11 Oct 2017

Irish Aid Fellowships for Study in Ireland (Fully-funded) 2018/2019

Application Deadline: Varying by Country
Offered annually? Yes 
Eligible Countries: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Myanmar, Palestine, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Fields of Study: Relevant Masters programmes in Ireland and regionally.  A directory listing suitable courses for study in Ireland is available to applicants, covering programmes in up to 12 subject areas.
Before finalising your course choices and submitting your application, please confirm with the relevant Irish Embassy that they remain fully satisfied that the courses you have chosen from the Irish Aid Directory of Eligible Postgraduate Courses accord with the Embassy’s country priorities. Embassy contact details are available below.
About the Award: Irish Aid Fellowships are awarded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and are targeted mainly at the countries in which Ireland has established development cooperation programmes. The Fellowship Training Programme was Irish Aid’s first scholarship programme, begun in 1974. Since that time, it has brought suitably qualified candidates from developing countries to undertake Masters degrees at universities and colleges in Ireland, with further students supported for similar courses in their own region.
Awards are made in fields such as development studies, rural development, health care, education and law with the aim of supporting and enhancing the contribution recipients can make to Irish Aid’s partner organisations. Fellowship eligibility requirements aim to ensure close alignment with Irish Aid’s programmatic approach.
Selection: Irish Aid Partners initiate the selection process.  They are required to put forward a gender-balanced panel of candidates and a good representation of the Civil Society.  Candidates working in disadvantaged regions of the country are given priority. These candidates are then entered into the final competition of the Fellowship Training Programme together with candidates from other Irish Aid Partner Countries.
EligibilityTo be eligible, applicants must
  • be a citizen of one of Irish Aid’s partner countries (i.e. Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia), or of Cambodia, Kenya, Liberia, Palestine, Myanmar, Rwanda or Zimbabwe.
  • be resident in that country.
  • have achieved the necessary academic standard to be accepted onto a Master’s degree course in a higher education institution in Ireland or within their own region.
  • be able to demonstrate a strong commitment to the development of their home country.
  • have identified relevant college courses in a higher education institution in Ireland or within their own region. For study in Ireland, you must select courses from the Irish Aid Directory of Eligible Postgraduate Courses
  • be applying to commence a new qualification and not be seeking funding for a course they have already commenced or which will begin before fellowship awards have been notified.
  • be able to take up the fellowship in the academic year 2018/2019.
  • provide a letter of reference from their employer and a completed Employer Endorsement Form.
For study in Ireland, applicants must also
  • be able to demonstrate skills in academic English by achieving an appropriate score on a recognised test (IELTS 6.5)
  • contact the Irish Embassy to confirm that the courses they have chosen from the Directory of Postgraduate Courses accord with the Embassy’s priorities in their country (see contact information below).
Number of Awards: Not Specified
Value of Award: The scholarship award covers course fees, required flights, accommodation (for out of country study), monthly allowances, insurance and other incidental expenses. Eligible Masters programmes in Ireland commence in the period August to September each year and, depending on the course, scholarships will run for between 10 and 16 months.

How to Apply
The Application Form and Directory of Postgraduate Courses are both available for download in the Scholarship Webpage Link below.
Applicants from Tanzania should email TanzaniaFellowships@dfa.ie to request the list of courses they are eligible to apply for.
Award Provider: Irish Government

African Students For Liberty Local Coordinators Program 2018

Application Deadline: 9th November 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
About the Award: The African Students For Liberty Local Coordinators Program is the premier program for actively advancing the ideas of free markets and individual liberty on college & campuses around Africa. The Local Coordinators are the face of liberty in their campuses, they are the muscle of the movement, empowering students in their areas to defend the ideas of liberty. This local program seeks to identify and develop strong student leaders to spread the ideas of individual liberty, self-reliance and economic freedom by starting new student groups, organizing events to promote these ideas, resourcing student groups and identifying and mentoring other vibrant students.
If you are a student in Africa, this is an amazing opportunity for you to join the network of young people whose efforts are constantly changing the world. These young individuals are dedicated to spreading the ideas of human dignity, individual and economic freedom, and the ability to pursue one’s happiness without coercion.
Type: Workshop, Training
Eligibility: 
  • Current post-secondary student or recent graduate (not later than three years)
  • Based in any country in Africa
  • Passionate about the concept of liberty
Selection: After a successful application, you will go through few weeks of online training before you are confirmed as a Local Coordinator.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award:  The Local Coordinator Program is designed to train an all round leader by imparting skills in areas such as public speaking, professionalism, advocacy, proposal and report writing, effective communication (both verbal and written), event organizing, talent identification and so much more absolutely FREE! The Program seeks to build the student movement for liberty in Africa by educating, developing and empowering the next generation of leaders of liberty.
How to Apply: Click here to apply.
Award Providers: The African Students For Liberty

Rotterdam School of Management Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st January 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: The school may give preference to students with one of the following nationalities:
  • Brazilian, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Taiwanese/Korean/Filipino, Indonesian/Vietnamese/Thai, Iranian/Iraqi, Azerbaijani/Georgian, Turkish, African (all countries), Mexican
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
About the Award: Application for the scholarship is open for prospective IBA students (thus, not currently enrolled students) starting their studies in 2018/2019 from all non-EEA countries, provided they would be charged the non-EEA tuition fee.
Only students who are not recipients of any other scholarships exceeding the amount of 5,000 euro in total in that same academic year can apply for the scholarship.  The RSM Scholarship Committee will determine award recipient(s) on 15 April 2018 and will be informed on 15 April 2018.
Field of Study: Bachelors in IBA (International Business Administration)
Bachelors in IBA (International Business Administration)
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: The scholarship will be awarded for the first year of the IBA programme, provided excellence in previous education is proven. As the scholarship will only be awarded for the first year, students should be aware that they will need to have sufficient means to cover the study costs of the second and third year.
Selection Criteria: 
  • Excellence in previous education is proven if the grade point average achieved at secondary school (measured to date) is at least the equivalent of the Dutch grade of 8.0 on the Dutch grading scale 1 – 10. For prospective students who have also attended higher education after secondary education grades obtained in higher education will be considered as well. The RSM Scholarship Committee will decide on the local grade equivalents for the Dutch grade of 8.0 using (a.o.) the grade information included in the Nuffic country modules;
  • You cannot receive any other scholarships exceeding the amount of € 5,000 in total in that same academic year;
  • By accepting this scholarship you agree to assist the RSM Recruitment and Admissions Office in the role of an Ambassador with promotional and support activities for approximately 8 hours per month during the academic year;
  • By accepting this scholarship you agree to start your visa procedure before 1 June 2018. RSM holds the right to cancel your scholarship if you have not started your visa procedure and will offer the scholarship to a student on the scholarship waiting list.
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship takes the form of a tuition waiver
  • The amount of the scholarship for the academic year 2018/2019 is approximately € 6,940;
  • The scholarship will be awarded for the first year of the IBA programme only, provided excellence in previous education is proven;
  • The scholarship will be subtracted from the full non-EEA tuition fee (€ 9,000) before the start of the academic year, enabling you to immediately pay the reduced tuition fee; either at once or in instalments.
Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship will be awarded for the first year of the IBA programme
How to Apply: The first step is to register for the IBA programme in Studielink. (Note that you cannot apply for a scholarship in Studielink). Once you have registered yourself, you will receive a link for our online application form (OLAF). Please upload the scholarship application letter of maximum 1 A4 size page in OLAF including the following:
  • an explanation why you would need a scholarship, comprising a description of your current financial situation;
  • an explanation why you would deserve a scholarship, comprising a description of academic excellence and if applicable other merits;
  • clear financial plan of how you are going to finance year 2 and 3 of the IBA programme;
  • a signed statement indicating that other scholarships awarded do not exceed the amount of € 5,000 in total;
  • if applicable: certified copies of other scholarships granted.
Award Provider: Erasmus University, Netherlands

Sony/Warner Techstars Music Accelerator Program for Music Startups (USD$120,000 Funding) 2018

Application Deadline: 15th October 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): Los Angeles, USA
About the Award: Techstars makes entrepreneurship more accessible by providing access to capital, guidance, marketing, business development, customer acquisition, employee recruitment, and M&A opportunities.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: 
  • technology oriented companies, typically web-based or other software companies. Other companies that don’t quite fit that mold are welcome.
  • Companies that can have national or worldwide reach.
  • Biotechnology companies, restaurants, consultancies, or other local service oriented companies are NOT funded
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: A $100,000 convertible note is automatically offered to all Techstars companies upon acceptance, in addition to $20,000 in exchange for 6% common stock, plus:
  • Access to Techstars resources for life
  • Acceleration in the Techstars Music program with intense, hands-on mentorship from artists, executives from Techstars Music Member –
  • Companies and the broad music business
  • Connections to the Techstars Network of over 5,000 founders, alumni and mentors globally
  • 400 perks worth over $1,000,000
  • Office space in Los Angeles for the duration of the program
  • Demo Day and other investor connections
  • Equity Back Guarantee, the only one of its kind in the industry
Duration of Program: 3 months
Demo Day: May 3, 2018
How to Apply: Apply Now
Award Providers: Techstars

University of Derby Regional High Achievers African Scholarship for Undergraduate and Masters Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 14th January 2018
Eligible Regions: 
  • SE Asia
  • China
  • India
  • North Africa
  • Africa
To Be Taken At (Country): UK
Type: Undergraduate, Masters
Eligibility: 
Undergraduate courses:
  • IELTS: 6.0 (with a minimum of 5.5 in all areas).
  • Pearson Test of Academic English: 51
  • Cambridge English Scale: B2
  • London Tests of English: we accept level 4 for undergraduate courses
  • International GCE O Level English Language: Grade C
  • International GCSE English or English as a Second Language: Grade C.
Postgraduate courses:
  • IELTS: 6.5 (with a minimum of 5.5 in all areas).
  • Pearson Test of Academic English: 51
  • Cambridge English Scale: B2
  • London Tests of English: we accept level 5 for postgraduate courses
  • International GCE O Level English Language: Grade C
  • International GCSE English or English as a Second Language: Grade C.
Number of Awards:
  • Undergraduate: 5
  • Masters: 5
Value of Award:
  • Undergraduate: £3,000
  • Masters: £3,000
How to Apply: These scholarships are available to apply for once you have received an offer on a course from the University.
Award Providers: University of Derby
Important Notes:  Please note that any applications received after the deadline cannot be accepted and this offer may not be used with any other promotion.

Euromena Award for Innovative African Startups (€10,000 Funding) 2018

Application Deadline: 6th February 2018
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Abidjan, Ivory Coast
About the Award: Start-ups initiatives have been proliferating worldwide and Africa shows huge potential for innovation and disruptions. Euromena team is composed of entrepreneurs who have been working in the region for years. The Awards represent an opportunity to celebrate the richness and strength of African innovation.
Euromena Consulting’s prize is about discovering and bringing to the world the many innovative talents Africa boasts of. Our competition is about creativity, innovation, development and social matter.
Our aim is to reward African start-ups promoting ICT and social development in Africa.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: The Euromena Awards are intended for companies or projects:
  • Related to Africa and/or established in the region
  • Operational, or on the verge of launching
  • Innovative projects, with social, economic, environmental and/or societal impact
If you fulfill those conditions, you will find below the application process
Number of Awards: 3
Value of Award: 
  • A €10,000 financial reward will be shared among the 3 candidates shortlisted by the jury. The winner will receive € 5,000, and 3,000 and 2,000 are intended for the 2nd and 3rd laureates, respectively.
  • The winner will receive 6 months support from Euromena Consulting to contribute to its development
  • This includes a customized support for 6 months, adapted to the winner’s needs… (Market studies, Business plan, coaching, etc.).
How to Apply:  
  • Download and fulfill the application form below
  • Gather required elements (project description, business plan, impact on the society, etc.)
  • Send the consolidated file to: Awards@euromenaconsulting.com
Award Providers: Euromena Consulting

Catalonia: The Revolt of the Rich?

Boris Kagarlitsky

Conflict between the government of Spain and the leadership of the Catalan Autonomy became the main international news event in the beginning of October. Nationalist parties forming the government in Barcelona declare independence. Madrid does not make concessions, and sends its police units to Catalonia. Regional authorities hold an independence referendum. The central government does not recognize it and makes attempts to sabotage it. Local authorities respond with a call for a general strike and announce that the province will separate from Spain and become an independent republic.
This is a short summary of the sequence of the events, but, what is the big picture behind these facts? What are the true interests and motives of the parties in this conflict?
Catalonia is often compared to Kosovo, Donbass, or even Crimea (where, as we know, the authorities separated from Ukraine, before they engineered the accession to Russia). A more correct comparison would be to Scotland, where nationalists also came to power and organized a referendum, which ended in a victory of the supporters of the unity with Great Britain. Finally, many recall Antonov-Ovseenko’s analogy. During his time in 1930s in Spain engulfed in civil war he called Catalonia “Spanish Ukraine”.
The situations of Catalonia and Scotland are, in fact, similar in two respects. To begin with, in both places we are dealing with the revolt of the rich against the poor. More developed regions with a high standard of living do not want to give up their resources to support less prosperous and backward provinces. ”We don’t want to feed Andalusia anymore”, they say in Barcelona. “We don’t want to feed Belfast anymore”, they say in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The local bureaucracy dreams of having an exclusive control over the financial flows. The reluctance to share with the neighbors is being justified by cultural and racial claims. “We are the real Europeans, not provincial islanders, like the English”, they say in Glasgow. “We are the real Europeans, descendants of Goths, not dirty descendants of the Arabs, like the Spaniards”, they say in Barcelona. The Catalan-language press is full of racist delirium about dirty and lazy Spaniards trying to live at the expense of the hard-working Catalonia. We read all this in a relatively “decent” mainstream publications. The fact that significant, if not the major part of Catalonia products is produced by the migrants from Andalusia working in the factories and maintaining the infrastructure of Barcelona is not taken into account. The displacement of the Spanish language from the spheres of culture and education has begun 10 years ago, and proceeds according to the painfully familiar scenario. Bureaucratic positions in the autonomy are occupied exclusively by representatives of the “titular nation”, regardless of the level of competence. Barcelona, a cosmopolitan cultural center of the Spanish world is turning into a dull province.
The unexpected aspirations of Scotland and Catalonia for independence have one more, less public, though no less significant underlying reason. For many years, both regions have been implementing European Union programs aimed at creation of a new system of institutions, separated from the regional state and directly tied to the Brussels bureaucracy. This is the essence of the program entitled “Europe of the Regions”. Every Scottish county has a program financed by the EU, while England or Northern Ireland do not get help on a comparable scale. Brussels was consistently and consciously created the “Scottish factor” as a counterbalance to Britain, which traditionally opposed the Eurocrats.
Of course, like any nationalism of a small nation, the ideology of Scottish and Catalan independence appeals to various injustices of the past, representing its nation or territory solely as a victim. For Scotland this does not work very well, since the last serious oppression of the Scots happened in the middle of the XVIII century. The main oppressors were not the English, but the Scots themselves, the inhabitants of the lowlands, who were settling scores with the inhabitants of the mountains, who, previously had been robbing them. Now, in the process of enclosure these were the inhabitants of highlands, who were ruined so much that they had only two options – to sign up with the royal army or brew a local moonshine that became known throughout the world as Scotch whiskey. In the next two centuries, the Scots became the most privileged population of the British Empire, constituting a disproportionately large part of its military and civilian elite, forming key cadres of the colonial administration in India and Africa.
In Catalonia the appeals to victimhood work better because the outrages of the Franco regime after the defeat of the Spanish Republic are still in the memory.  The Catalan language was essentially banned back then; the national culture was systematically eradicated. This, however, did not prevent Barcelona from successful development, so it remained one of the most important economic centers of the country. However, during the Civil War, Catalonia was by no means nationalistic or separatist. On the contrary, red Barcelona was the most important center of the all-Spanish republican movement. The struggle that unfolded there between the Francoists and the leftists had nothing in common with what is happening here today. It is telling that the ideology of independence began to spread seriously not immediately after the fall of Francoism, but three decades later, after the successive left and right wing governments in Madrid did their best to make amends to the Catalans, granting them all kinds of rights and privileges. It is significant that in the 1970s and 90s, while the problems of overcoming Frankoism were still serious, the demand for independence was put forward not by the Catalans, but by the Basques,  who now clearly have tempered their national claims (exactly the same situation as in Northern Ireland, where the question of independence has clearly faded into the background).
The transformation of national discrimination from real experience into a political myth is the most important factor conducive to the rise of nationalism. Those who are discriminated against are fighting for the abolition of discrimination, whereas the nationalists turn the grievances of the past into symbolic capital to justify their ambitions.
Here, however, the similarity of the Scottish and Catalan histories ends. For London still went ahead with holding a referendum, which the supporters of unity won – primarily thanks to the position of the local Labor Party, which even sacrificed some of its popularity due to their consistent opposition to nationalism. If Madrid mobilized the Hispanic majority in the region instead of prohibitions and threats against Barcelona, it would have achieved similar result. However, the extremely conservative, reactionary government of Spain clearly did not want mobilization of the working class of Catalonia. It chose to resort to police violence, demoralizing the Catalonian proponents of unity with Spain, who do not support this violence at all.
Alas, all these circumstances, for the most part, shy away from the attention of left publicists, who admiringly watch the clashes of protesting Catalan nationalists with the Spanish police.
Catalonian rebellion, like Scottish separatism is the uprising of the rich against the poor, the protest of a liberal society against the remnants of a redistributive social state. The middle class in the central regions of Barcelona, ​​rattling pans, is not the same as the population of poor workers’ neighborhoods, where they do not know the Catalan language and do not associate any of their prospects with independence. It is significant that the “general strike” declared by the nationalist parties did not affect industry at all. The working class did not support the revolt of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. Moreover, they realize that the main target of this revolt is not the Spanish monarchy, as some naive leftists believe, but rather the principles of social solidarity, and the remnants of the social state.
But who needs to take into account Spanish-speaking workers? They are the “invaders”! If we look for comparisons, what is happening is similar to the time of the collapse of the USSR, and Catalonia is dominated by the same monstrous illusions that were sown by nationalists at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, what is happening now has a deeper basis in the sphere of political economy. This is not an accident that the triumph of neo-liberalism was accompanied everywhere by the crisis of national states and federations, the emergence and flourishing of all sorts of separatism, including exotic ones. In this sense, there is no difference between the ruling circles of Madrid and Barcelona. They represent the same class interests, only each represents them at a different level. Disintegration of federations and crisis of state institutions, which are currently happening everywhere are closely linked to the austerity policies pursued by both Madrid and Barcelona. ​​This is a continuation of the general logic of de-solidarisation, privatization and fragmentation characteristic of neoliberalism. It was this political economic logic that underlay the collapse of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.  This logic assumes not only rejection of solidarity based on class and rejection of common humanistic values, but also substitution of the national values by the ethnic ones. It is ethnic nationalism that proves to be an ideal “substitute” for class or civic solidarity. It preserves the necessary sense of “community” for people, while narrowing it down to the size of an imaginary large family.
Similar dynamics could be observed in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, when Rosa Luxemburg cautioned other leftists of the dangers of flirting with the petty-bourgeois nationalism of small nations. Reactionary and semi-fascist regimes were established in most of the new states formed in place of the disintegrating empires. The only lucky exception was Czechoslovakia, which was soon happily torn to pieces by neighbors such as Germany with a help from Poland and Hungary. It would seem that the lessons of the first half of the twentieth century should be enough to draw the necessary conclusions. Alas, the modern European left, which developed in the context of deindustrialization and decline of class solidarity, is itself a product of neoliberalism and is completely imbued with the spirit of petty-bourgeois romanticism. Therefore, the left does not dare to openly say that the nationalism of minorities in no less damaging for the working class cause than any other nationalism.
There is a good news, nevertheless. The success of Jeremy Corbin and his renewed Labor Party in Scotland returns class agenda to the region once considered the backbone of the labor movement. Nationalist demagogy quickly loses appeal among the masses whenever a real, substantial left alternative appears.  The development of small-town nationalism (as, indeed, of other types of nationalism) is inversely proportional to the strength and influence of the left. Whenever supporters of social transformations fail, their place is immediately occupied by preachers of national exclusiveness. Conversely, the rise of the left forces inevitably leads to the decline of nationalist organizations.
This does not mean that the national issues do not matter, and regional interests should not be taken into account. The leftists and nationalists, however, suggest incompatible, diametrically opposed approaches to solving these problems. The former rely on an equitable union of peoples, and the latter on dividing and pitting people against each other. The former understand that the large, integrated economy based on redistribution of resources in the interests of the majority creates the best prospects for successful and democratic development, while others require freedom solely for “their own”, denying not only the principle of equality, but also the objective goals of socio-economic progress.
Unfortunately, the Spanish and Catalonian left does not dare to speak openly about it, even if they realize what a deadly danger is the growth of nationalism for them. Political correctness blocks consciousness and eliminates a meaningful discussion. However, we will have to admit, sooner or later, that if we want any progressive changes in Catalonia, we must not rally for its separation from Spain. We should fight for progressive changes throughout the country, instead.

Power Corrupts: a Culture of Compliance Breeds Despots and Predators

John W. Whitehead


All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.
― Frank Herbert
Power corrupts.
Worse, as 19th-century historian Lord Acton concluded, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a politician, an entertainment mogul, a corporate CEO or a police officer: give any one person (or government agency) too much power and allow him or her or it to believe that they are entitled, untouchable and will not be held accountable for their actions, and those powers will eventually be abused.
We’re seeing this dynamic play out every day in communities across America.
A cop shoots an unarmed citizen for no credible reason and gets away with it. A president employs executive orders to sidestep the Constitution and gets away with it. A government agency spies on its citizens’ communications and gets away with it. An entertainment mogul sexually harasses aspiring actresses and gets away with it. The U.S. military bombs a civilian hospital and a school and gets away with it.
Abuse of power—and the ambition-fueled hypocrisy and deliberate disregard for misconduct that make those abuses possible—works the same whether you’re talking about sexual harassment, government corruption, or the rule of law.
For instance, 20 years ago, I took up a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of a young woman—a state employee—who claimed that her boss, a politically powerful man, had arranged for her to meet him in a hotel room, where he then allegedly dropped his pants, propositioned her and invited her to perform oral sex on him.
Despite the fact that this man had a well-known reputation for womanizing and this woman was merely one in a long line of women who had accused the man of groping, propositioning, and pressuring them for sexual favors in the workplace, she was denounced as white trash and subjected to a massive smear campaign by the man’s wife, friends and colleagues (including the leading women’s rights organizations of the day), while he was given lucrative book deals and paid lavish sums for speaking engagements.
William Jefferson Clinton eventually agreed to settle the case and pay Paula Jones $850,000.
Here we are 20 years later and not much has changed.
We’re still shocked by sexual harassment in the workplace, the victims of these sexual predators are still being harassed and smeared, and those who stand to gain the most by overlooking wrongdoing (all across the political spectrum) are still turning a blind eye to misconduct when it’s politically expedient to do so.
This time, it’s Hollywood producer Harvey Weinsteinlongtime Clinton associate and a powerhouse when it comes to raising money for Democrats—who is being accused of decades of sexual assaults, aggressively sexual overtures and harassment.
I won’t go into the nauseating details here. You can read them for yourself at the New York Times and the New Yorker.
Suffice it to say that it’s the same old story all over again: man rises to power, man abuses power abominably, man intimidates and threatens anyone who challenges him with retaliation or worse, and man gets away with it because of a culture of compliance in which no one speaks up because they don’t want to lose their job or their money or their place among the elite.
From what I’ve read, this was Hollywood’s worst-kept secret.
In other words, everyone who was anyone knew about it. They were either complicit in allowing the abuses to take place, turning a blind eye to them, or helping to cover them up.
It’s not just happening in Hollywood, however.
And it’s not just sexual predators that we have to worry about.
For every Harvey Weinstein (or Roger Ailes or Bill Cosby or Donald Trump) who eventually gets called out for his sexual misbehavior, there are hundreds—thousands—of others in the American police state who are getting away with murder—in many cases, literally—simply because they can.
The cop who shoots the unarmed citizen first and asks questions later might get put on paid leave for a while or take a job with another police department, but that’s just a slap on the wrist. The shootings and SWAT team raids and excessive use of force will continue, because the police unions and the politicians and the courts won’t do a thing to stop it. Case in point: The Justice Department will no longer attempt to police the police when it comes to official misconduct. Instead, it plans to give police agencies more money and authority to “fight” crime.
The war hawks who are making a profit by waging endless wars abroad, killing innocent civilians in hospitals and schools, and turning the American homeland into a domestic battlefield will continue to do so because neither the president nor the politicians will dare to challenge the military industrial complex. Case in point: Rather than scaling back on America’s endless wars, President Trump—like his predecessors—has continued to expand America’s military empire and its attempts to police the globe.
The National Security Agency that carries out warrantless surveillance on Americans’ internet and phone communications will continue to do so, because the government doesn’t want to relinquish any of its ill-gotten powers. Case in point: The USA Liberty Act, proposed as a way to “fix” all that’s wrong with domestic surveillance, will instead legitimize the government’s snooping powers.
Unless something changes in the way we deal with these ongoing, egregious abuses of power, the predators of the police state will continue to wreak havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives.
Police officers will continue to shoot and kill unarmed citizens. Government agents—including local police—will continue to dress and act like soldiers on a battlefield.
Bloated government agencies will continue to fleece taxpayers while eroding our liberties. Government technicians will continue to spy on our emails and phone calls. Government contractors will continue to make a killing by waging endless wars abroad.
And powerful men (and women) will continue to abuse the powers of their office by treating those around them as underlings and second-class citizens who are unworthy of dignity and respect and undeserving of the legal rights and protections that should be afforded to all Americans.
As Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the at the University of California, Berkeley, observed in the Harvard Business Review, “While people usually gain power through traits and actions that advance the interests of others, such as empathy, collaboration, openness, fairness, and sharing; when they start to feel powerful or enjoy a position of privilege, those qualities begin to fade. The powerful are more likely than other people to engage in rude, selfish, and unethical behavior.”
After conducting a series of experiments into the phenomenon of how power corrupts, Keltner concluded: “Just the random assignment of power, and all kinds of mischief ensues, and people will become impulsive. They eat more resources than is their fair share. They take more money. People become more unethical. They think unethical behavior is okay if they engage in it. People are more likely to stereotype. They’re more likely to stop attending to other people carefully.”
Power corrupts.
And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
However, it takes a culture of entitlement and a nation of compliant, willfully ignorant, politically divided citizens to provide the foundations of tyranny.
As researchers Joris Lammers and Adam Galinsky found, those in power not only tend to abuse that power but they also feel entitled to abuse it: “People with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want.”
That sense of entitlement and immunity from charges of wrongdoing dovetails with Richard Nixon’s belief that “when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
For too long now, America has played politics with its principles and allowed the president and his colleagues to act in violation of the rule of law.
“We the people” are paying the price for it now.
Americans have allowed Congress, the White House and the Judiciary to wreak havoc with our freedoms. They have tolerated an oligarchy in which a powerful, elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots. They have paid homage to patriotism while allowing the military industrial complex to spread death and destruction abroad. And they have turned a blind eye to all manner of wrongdoing when it was politically expedient.
This culture of compliance must stop.
The empowerment of petty tyrants and political gods must end.
For starters, let’s go back to the basics: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Let’s recommit to abiding by the rule of law.
Here’s what the rule of law means in a nutshell: it means that everyone is treated the same under the law, everyone is held equally accountable to abiding by the law, and no one is given a free pass based on their politics, their connections, their wealth, their status or any other bright line test used to confer special treatment on the elite.
Let’s demand scrutiny and transparency at all levels of government, which in turn will lead to accountability.
We need to stop being victimized by these predators.
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, I’m not just talking about the political predators in office, but the ones who are running the show behind the scenes—the shadow government—comprised of unelected government bureaucrats whose powers are unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and beyond the reach of the law.
There is no way to erase the scars left by the government’s greed for money and power, its disregard for human life, its corruption and graft, its pollution of the environment, its reliance on excessive force in order to ensure compliance, its covert activities, its illegal surveillance, and its blatant disdain for the rule of law.
“We the people”—men and women alike— have been victims of the police state for so long that not many Americans even remember what it is to be truly free anymore. Worse, few want to shoulder the responsibility that goes along with maintaining freedom.
Still, we must try.

The Other “Spirit” of the Iran Nuclear Deal

Kevin L. Schwartz

Among the favored talking points of those arguing for a US withdrawal, renegotiation, or “decertification” of the Iran nuclear deal is that Iran has violated the deal’s “spirit” by pursuing non-nuclear related activity, ranging from ballistic missile testing to destabilizing regional activity. Critics of the deal continue to offer this argument despite the fact the US maintains the country is in compliance with the “technical” aspects of the agreement’s “letter,” as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently noted.
President Trump now appears likely to not certify the deal in the coming days, noting in a recent dinner with US military leaders that Iran has “not lived up to the spirit of their agreement.A US dismissal of the deal on the pretext of a violation of its “spirit” would confirm a long-held truth undergirding Iranian foreign policy, only recently bracketed by the country’s diplomatic leap of faith to sign the nuclear deal in the first place: the United States is an unreliable actor whose innate opposition to the Islamic Republic is unrelenting and enduring. For an Iranian side confronting the reality that the “letter” of the agreement may crumble, this is now the “spirit” hovering over the deal.
Since the 1979 Revolution, few countries have been more invested in pointing out the contradiction between US words and actions than Iran. Iran offers its rhetoric and behavior as a mirror to reflect the contradiction between U.S. words and policies and expose what it views as a “do as I say, not as I do” policy.” Much of this attitude grew out of historical experience of course, namely, the CIA-led coup of 1953 against Muhammad Mossadegh and continued US support for the authoritarian rule of the Shah until the 1979 Revolution. The coup de grace in both instances was their initiation by a country committed to spreading freedom and democracy. The lesson drawn from these experiences by those attaining power in the future Islamic Republic is that the US selectively applies its ideals abroad when it suits her best interests, making her a hypocritical power at best and a diabolical one at worst.
For the Islamic Republic the ultimate expression of the United States’ selective application of the rules pertained to the treatment of its nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While aspects of Iran’s nuclear program were clandestine, though ultimately revealed in 2002 and 2009, the main thrust of the country’s approach was always one anchored in the legal realm. While other countries’ paths remained defined by concealment (Syria), defiance (North Korea), or capitulation (Libya), Iran continued to press its case by arguing that it was abiding by the legal parameters as established by the NPT. Neither the IAEA or the UN Security Council, it bears remembering, ever found Iran in violation of the NPT, even if they argued Iran at times concealed elements of its program and didn’t enact the proper safeguards.
Should the US choose to not certify the deal by deeming Iran in violation of its “spirit” then it demonstrates precisely what the Islamic Republic has been clamoring all these years: the US simply holds Iran to an unfair standard. It is worth noting that several Iranian parliamentarians offered this exact argument in voicing their opposition when the deal was being debated in the majlis (parliament). Rather than arguing Iran should not ratify the deal in order to pursue an unhindered nuclear program, they argued against the deal on the grounds that the US is simply incapable of treating their country fairly. It is of little surprise that the conservative Iranian press has referred to the US obsession over the deal’s “spirit” as a “new American conspiracy” and a way of shrouding American deceit.
While much of the talk following the nuclear deal’s consummation was whether it was merely a transactional agreement or could in fact yield a transformation in US-Iran relations, less attention focused on how Iran gained from the process of negotiations itself. As much as abiding by the “letter” of the signed agreement demonstrates Iran’s ability to adhere to established rules and display normalized behavior, the procedural reality that the agreement was enacted with United States, alongside other Great Powers, in itself stands testament to a recognition of Iran as an equal party of engagement. Not certifying the deal would undercut this achievement.
It is for this reason that President Hasan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have made it absolutely clear they will not renegotiate the deal. To do so would simply eliminate any notion that Iran can justifiably maintain the position of engaging with the US on equal footing without being strong-armed into succumbing to any US political whim. Any belief that a non-certification of the deal, or outright withdrawal from it, could serve as a pathway to renegotiate a “better” one vastly misunderstands this crucial Iranian perception of the US as a global power. Members of Congress, who must decide whether to follow through with the President’s potential non-certification and reimpose nuclear related sanctions, should bear this simple truth in mind.
If the nuclear deal falters then it may very well come to be another historical data point- alongside the 1953 coup and US support for the Shah- signaling the US inability to engage Iranian in any fair and objective manner. More disturbingly, it may come to confirm the US penchant for broken promises when dealing with Iran, not just for an older generation who lived through those watershed moments, but a younger generation of Iranians too, to say nothing of what may result from a newly invigorated nuclear program ungoverned by an internationally sanctioned agreement meant to monitor it.