Mitchel, your point that we should support the Russian govt's banning of GMOs is a very good one, and it would be a shame to lose it; your point that no-fly zones are sometimes dangerous provocations is a good one, though more familiar; your point about accusations of Syrian govt atrocities being contested by some credible sources is again somewhat familiar but good; you might have conceded that Russia is a tyranny domestically (though not the world's worst) and a nuclear threatener internationationally (though not the world's worst).  But don't you see that your rant against Goldhaber is directly controverting your call for canning the nasty attacks on this list?  As the lady said on a sitcom a couple of generations ago--- "Let's be friends, just this once."


On 2019-07-11 4:15 p.m., Mitchel Cohen wrote:
[log in to unmask]"> At 12:21 PM 7/11/2019, Michael Goldhaber wrote:
David, Let's start with Syria. Can there be any doubt it's been a humanitarian disaster


 in which the government has massacred and/or driven away a substantial proportion of the population, in substantial measure by dropping "barrel bombs" on the civilian population as well as using poison gas delivered by air?

Michael, you know that these allegations are challenged by a substantial part of the Left, and also by several official agencies. At least give reference to those who are critiquing that story, even if you're so certain that you are right (and I think the questions people I respect are raising deserve at least consideration).

 This is well substantiated by a variety of independent NGOs.

And it challenged by a variety of other independent NGOs. It is quite unclear to me that the poison gas attacks even happened, let alone that the Syrian government is responsible for them. (I'm not saying NO definitively, but again, some people I trust and respect say otherwise.)

Why shouldn't a no-fly zone be very seriously considered?

Because Russia was invited in by the government of Syria and the U.S. was not. So Russian planes would be the ones SHOT FUCKING DOWN by U.S. missiles, as Hillary Clinton's advisers know only to well, as they have been rationalizing different scenarios to pump for war with Russia for many decades. The movie Fail-Safe, in the 1960s, exposed those "political science advisers" (I remember Walter Matthau playing one of them, which for many years made me hate Walter Matthau, until I got a little older and learned to separate the actor from the role he was playing.) I remember destroying my portion of my dorm room at Stony Brook with a baseball bat when I got back from seeing that film, I was soooo distraught. (I wonder if it would hold up today, given all that we've been through, changes in cinemetography, and the like. I'm almost afraid to recommend it here.) Dr. Strangelove too came out around the same time, is much more entertaining, and covers the same ground.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has by now completely surrounded the former Soviet states with military bases and Nazi-regimes (the Ukraine, for example, where Hillary Clinto endorsed the putting of actual World War 2 Nazis into that coup government).

 You apparently think there's nothing wrong with a sovereign country's government killing its own citizens,

Well, talk about nasty and tendentious personal attacks! Imagine if I wrote: "YOU Michael Goldhaber apparent believe every piece of CIA propaganda that comes down the pike." You wouldn't like it one bit. So why are you doing that to David? STOP IT! NOW!!

 and that intervention by anyone with the power to intervene is wrong and even much more evil than standing by and doing nothing.

Yes, let's hear it for the good intentions of the The US of A! WE are the only ones in the entire world who can bring democracy into the war-torn countries. Michael, are you kidding me?

I'm sorry, but that makes you an utterly despicable person in my eyes,

Ummmmm. I ask the moderators to STOP THIS NOW, and to censure Michael Goldhaber ....

 just the kind SftP was formed to oppose.

What nonsense. SftP was NOT formed to support U.S. foreign policy but to oppose it in Vietnam, South Africa, Cuba, and elsewhere.

The claim that Russia outlaws GMOs is an absurd defense of a militaristic dictatorship that supports suppression of democracy wherever it can, including at home.

Like it or not, it's the truth. As Jack Nicholson put it in A Few Good Men "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" As I wrote in my book,

Cultivation and imports [of GMOs] are banned in only Algeria, Bhutan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Peru, Venezuela, and Russia -- the most populous country to ban both the cultivation and importation of GM crops.

Russia. In June 2016, Russia’s State Duma adopted the third and final reading of a government bill to introduce a total ban on the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified plants and animals, except for scientific research purposes.(25) Far from the ban hurting their economies, as Monsanto and other pesticide-producing corporations would have us believe, the United States, which had been the world’s leading wheat exporter, is now losing its position to Russia and Canada. Russia claims that this is in part due to several economic factors and also to the preference of much of the world for non-GMO food.(26) .....

In the face of Monsanto’s plans to open its first plant in Russia,(34) Russian President Vladimir Putin signed Federal Law No 358 on July 3, 2016 prohibiting cultivation of genetically engineered plants and breeding of genetically engineered animals on the territory of the Russian Federation.(35) President Putin had earlier said that “measures should be taken to protect the Russian market and consumers from GMO products, as their use could have unforeseen consequences,” news agency RIA Novosti reported.(36)

Leticia Goncalves, who heads Monsanto’s operations in Europe and the Middle East, was not perturbed. “We still believe that Ukraine and Russia both are long-term opportunities for our business and we want to make sure we are in a position to accelerate our business growth despite the short-term geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges.”(37)

But, contra Monsanto, President Putin envisioned a future in which Russia would become “the world’s largest supplier of ecologically clean and high-quality organic food.” He’s called on the country to become completely self-sufficient in food production by 2020: “We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resourcesRussia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing.”(38)

Before he died in November 2016, Fidel Castro entered the increasingly global debate by strongly opposing genetic engineering. At a conference in Havana cosponsored by the Mexico-based Center for Global Justice,(39) I introduced a public appeal against the genetic engineering of agriculture, the end of my talk, and a number of participants signed on to it, including several Cuban professors.(40)


25 Sustainable Pulse, Jan. 25, 2016.
26 The International Reporter, April 24, 2016 “Russian Organic Wheat Takes World by Storm, US GMO Glyphosate Losing Out!” .

34 “As Crisis Hits, Seed Giant Monsanto Sees Business in Russia and Ukraine,” The Moscow Times, January 23, 2015.
35 US Department of Agriculture GAIN report, % 20Breeding%20of%20GE%20Crops%20and%20Animal_Moscow_Russian% 20Federation_7-12-2016.pdf. For more information see FAS/Moscow GAIN report GMO Registration for Cultivation Postponed 6/27/2014.pdf; Russian “Producers Consider It Reasonable to Ban GMO products,” 05/07/2016, http://
36 “Russia to Ban Genetically Modified Organisms in Food Production,” Moscow Times, Sept. 20, 2015.
37 Moscow Times, January 23, 2015, op cit. “Ukraine is the world’s sixth largest grain grower this season, and Goncalves said the region remained a priority for Monsanto.”
38 Eduard Korniyenko, “Putin Wants Russia to Become World’s Biggest Exporter of Non-GMO Food,” Reuters, December 3, 2015.
39 Seminar on Socialist Renewal and the Capitalist CrisisA Cuban-North American Exchange,” Havana, Cuba, June 1630, 2013, in association with the Center for Global Justice, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, and the Radical Philosophy Association.
40 “An Open Letter to the Cuban People against Genetic Engineering of Agriculture,” Mitchel Cohen, in A Talk in Havana, Red Balloon Collective, 2013.

It would be reasonable to argue that no-fly zones may have unintended consequences , and that nothing whatever reasonable can be done in cases like Syria or Rwanda that wouldn't make the situation even worse. But similar steps sometimes have been clearly positive, if still imperfect,  in some cases, such as Bosnia. SftP was primarily founded to oppose the misuse of science for war, weapons production and the like. Much stronger efforts at global demilitarization are needed. But we have an obligation not to reduce thinking on such subjects to simple-mindedness. For instance, the main technology used for the Rwandan genocide was radio, but the genocide there and in Bosnia could probably have been prevented if UN forces present had not been ordered not to intervene.
The U.S. played a critical role in FOMENTING the Rwanda horror. See, for one,

As for your presence on the list, on which Mitchel has tended for years to write too much, often of little relevance, his endorsement does not reassure me; neither does his role at WBAI.

Ahhh, Michael, I have never personally attacked anyone on this list, as you have done so repeatedly. I try to stick to arguing ideas. Maybe I'll see you in California in a few weeks at one of my book talks, where you'd be free to challenge my ideas to your heart's delight?



Sent from my iPad

On Jul 11, 2019, at 6:33 AM, David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks, Mitchel,  appreciate the references.

Specifically about some of what Michael raised, I wonder just what in the thread I took part in had anything to do with a "knowledge about Science"? And yes, why would just a layperson's knowledge be grounds for exclusion from this list?

And about HRC, the word "despicable" aside, what is the "nonsense" you are referring to? Are reasonable people supposed to know via osmosis just what I said that was so egregious? Did Hillary Clinton not promise to institute a no-fly-zone over Syrian airspace? And do you not see any potential problem in what amounts to an invasion of Syria -- and this while Russian jets are patrolling the region at the invitation of the sovereign Syrian government?

And do you not recall James Comey's profile of Clinton during the 2016 campaign, in which he described a person utterly negligent and incompetent in her performance as Secretary of State? how many times he repeated that she "knew or should have known" in regard to her disregard of the security and other protocols in carrying out her duties? And you may have forgotten how she cackled at the news of Kadafy's murder, and the state of Libya now after her involvement. Obviously you have an entirely different opinion of her, but why should that be grounds for my exclusion?

About Russia, I would expect at least some attempt at supporting one's assertions with examples, or some reasoned argument. Just where are these to be found in this bald assertion about Russia's deliberate complicity in the turn of events in all the countries you mentioned? Or have you just bought wholesale into the US government and media's assertions about the evil Russians? On the other hand, are you aware that Russia has become a leader in organic agriculture, and has banned GMOs?

Whatever your disagreements, they are welcome and even wanted. So how about canning the empty denunciations and applying some examples and reasoning for them.


On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 1:33 AM, Mitchel Cohen wrote:

Michael, I don't understand why you're challenging David Barouh's interest in being on this list.
I've known David for years, he participates in antiwar demonstrations in NYC, volunteers at WBAI and is involved in all the enviro issues that I am. One of the hallmarks of SftP is that one didn't have to have the academic lettering (MD, Ph.D. L.M.V.O) after their names in order to work with SftP .... I really object to the censorious tone of your letter -- very unbecoming of you, and of Science for the People. J'Accuse!


At 09:32 PM 7/10/2019, Michael Goldhaber wrote:

I don’t understand what David  Barouh is doing on this list. Does he have any knowledge whatsoever about Science, much less Science for the People ? Certainly what he has to say about Russia in comparison with Hillary Clinton is despicable nonsense.

As one of the founders of Science for the People, and a former list moderator, I am deeply disturbed by many of the recent posts.

Two further points:
First, Contrary to Claudia’s memory, I don’t recall any specific rules barring discussion of “partisan politics.” Indeed, it’s unclear to me how that would make any sense for a specifically political organization such as SftP. Even if that is —rather oddly—interpreted to mean no so specific backing of either of the two major American parties, it still could hardly be beneficial to the overall discussions’ cogency. Given that we now have one party almost uniformly opposed to everything SftP has stood for, it seems especially unworkable now.

Second, in reference to the supposedly international character of this list—a raather small proportion outside the US in fact—it is relevant that antti-democratic, anti-human, anti-environment tendencies are evident in a growing number of countries, from Brazil to India to Turkey to Hungary and Poland, and including here, tendencies certainly deliberately abetted by Russian actions. They deserve international opposition.


Michael via iPhone, so please ecuse misteaks.

On Jul 10, 2019, at 4:04 PM, David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yes, Mitchel, in those terms, yes; lots of cliches can be invoked to describe this Trump era ("the more things change, the more they stay the same"?). Trump is easy to peg as really different, i.e., worse, because he's so uncouth and blatantly vicious. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't have indulged in such blatant right wing viciousness.

But I'm pretty sure you'd agree that she nonetheless represented an utterly unacceptable option in the Russian roulette that was the most recent presidential election. No disrespect intended toward Russia; their politics are far saner than that of the US. But it still gives me bad dreams to imagine what nuclear confrontations would have ensued by this time had the electoral college -- of all entities, god help us -- not saved us from that fate so far. How's that for irony! Crazy times indeed!


On Wed, Jul 10, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Mitchel Cohen wrote:

Hi David,

I agree with much of what you say here. However, these times are indeed different than the past few decades, in terms of racist and misogynist "hit" squads now being overtly and publicly endorsed by the President. So in that sense, times are indeed different.

Which does not mean that the way to deal with that is to vote for the Democratic Party candidate for President, whoever he or she may be.

It probably would move this conersation forward if people on this list, recognizing the differences in strategic approach among us, would stop twisting arms (metaphorically) of those of us who don't think that voting for the Democratic party candidate for President is the way to go. It would be far better to recognize the differences and propose other ways, outside of the "elect-a-Democrat" model, to challenge the fascism coming down -- just as we (the Greens and independents) do all the time.


At 10:47 AM 7/7/2019, you wrote:

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote:

...Seeing you're among friends, you may want to sound friendlier.  Even among the old-timers there are wide differences of opinion.

I will be so advised. To my mind I was being critical rather than "nasty," which implies personal attacks. But we're not always the best judges of how we're perceived.

In any case, I hope this doesn't preclude analysis if that analysis does not look good for the presenters of the text being analyzed. For example, consider this sentence from Carol's original email:

We don't have the luxury of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.

Certain terms are loaded. The term "purity" is often used electorally in the USA as a pejorative directed at those who refuse to succumb to the corporate duopoly stranglehold on power, and who vote for alternatives, which in the 2016 presidential election was about 6% of voters. It would have been much higher had not the perception of futility inhibited many from going that route, although untold numbers would likely have preferred to.

The subtext is that the only logical or practical behavior is to vote for what you know is corrupt and self-dealing -- to capitulate to it. It's a monstrous self-fulfilling prophecy (if you don't vote for alternatives, then yeah, they can't win!) and that the 6% of the population that won't go along with it are the ones criticized with overused phrases like "wasting your vote," "above the fray," whatever. Another subtext is that "we all know" how others are going to vote, so what's the point of not following along. The message is that the choice is not really yours to make.

We may know probabilities, but we don't "know" how others will behave. Few predicted that Trump could beat out all those mainstream Repugs to win the nomination (let alone the election itself)? What that showed me is how sick of mainstream politicians most Americans are. Bernie Sanders was also perceived as not one of "them." Many of those who voted for Trump had voted (or so it's reported) for the back-stabbing hypocrite Obama -- who had also been perceived as something different. (I use "back-stabbing" advisedly; the stunt he pulled on the people of Flint is a good example; they were filled with hope when he showed up. He spent his time chiding them for being afraid of the water. Then he asked for a drink of water, refused a bottled water, and took a glass of tap water to his lips. That water barely touched his lips, he was so afraid to have even a drop of it get into his mouth!)

And of course there's the decisive influence of media attention, which has always bought into the two-party status quo. But thanks to the near unanimous vote of the two corporate parties (and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton) for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, all the many independent media companies got bought up and merged into six giant media conglomerates, and now by design give no attention to alternatives. Even Ralph Nader, in 2000 when he still had his iconic status, got almost no attention. And that's because the duopoly parties serve the corporate media's interests. It's a closed loop, and they've got (as of now) about 94% of the electorate under their control, with no choice outside the range decided for them.

So it's always the same story. "We must vote for the Democrats this time. This time it's too important not to." It was the same story in 2000 with Bush and Gore. But one can imagine how different it all could have been if Ralph Nader had become president. And contrary to what Carol has said, these times are typical of at least the last 40 or so years, characterized by ever-increasing American official cruelty and military aggression, through both Democratic and Republican administrations and congressional majorities.

David Barouh

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:

Thanks again Chandler.
Oh boy.
I have recently found that engaging with my Republican brother-in-law has been more encouraging than a lot of what I'm hearing from you folks at SftP. And I generally do not engage with people who are far from me politically, but maybe it's nostalgia, or maybe it's that I stubbornly want so badly to touch the rest of the members of this list, many of whom I deeply believe agree with me but are not speaking up.

I even know for sure that some of them agree. And I wonder about some of the folks from the old days - where are you on this Jonathan King, Al Weinrub, Sara Miller, Frank Mirer, Bob Park, Mina Otmishi, Ross Feldberg, Milt Kotelchuck, Ginny Pierce, Mike Teel and others whose names I can't dredge up from old hard drive between my ears. And what about all the others on this listserve who have not weighed in on this conversation. I bet there are many who are just as furious, terrified, desperate as I am, and many who have no idea how to best support candidates and causes that have a good chance of defeating that monster in the White House. And who may understand that now is not the time to hold out for making revolution.

Do those of you that I have heard from know for sure that you represent the rest of the group?

Force Multiplier does not get involved with the issues at all. All we care about is identifying the elected representatives who are most vulnerable but who can really use financial support to hold onto their seats in the House. And soon we'll probably identify some Senate candidates who our research tells us would have a chance to flip their seat to Blue.

We do the work so that people who understand the necessity of electing Democrats THIS TIME can know where to donate most effectively. Additionally, we list grassroots organizations in swing states that are working effectively against voter suppression because we know that the Republicans' primary strategy is to make sure that the disenfranchised stay that way.

I have never been involved in electoral politics. I have never campaigned for a Democrat and that includes Barak Obama (who was far from what his worshippers think he was), or Hillary. And if, dog willing, Trump is defeated I don't think I'll ever get involved with the Democrats again.

But these are NOT normal times. This time is different, can't you see that? If you anti-Democrats join with Republican anti-Trumpers and all of you refuse to vote, that would be a sure fire way of keeping the monster in the White House. But it takes more than just voting, which I do believe most of you will do. It takes MONEY. And regardless of which party ends up in the White House it is ESSENTIAL that we have a Democratically controlled Congress. That's why this small group of 12 core members + our "multipliers" are using our networks to raise money for Democrats in the House and Senate.

Ok. I don't have time for any more of this. I'm not asking SftP to become a forum for party politics. All I'm asking is that you allow me to continue to inform your group about what we're doing at Force Multiplier in case there are some members who would welcome that information. FM gives people a way to separate the wheat from the chaff so they can just donate through us and ignore all those appeals they keep getting from the other Democrats.

Thanks for listening. I hope there's room for this sort of dialogue in Science for the People because if not, where is there?


On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Chandler Davis <[log in to unmask] > wrote:

Carol has earned our respect, and this is no whit diminished if it saddens her to see some of the rest of us going (in her view) haywire.  I don't know you and have no background leading me to trust you as I do Carol and Kamran and Claudia, but if you consider yourself a member of our group YOU DESERVE MY RESPECT TOO and have a right to demand it.  It might be diminished if you lay on the nastiness; but I am not a moderator of the list.  For you to point out bellicose positions of Hillary Clinton's, or murderous drone tactics by Barack Obama, is appropriate and welcome, also relevant to the question of big-party electoral politics.  Seeing you're among friends, you may want to sound friendlier.  Even among the old-timers there are wide differences of opinion.
On 2019-07-05 2:12 p.m., David Barouh wrote:

I should point out that my "bad-mouthing," as you call it, was directed at HRC -- and not even at HRC so much as at her, IMO, unhinged promise to institute a no-fly zone over Syrian air space. Secondly, I suspect you missed the sub-text of Carol's comments about how "sad" my HRC comment made her (but nothing about HRC's Syria position). And the one about my possibly voting for Trump (I'd thought I'd suggested just the opposite) "breaking her heart." It seems ironic that on "Science for the People," instead of some rational discourse and exchange of positions we get little more than emotional blackmail justified based on veteran status.
BTW, does my relative newcomer status make me suspect? Is more than my name required to be a member of this list? I don't know anything about any of you all other than your names. And I'm still shaky on the list's protocols.
David Barouh
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote:

Kamran is right, and your point is also valid, Claudia: we're not about electoral politics in any one country, even in quite a large one.  But Carol Axelrod is a long-time staunch activist in SftP, and if I find myself disagreeing with her about Hillary Clinton, as it seems I may, I will make it the occasion for comradely debate, not scornful bad-mouthing such as she  is getting from Barouh (whoever he may be).
On 2019-07-05 2:23 a.m., Claudia Pine wrote:

Carol:  As Kamran says, SftP list is not a place for political party postings. 
In addition, you may not realize that the SftP list is international, and as such USian politics are not what many non-USian members want or expect.
Suggesting that people can just delete is inappropriate: it is for posters to consider the appropriateness of what they post, before they post.
I appreciate your sincerity and sense of urgency, Carol - in many ways I share it! - but I would strongly urge you not post "Force Mutiplier" or other partisan political material to the Science for the People list-serv.
Thank you,
Claudia Pine
a list moderator
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:47 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask] > wrote:

Have you joined this list recently? How has the Force Multiplier been allowed to post to this list?
May be an officer of SftP can address this question.
At any rate, in my half doze years of being on this list it is the first time I see a political party brings its campaign to this list.  If this be accepted how would SftP limit other political parties to join in--including Republicans without being drawn into partisan politics. If that happens, it would be the end of SftP because so far it has been an anti-capitalist, socialist voice with various tendencies reflected in its deliberation but never a partisan group especially in the electoral arena.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:59 PM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask] > wrote:

Trump is a lot worse than obnoxious. If most people on this list don't want to hear from Force Multiplier any more I'd hope they'd let me know. It sounds like you two don't.
It's very easy to delete my emails if you'd prefer.
But it makes me sad that you really believe HRC would have been as bad as Trump. You almost sound like you'd vote for him which breaks my heart.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:28 PM David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It's always the same BS. One candidate is always better than the other. Trouble is sometimes the "better" choice surprises you. Clinton spent his entire eight years bombing and starving Iraq. Obama bombed and invaded how many countries? And it was the same with Bush Jr. People now say that if Gore had been president, "there wouldn't have been Iraq!" Yet more bullshit. This article makes a definitive case that Gore indeed would have invaded Iraq:
Had HRC won the election instead of Trump, we may already have had American jets trying to enforce her insane "no fly zone" over Syria and confronting Russian planes, and maybe even have had a nuclear war.
The Dimwit Democrats are the ones currently talking up war. Trump is obnoxious, but we're not currently in a full-fledged war. We're refueling Saudi planes in their bombing runs, but that started under Obama, not Trump. This is what voting for the two-party system always brings us.
You're dreaming if you think there's a significant change to be had with one or the other of the two corporate parties.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:

I'm hoping that those that are that disillusioned may understand that this time if we don't understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats we're all toast. I think there are many thoughtful folks who agree that our system is not working but who know that we are not in a position to change it now and our very lives depend on turning Washington blue. And that applies not only to those of us educated, privileged types, but mainly the rest of the country and the world. We don't have the luxury of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask] > wrote:

But what if some of us think the problem with the U.S. politics is the two-party system and that the Democratic Party is as much an imperialist party as the Republican party? Should this list be turned into one supporting Democrats in the coming elections?
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:22 AM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask] > wrote:

...the maniac in Washington is spending our money to display the size of his weapons. And he's plotting to circumvent the SUPREME COURT so that the census questionnaire can be another instrument of voter suppression. And the immigrants at the border are jammed into what amounts to stationary cattle cars. And, and, and...
So I'm not taking this week off. Trump and his gang must be removed from office in November 2020.  The best way we can do that is to empower voters of color, young people, women, LBGTQ communities, and the rest of us who are most vulnerable.
Force Multiplier is identifying grassroots organizations that are working to fight voter suppression in
 key states. As usual, we've done the research so you don't have to.
 When turnout is high, Democrats win!
No one knows that as well as the Republicans.
Click here for lots of information about the seven organizations on our slate -- in North Carolina, Florida and Michigan -- all key states in the 2020 elections.
So please, in honor of the 4th of July, donate to save our country and the rest of the world.
Donate, and then go out and enjoy your 4th. My chicken wings are marinating as we speak.
With love,
Kamran Nayeri

The Fight Against Monsanto's Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides (SkyHorse, 2019), authored by Mitchel Cohen, is now available at bookstores everywhere! Please click on link to learn more.

The Fight Against Monsanto's Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides (SkyHorse, 2019), authored by Mitchel Cohen, is now available at bookstores everywhere! Please click on link to learn more.

Liberty without socialism is privileged and unjust; socialism without liberty is brutal and tyrannical. Opinion without study is ignorant and destructive; study without opinion is empty and mercenary.

The Fight Against Monsanto's Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides (SkyHorse, 2019), authored by Mitchel Cohen, is now available at bookstores everywhere! Please click on link to learn more.