to have had heard about.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Total political donations for 2020 are $168m, way down on the $434m in the previous year 2018/19. The Liberal Party edged out Labor as the top recipient. Total donations for Liberal Party are $57m, Labor $55m, Nationals $12.4m, Clive Palmer $10.2m, Greens $7.2m and One Nation $5.8m.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
When the Australian Electoral Commission drops its political donations data tomorrow, it will almost certainly show that corporate donations are rising at an alarming clip and that Australia is tracking the US. Stephanie Tran and Michael West report on the extraordinary rise of money in politics.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Google threatens to withdraw search from Australia and Facebook to remove news posts. These are not idle threats. Is propping up old media with grants gouged from Google good public policy? It delivers cash for Rupert Murdoch but does it serve consumers? Kim Wingerei reports.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
It was to much fanfare that the Institute of Public Affairs announced the hiring of Tony Abbott to “lead a new movement to defend and revive traditional Australian values”. Such a movement was deemed necessary by the release of the IPA’s report titled “The Fair Go – Going, Gone: The Decline of the Australian Way of Life, 2000 to 2020”.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Federal and state funds for bushfire recovery have been heavily skewed in favour of Coalition seats with NSW State Labor picking up just 1% of $177 million handed out. Elizabeth Minter investigates
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Like aged care, quarantine is the responsibility of the federal government. Yet the Morrison government forced that role onto the states and territories, and deployed a submissive media to snipe from the sidelines.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Donald Trump aside, deaths in the US continue to soar from Covid-19, with a reported 383,000, and 23 million infections. Europe has also reported huge rises in the final month of 2020, while the numbers in African countries rose sharply too. Alan Austin takes a look at the latest pandemic wave.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
Universities offer relatively limited support for researchers’ efforts to engage with the many non-academics who can benefit from research. Image: The Conversation/Life and Times/Shutterstock
ANALYSIS: By Margaret Kristin Merga, Edith Cowan University and Shannon Mason, Nagasaki University
Academics are increasingly expected to share their research widely beyond academia. However, our recent study of academics in Australia and Japan suggests Australian universities are still very much focused on supporting the production of scholarly outputs.
They offer relatively limited support for researchers’ efforts to engage with the many non-academics who can benefit from our research.
One reason engagement is expected is that government, industry and philanthropic sources fund research.
And when academics share their research with the public, industry and policymakers, this engagement is good for the university’s reputation. It can also lead to other benefits such as research funding.
But the work involved in sharing our ideas beyond academia can be diverse and substantial. For example, when we write for The Conversation, it takes time to find credible sources, adopt an appropriate tone, communicate often complex ideas simply and clearly, and respond to editor feedback.
We also need to be able to speak to the media about our findings, and respond to public comments when the piece comes out.
Unis don’t allow for the time it takes
However, as one respondent said in explaining why they were not sharing research with end users beyond academia:It’s not recognised by uni. So, when it is not recognised, it means that I don’t have any workload for that, and obviously I’m work-loaded for other stuff, and that means that I don’t actually have enough time to do this.
Sharing our findings beyond academia isn’t typically seen as part of our academic workload. This is problematic for academics who are already struggling to find time to do all the things their complex workload requires of them.
It takes time to write an article or engage with non-academics in other ways, but universities typically don’t treat this work as an integral part of academic duties. Image: The Conversation/Mangostar/ShutterstockIn our research, time and workload constraints were the most often-cited barriers to sharing research beyond academia. One respondent said they saw lots of opportunities to build partnerships with practitioners in their field, but added:
[I] just cannot do that, because I’m doing other things that, in my work, are a priority.
When we spend our time sharing our research with academic readers through journal articles, conference papers and academic books, our employers clearly value and expect these scholarly publications.
These works, and how the scholarly community receives them, have more weight in evaluation of our performance. Last year an Australian academic nearly lost her job for failing to meet a target for scholarly publications.
Our research found Japan-based academics feel a greater weight of expectations than their Australian counterparts to engage with diverse audiences beyond academia.
Universities clearly expect this engagement. Yet they often don’t back it up with support such as workload recognition, resourcing and training.
Universities need to offer better support if they wish to increase academics’ engagement with diverse audiences. They should also consider both the benefits and risks of this engagement.
Academics see the benefits of sharing research
The academics we spoke with valued the benefits of engaging with diverse audiences. They were pleased to see others putting their research to use. Sharing research often helped to secure funding.They also saw engagement as an opportunity to learn from end users. This helped ensure their research was responding to real-world needs.
Engaging with the end users of their research provides valuable feedback for academics. Image: The Conversation/Halfpoint/ShutterstockEven very early in their careers, many researchers look to engage with audiences beyond academia. In previous research, we found doctoral candidates may opt for a thesis by publication rather than a traditional thesis approach due to their desire to share findings.
What other problems do researchers face?
The early-career researchers we interviewed noted other barriers and risks in sharing their work with diverse audiences. Universities often did not help with these issues.They described communication skill gaps when seeking to tailor research content for diverse audiences. For example, the way research is communicated to industry experts needs to be different to how it is shared with governments or the general public.
Researchers may need to learn to communicate their ideas in many different forms. They may have to be skilled in producing industry reports, doing television or radio interviews or presenting their findings in professional forums.
Some encountered frustrations when sharing research via the bureaucratic processes of government. For example, a respondent explained:
There’s still that much back and forth because there’s three or four different government departments that are involved in the process and it goes to different people. Some people don’t want it to be changed because they’re vested in the old way of doing things, and then they’ve got to bring ministers up to speed, and then all of a sudden you’re got a new state government that comes in, so that all changes.
Many felt unprepared to deal with the media.
One respondent described being cautious about overstating the impact of their research. In their field, they saw messages claiming: “This is the be all and end all. This will cure cancer.” They were “wary of accidentally going down that path and making a claim bigger than is true”.
Respondents also described risks in sharing controversial and sensitive research beyond academia.
What can universities do?
For respondents in both Australia and Japan, demanding and diverse workloads crowded out opportunities to share findings. Universities cannot just expect engagement responsibilities to be absorbed into an already swollen workload.If universities are serious about supporting the sharing of research beyond academia, they need to recognise these contributions in meaningful ways. For example, Australian academics usually must meet teaching, research and service requirements in their workloads.
If sharing research with audiences beyond academia were counted toward service, academics could have this work properly taken into account in performance management and when seeking promotion.
Universities can do better at supporting academics to share their research with the public, industry and government. Improving access to training and mentoring to communicate research findings both in academia and beyond would be an important step forward.
By Dr Margaret Kristin Merga, senior lecturer in education, Edith Cowan University and Dr Shannon Mason, assistant professor in education, Nagasaki University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
Gladys Berejiklian’s defence of pork barrelling will hardly enthuse ratepayers in Batemans Bay, or taxpayers for that matter. The local government debacle over a Leisure Centre, which got the tick from Deputy Premier John Barilaro in dubious circumstances is the quintessential object lesson in why governments should do their homework before they start throwing money around for political reasons. Elizabeth Minter reports.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
How did an Australian-made transponder, a key part of drone technology, end up in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan where human rights abuses are prolific? Michelle Fahy investigates the murky trail of the drone bit and the cagey response of the Defence establishment from DFAT to DoD to Minister Marise Payne.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
British Judge Vanessa Baraitser has ruled against US extradition for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but not for the reasons she should have.
Baraitser’s frightening ruling supported virtually every US prosecutorial argument that was made during the extradition trial, no matter how absurd and Orwellian. This includes quoting from a long-discredited CNN report alleging without evidence that Assange made the embassy a “command post” for election interference, saying the right to free speech does not give anyone “unfettered discretion” to disclose any document they wish, dismissing arguments from the defense that UK law prohibits extradition for political offenses, parroting the false claim that Assange’s attempt to help protect his source Chelsea Manning while she was exfiltrating documents she already had access to was not normal journalistic behavior, saying US intelligence might have had legitimate reasons to spy on Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, and claiming Assange’s rights would be protected by the US legal system if he were extradited.
“Judge is just repeating the US case, including its most dubious claims, in Assange case,” tweeted activist John Rees during the proceedings.
As I reported, that CNN article was authored by a right-wing Ecuadorian who worked for a NGO sponsored by the State Department & UK govt, and it relied on disinfo fed by UC Global, the CIA contractor that illegally spied on Assange https://t.co/hZAiIeor5M https://t.co/K0CywDFaPj
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 4, 2021
In the end, though, Baraitser ruled against extradition. Not because the US government has no business extraditing an Australian journalist from the UK for exposing its war crimes. Not because allowing the extradition and prosecution of journalists under the Espionage Act poses a direct threat to press freedoms worldwide. Not to prevent a global chilling effect on natsec investigative journalism into the behaviors of the largest power structures on our planet. No, Baraitser ultimately ruled against extradition because Assange would be too high a suicide risk in America’s draconian prison system.
Assange is still not free, and he is not out of the woods. The US government has said it will appeal the decision, and Baraitser has the legal authority to keep Assange locked in Belmarsh Prison until that appeals process has been carried through all the way to its end. Discussions on bail and release will resume on Wednesday, and Assange will remain imprisoned in Belmarsh at least until that time. Due to Assange’s bail offense which resulted from taking political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012, it’s very possible that bail will be denied and he will remain imprisoned throughout the US government appeal.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the Australian trade union to which Assange belongs as a journalist, has released a statement on the ruling which outlines the situation nicely.
“Today’s court ruling is a huge relief for Julian, his partner and family, his legal team and his supporters around the world,” said MEAA Media Federal President Marcus Strom. “Julian has suffered a 10-year ordeal for trying to bring information of public interest to the light of day, and it has had an immense impact on his mental and physical health.”
“But we are dismayed that the judge showed no concern for press freedom in any of her comments today, and effectively accepted the US arguments that journalists can be prosecuted for exposing war crimes and other government secrets, and for protecting their sources,” Strom added. “The stories for which he was being prosecuted were published by WikiLeaks a decade ago and revealed war crimes and other shameful actions by the United States government. They were clearly in the public interest. The case against Assange has always been politically motivated with the intent of curtailing free speech, criminalising journalism and sending a clear message to future whistleblowers and publishers that they too will be punished if they step out of line.”
MEDIA RELEASE: MEAA welcomes today’s decision by a British judge to prevent the extradition to the United States of our member Julian Assange and calls on the US government to now drop his prosecution. https://t.co/KmykZED1Kd #pressfreedom #MEAAmedia pic.twitter.com/aYEKoCcoyi
— MEAA (@withMEAA) January 4, 2021
Indeed, the ruling today was a huge relief for Assange, his family, and for all his supporters around the world. But it wasn’t justice.
“It’s good to hear that court has ruled against the extradition of Julian Assange but I am wary of the fact it’s on mental health grounds,” AP’s Joana Ramiro commented on the ruling. “It’s a rather feeble precedent against the extradition of whistleblowers and/or in defence of the free press. Democracy needs better than that.”
“This wasn’t a victory for press freedom,” tweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald. “Quite the contrary: the judge made clear she believed there are grounds to prosecute Assange in connection with the 2010 publication. It was, instead, an indictment of the insanely oppressive US prison system for security ‘threats’.”
It is good that Baraitser ultimately ruled against extradition, but her ruling also supported the entirety of the US government’s prosecutorial narrative that would allow for extradition of journalists under the Espionage Act in the future. The ruling is a significant step toward freedom for Julian Assange, but it changes nothing as far as global imperialist tyranny is concerned.
So the appropriate response at this time is a sigh of relief, but not celebration. The Assange case has never been about just one man; the greater part of the battle, the one we are all fighting, continues unabated.
We're so far from justice that even the table scraps of "You're too crazy to extradite" are welcomed.
You want justice? Free Assange, shower him with awards and compensation, and lock up everyone who helped persecute him. THAT would be justice. THEN you'd be getting somewhere.
— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) January 4, 2021
That said, the message of the empire here was essentially “We totally coulda extradited you if we wanted, but you’re too crazy,” which sounds a lot like the international diplomacy equivalent of “I could kick your ass but you’re not worth it.” It’s a way of backing down while still saving face and appearing to be a threat. But everyone looking on can see that backing down is still backing down.
I think it’s a safe bet that if this case hadn’t had such intense scrutiny on it from all over the world, we would have heard a different ruling today. The empire did what it could to try and intimidate journalists with the possibility of prison for exposing its malfeasance, but in the end, it backed down.
I’m not going to take that as a sign that we’ve won the war, or even the battle. But it is a sign that our punches are landing. And that we’ve got a fighting chance here.
______________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Poems For Rebels or my old book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.
-
While the federal government indulged in semantics, Covid-19 deaths continued to rise in the woefully under-prepared residential aged care sector. Sarah Russell and Elizabeth Minter report on a horror year for older people living in residential aged care.
This post was originally published on Michael West.
-
TEN ECONOMIC STEPS THAT FORM A PATHWAY TO THE TOP THEKOUK and EVERALDATLARGE OUTLINE A WAY FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN SUSTAINED PROSPERITY Covid19 has opened a door for Australians to positively accept significant changes that will lead to a shared good. This rare opportunity enables us to achieve sustainable economic …
Continue reading CLIMBING THE COVID MOUNTAIN
This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.
-
EVERALD COMPTON RELATES HIS LONG AND PAINFUL JOURNEY Soon after John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia in 1996, I met him at Parliament in Canberra to outline my plan to build an Inland Railway. He agreed that it was a visionary project well worth a try and he gave me the green light to …
Continue reading THE VISION OF THE INLAND RAILWAY IS NOW A TRAGEDY.
This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.
-
Last year, the Queensland Parliament voted to authorise its Health Committee to hold public hearings throughout Queensland to assess public attitudes to Voluntary Assisted Dying and Palliative Care. They did an extraordinary job of holding hearings far and wide across the State and encouraging all opinions to be expressed. I spoke at one of the …
Continue reading Voluntary Assisted Dying. Crunch time at Queensland Parliament.
This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.
-
Jeremy Corbyn has led British Labour to a massive defeat. Bill Shorten led the Australian ALP to the loss of an election that should never have been lost. Hilary Clinton led her left wing Democrats to lose an American Presidential Election to a candidate who will be remembered as the worst President in American History. …
Continue reading THE LEFT HAS BEEN LEFT
This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.
-
Shop. Click. And the next day, your purchase is on your doorstep. Amazon has changed the face of shopping, but at a surprisingly high cost to its workers. With Black Friday and Cyber Monday coming soon, we look at what’s behind those smiling packages to reveal the dangers of working at Amazon.
Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.This post was originally published on Reveal.
-
Let me say loudly and clearly that I am hugely switched off by the Extinction Rebellion, but I am switched on about Greta Thunberg and about the fact that Citizens Referendums are a much better alternative than marching. Thunberg made an impact at the United Nations a few weeks ago with her speech that harshly …
Continue reading THE EXTINCTION OF THE EXTINCTION REBELLION
This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.
-
After the housing bust, a group of men profited by destroying the American dream of homeownership for hundreds of thousands of families. On Reveal, we learn how these Homewreckers — many of whom are close to President Donald Trump — did it and meet a woman who fought back.
This episode is based on Aaron Glantz’s new book, “Homewreckers: How a Gang of Wall Street Kingpins, Hedge Fund Magnates, Crooked Banks, and Vulture Capitalists Suckered Millions Out of Their Homes and Demolished the American Dream.”
Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.
This post was originally published on Reveal.
-
I was born and bred in the Australian bush. There, I went to a tiny bush school which had eleven students whose parents worked in the local timber mill. I enjoyed many happy days in a prosperous little community that really was one large family. Back in those days of the 1930’s and 40’s, Australia …
Continue reading TOWNS DIE, CITIES CHOKE, AUSTRALIA SLEEPS
This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.
-
Twenty years ago, Trade Union legend Bill Ludwig introduced me to Bill Shorten, telling me that here was a young guy who was going places. Shorten and I met for coffee at Melbourne University where he was studying part time to get his MBA. I liked him and asked what were his future plans for his …
Continue reading SHORTEN’S END
This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.
