I welcome everyone to the 29th meeting of the Justice Committee in 2015. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices and to interfere with broadcasting, even when they are switched to silent. No apologies have been received. I am inviting the committee to agreed to consider item 7, an issue that is paid from the Community Justice Scotland Bill. Item 8, our approach to scrutiny of the abuse of behaviour and sexual harm in Scotland Bill. Item 9, our work programme in private. Are you agreed? The next item is considering one affirmative instrument, the draft criminal justice and licence in Scotland Act 2010, supplementary provision order 2015. I welcome Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary for justice and government officials, will it lament criminal justice division, you are still here and Laura Mitchell legal services director. Can I remind everyone that the officials can take part in this item, obviously, with leave of the cabinet secretary, but not in the formal debate that follows and that the same applies when we come to consider the next affirmative instrument today? This is an evidence session. Cabinet secretary, you wish to make an opening statement. I can make a very brief opening statement. Committee members will be aware that the Scottish Sensing Council was officially established just a few days ago on Monday 19 October. It is planning for the commencement of the relevant provisions in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010. It was noted that there was no explicit provision within that act to authorise payment of fees and expenses to members of the council. Earlier this year, members will recall that secondary legislation was brought forward under the Judiciary and Court of Scotland Act 2008 to enable the Scottish Court and Tribunal service to provide administrative support to the council. It has been agreed with the Scottish Court and Tribunal service that payment of fees and expenses should also be made by them, given the administrative support functions to the council. The financial memorandum in the 2010 act envisaged such a role for the Scottish Court and Tribunal service in assisting the operation of the council. In this order, made under the Auxiliary Powers in the 2010 act, we will put beyond doubt the ability of the Scottish Court and Tribunal service to pay fees and expenses to members of the council. Express Authority to pay expenses to members of the council will help to give full effect to the operation of the council. I am, of course, happy to answer any questions of committee. There are no questions. I beg your pardon. Who is getting their hand up? Alison, sorry. Thank you. I just wondered if you shared my disappointment at the lack of gender balance on the new sentence in council. The constitution of it is, through the appointment that is part by the Scottish Government and by the Lord Justice General or the Lord Justice Clerk in his absence at the present moment. Of the members whom we have the powers to appoint to it, nearly 40 per cent are female—sorry, over 66 per cent of them are female—from the Scottish Government's nominees. The Lord Justice Clerk has decided to appoint individuals that they see as being appropriate. I know that that is an issue that the committee has engaged with the Lord Justice Clerk on previously. Overall, it is about 40 per cent to our female, but we have appointed individuals that we see as being the most appropriate individuals to represent the Scottish Government on the new sentence in council. It was not really about that, but it does not matter. I can now move straight to item 3, the formal debate. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S4M-14395 that the Justice Committee recommends the draft criminal justice and licence of Scotland Act 2010, supplement provision order 2015, be approved. I take it that no members wish to speak on the motion. I do not think that cabinet secretary will respond to that. The question is that motion S4M-14395 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I now move on to item 4, which is the—I think that there are other officials coming in, have they? I will not suspend. I will just waffle for a bit. That is what politicians can do. Many of us are paid to waffle. I cannot waffle much longer. Do not say that you can. That is not fair. I now move on to a further affirmative instrument. The draft international organisations immunities and privileges Scotland amendment order 2015. Cabinet secretary of year, of course. I welcome officials Nicola Wysdal. Is it Wysdal? Wysdal, sorry. Civil law and legal systems division and Alistair Smith legal services division. Can I go straight to questions from members? Cabinet secretary is not making an opening statement, Elaine, and then Roger Roddrick. I have forgotten his name, yes. Don't, Elaine. Drugs are picking in. I just wondered. I suppose that there is always something when you see banks and legal privileges and immunities that raises your eyebrows a bit. I wonder if you can say a little bit more about what sort of legal privileges and immunities would be conferred on this particular bank. I will ask you another question if there is any else with questions apart from Elaine and Roddrick. I am just interested, perhaps no more than that, as to whether any other banks, apart from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, have known absolutely nothing about, just the clarity of why this particular organisation, if it is the only one, is going to be marked out. This follows an international agreement that was entered into by the UK Government. Part of that agreement is the immunity for prosecution for this particular bank in its operations within the UK. Part of the UK agreement to that is that it needs to have immunity from prosecution across the whole of the UK. The devolved competence around being immune from prosecution falls to the Scottish Government. The similar orders to implement similar provisions are presently before the UK Parliament. In effect, it provides it with diplomatic immunity and the provisions that are provided under diplomatic immunity. The immunity from prosecution falls to us. That is the purpose behind this particular order. There is a significant amount of background as to why the UK Government is seeking to have this bank base in the UK. My understanding is that the purpose of this bank is for it to raise money within the UK and Europe for investment in Asia. It is the purpose and part of the attraction that it wants to provide to being based within the UK is having immunity from prosecution and the diplomatic immunity provisions that it receives. I am not aware if there are any other banks that have immunity from prosecution, but there are a whole range of different organisations that have immunity from prosecution for a whole variety of reasons, largely through international treaties and the requirement for Governments to implement those provisions within their own domestic law. I will repeat your question. Cabinet Secretary, you looked at your official. Does he have a question whether there were any other banks apart from this one? There is none detailed within the order details, but we can check and respond to the committee on that matter. What assurances can you give us that Scottish citizens who invest in this bank are given the same safeguards as anybody banking with another bank? This is not a commercial high-street bank operation. This is an investment bank that is operating for infrastructure investment, so it is not a bank that is operating on a retail basis. It is not another high-street bank that is seeking to operate in the UK. This is an infrastructure investment organisation that is going to be operating on a global basis. The UK Government's desire to have it based in the UK. If it is not individuals, would it be companies or pension funds that might invest in it? I am not going where that is. No, I am concerned. I do not know enough about it, but I am concerned to understand it. There is supplementary information that has been provided by the UK Government in this matter. Our responsibility is the issue of helping to support the international agreement that it has reached around providing immunity from prosecution in Scotland. The nature of the business that I understand is raising investment in the UK with a view to investing in Asia in infrastructure projects. The concept behind it is that I understand that it is to help to support the Asian economy. In helping to support the Asian economy, there is a benefit to the UK and European economy as a result. My understanding is that, as I said, what I have heard is that it is about raising capital investment in the UK that can then be invested in the Asian economy. I thought that it was going the other way, unless I have been misreading the newspapers that were Asian capitals being invested in our economy, but there we are. Anyway, we appreciate that it is not your money that is involved in this, Alison. You are not an international investor, as far as we know. John Finnie, please. Some details back to Rod Campbell's point here. There are other banks. First yes, then. Yes, about banks that have the European Bank for Reconstruction Development, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-America Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank have all been given privileges and immunities across the whole of the UK, which includes within Scotland from prosecution. Morning, cabinet secretary. Cabinet Secretary, are you able to say if these immunities are to the corporation, the institution or to individuals? It will be on the basis that there will be granted immunity from prosecution as an organisation. And I presume that the individual immunities for individuals will be to do with diplomatic immunity, which would be afforded by the UK Government. But this is immunity for the organisation to be immune from prosecution under Scott's law. If I might, it does include immunities for individuals in their official capacity in very much the same way as other listed bodies. The effect of the order is to add and further schedule into the international organisations, immunities and privileges, Scotland Order 2009. That says 15 schedules dealing with various bodies and this will be schedule 16. It is in very similar terms to the other immunities. It does extend to representatives in their official capacity. Can I ask about the practical application of that then? Does that mean that, if individuals or the organisation commit the crime of fraud in Scotland, they will not be prosecuted? You would afford them the same privileges for a diplomat in that they are immune from prosecution in undertaking their roles. Is that a yes, cabinet secretary? In effect. Similarly, money laundering. Well, that is much more complex in itself, but it makes them immune from prosecution. But keep in mind the purpose of this particular bank, that the UK Government is seeking to provide those powers to. If I might add, the instrument provides that the immunities may be waived by the bank. So, if an individual were to be acting outside of the intended role, perhaps fraudulently, then the bank would be able to waive the privilege. So, defroding their own bank in Scotland, might be, would not be subject to diplomatic immunity. Can I ask—and I read this for the first time. Can you answer that? I think that you have to defroding their own bank. Would you like to answer that? I take it that that would be covered by what you have just said. Well, part of the provision is that a person connected with the bank shall enjoy immunity from suit or legal process in respect of things done or admitted to be done in the course of the performance of the person's official duties for the bank, exempt to the extent that the bank shall have expressly waived such immunity. So, if someone is acting outwith what they should be doing for the bank, then they effectively no longer have that immunity. Pretty much like the UK banking industry, it was doing systematically over a number of years prior to the recent crisis. I am trying to understand Cabinet Secretary, and I read this for the first time coming down in the train with some astonishment. This relates to a piece of legislation that starts in 1968, and the UK Government had made a request to the Scottish Government to enact this legislation as regards crimes or offences that would take place in Scotland. That's correct. Yes, they are, of course. Is this the new politics that this building was supposed to be about? Because it doesn't sound like it to me, it sounds like more of the same. Of a situation where we would allow crimes to take place under the protection that this is financial institutions, defroding or committing some sort of offence? Well, there's a range of offences that banks have committed, yes. Of course, frauds are crime. It's a very serious matter to defrode. Part of the protection is in the course of them undertaking their duties. Obviously, if they're outwith that role, then they aren't afforded the same protection. Yes, it's more of the same, and I certainly won't be supporting it anyway. Can I just have an explanation? I know that we're kind of digging in here, but it says, how far is this within the banking, as I understand, it's reserved? So, how far is this to comply with the UK's role in this? I mean, how much flexibility does a devolved Government have in this? I don't know, because it says they're related or they're subject by the UK Parliament as it relates to reserved matters. I thought banking all this was all reserved. So, the UK Government has entered into an international agreement, with regard to this bank, and part of the condition of that international agreement is that those provisions apply across the whole of the UK. So, is this necessary just to bring Scotland into line? Let's put it in ordinary parlance. For the purposes of the UK Government to be able to deliver on the international agreement that they've entered into? No, I just wanted to explain what I've got with some other people. I'll have Elaine in the market, then I'll bring you back in, Elaine. Yeah, I'm still sort of uncomfortable about this. I mean, I totally appreciate this is not of the Scottish Government's making, this is the devolved competence of something that the UK Government's trying to do, but I feel to understand what a bank would be doing that would be breaking the law in Scotland, but that somehow they should be allowed to get away with it because they've got diplomatic immunity. I mean, say, that was part of their duties as somebody who works for the bank, but they were actually breaking the law in our country. I mean, why should they have immunity from the bank? For the same reasons that they're probably given diplomatic immunity from prosecution to the other banks that previously have been development banks, and this is a fact of an odd development bank for infrastructural investment. But for the UK Government in order to deliver on its international agreement, it has to achieve that immunity from prosecution across the whole of the UK and all jurisdictions. Doesn't it strike you that this is partly what's wrong with the banking sector internationally, that they can get away with breaking the law and have these sorts of agreements to enable them to break the law in different countries and the country that they break the law in can't do anything about it? I think we're into a much bigger debate there in terms of the operations of banks and the way in which they've been operating across the UK and across the globe in itself, which goes much wider than just this issue in itself. Margaret? I wonder, cabinet secretary, if there's another way to look at this, and I'm not sure that there is, because I understand the concerns that are being raised, and in fact I have the same myself. By giving diplomatic immunity, is there more of a positive case for ensuring information that may be of a very sensitive nature, that may be connected to organised crime, that may even have more sinister links to terrorism, to make sure that all this information is held and forthcoming as soon as possible? Is there anything to do with that within those provisions? I'm not entirely sure that it is linked to that, to be honest with you, because there are many organisations that are responsible for looking at and dealing with those issues that don't have diplomatic immunity in those issues. For example, Police Scotland deal with those matters in Scotland, but they don't have diplomatic immunity. No, this is part of an international agreement that's been reached, and part of the condition within that is the development bank, or the infrastructure bank, because it's described as being given immunity from prosecution, in effect diplomatic immunity across the whole of the jurisdiction in the UK. Roddie. Thank you, convener. Christian and Roddie. You're on an additional piece of paper, that's why. Thank you, convener. Good morning. What would be the consequences of the committee voting down this instrument? Well, my understanding is that this is a condition of the international agreement. If the UK Government aren't able to deliver an international agreement, I suspect that they will not be able to to follow that through. What will happen next? What would you do next? What we do, Bill, it's not our agreement, it's the UK Government's agreement. So they will obviously have to revisit the issue, and what the consequence of that will be is a matter for the UK Government, given its agreement that they've entered into it. Thank you. And now, Roddrick. Thank you, convener. John. A couple of points. I'm not sure whether you'll be able to answer this question in terms of who it is within the jurisdiction of Scotland is providing or likely to be providing the investment for the bank's use. We're not talking about, I assume, Joe Public, we're talking about, presumably, some specialist financial institutions in the first place. And in relation to the other institutions that were referred to, presumably, have they been the subject of affirmative instruments in this Parliament? I don't know if anybody can add, or why is this bank institution why is this affirmative instrument coming up now? Roddy. Roddy, I think they have been. What I should say, just come back to the point about if this committee wasn't to approve this particular order as my understanding, there are other routes which the UK Government could pursue in order to achieve their objective. Which are? That's it. Cabinet Secretary, are you able to answer, provide any more information about where the funding for the investment bank is being provided for in Scotland then to have any information? I'm afraid not, because that's a matter for the UK Government. Right. John. Yeah. Cabinet Secretary, this is the Parliament's Justice Committee. You're here as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and people would anticipate maybe that you would have a clearer understanding of the relationship between those international laws and what you are effectively asking this committee to lend or support to, and that is turning a blind eye to crime that may take place. You've used a term diplomatic frequently. Strong, John. I mean, you know. The possibility of things, but not turning a blind eye. Well, should it take place to disregard it then? Okay, that's better. Let's just, yeah, okay. Okay, off you go. Within the confines of this. It's dramatic stuff. Let's use it like that. Let's go for it. Cabinet Secretary, you've used the term diplomatic. Which countries are involved with this? All in. Every country in Asia? Within the European Investment Bank. Sorry, for the Asian Investment Infrastructure Bank. I'm not entirely sure of all. Well, actually we have. There's a number of regional members which are part of it that go from Australia through to Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan. There's a list of them here in New Zealand, Pakistan. They're all within it. There is the Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam. There's also non-regional members which are from Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, and then the UK. Has any impact, I know that no Bria has been done in respect of this, but has there been any impact assessment on the likelihood of this immunity being called upon? Impact assessment by the UK Government? No, I'm aware of it. No, no, no. By the Cabinet Secretary for Justice? No, there has been no impact assessment on it being undertaken. None at all, no, okay. You could have come here and called for us to oppose this message. A minute, John. I see the committee is not too satisfied with things at the moment. I'm just wondering if there's a process way where we can get further information. And I appreciate that we've got to report by Parliament by 2 November. And I wonder if there's a way where we can raise all these further issues with you in some detail. And then the committee can consider what its views are on it. I mean, will there be ramifications for this journal across the way that we maybe are unaware of? I'm not aware of them, but, you know, if there's international peace and governance, what's happening? Is there a way that we could possibly deal with it? I see... And we must be report by 2 November. Well, first of all, yes, there is a way in which we can provide you with more information, part of which is if you want to put those points to us, we can also pursue some of those details with the UK Government, who have entered into the international agreement as well, and to provide you with more substance around some of those issues, given that they have got the lead responsibility in this area. In terms of the actual timeframe, whether that alters things that we would have to check and respond to in that matter as well, given that there's already parallel orders being taken forward in the UK Parliament at present time. Well, with the leave of the committee, I suggest that we, with the leave of the committee, we leave this just now. We'll come back to it later today, which is continuation, which is a... You're looking at me. Farton. Margaret? It's okay, I think that's a way forward. Yeah, we'll come back to this later today when your office can provide us with information on whether or not we could either consider... The preferable thing would be to consider this next week with further information so we can... All those issues that are being raised can be considered by the committee and all their application, the whole thing, much more detail. And if not, we will have to take a view on whether or not we then move it and have you back to move it later on the agenda. We're going to private session later on, but at some point we'll come back and move it if the committee decides that, or indeed if we could take this further in the later stage of the week, which is not really satisfactory to others. So my preference, frankly, would be if we could deal with this next week if we're not under some kind of, you know, sord of damoclies to get this done by Tuesday and report, because we can't... My views, we can't report in the morning and ask Parliament the same day so we couldn't do all on the Tuesday next week. It would have to be... There is a timeframe for it to go to the Privy Council, which I believe is at the beginning of December. Well, therefore, it looks... If the committee is agreed, then I would suggest that having... This is the evidence session in part concluded, in part, that if possible we return to this Cabinet Secretary next week when we can hear further evidence, either in written form or oral if you're able to come back and when you'd have to come back to move or not move the instrument. How does the committee feel about that? Was there a lot of things that have been raised that we need to rather than take a hasty view? John. Could the Cabinet Secretary provide clarification about his comment that there might be another route by which... That's exactly fine. That's the kind of thing. If it's a constitutional matter... No, that's the kind of thing I'm happy to explore because it was a lot opened up and we're having to really get the time or the detail to come to a conclusion. Is that content? Of course. Right. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. So that ends the evidence session and I'll get a note back about next week ASAP from your office, hopefully. Thank you very much. I then move on to item 5. Items... Wait a minute. I'm lost. Item 5. No, that's gone. Of course, we're not moving that. We're going on to item 6 because we're not doing the debate. Everybody knows where they are except me. No, that's nothing new. Item 6. Three negative instruments. The first is the discontinuance of legalised police cells Scotland rules 2015. It formally discontinues the legalised police cells in Danone, Oban, Lachmadde, Campbelltown and Thursdale, which in effect means they can no longer be used as legal prisoners for the detention of prisoners before, during and after trial. The DPLR committee did not report on any concerns. The sentiment could have comments on the sentiment from members if you have any comments. Can I just ask what the prisoners do go if they're not using these facilities and if they're closed? Do you know what provision is made? Should they need to use well? I can write for further explanation but I can't answer it. Obviously, I'm not the Government so I can write. That's a question on the record which we'll continue. I just welcome this regulation at the Inspector of Prisons. I recommended this some time ago so it's good to see it. Welcome it but we're going to find out what happens in practical terms. Thank you. I'm here to say that the bodies are not used. Oh, but they're not used when they're never used. Have any of them need to be transferred? Can you be a chair, please? Instead of a general little quote on the debate? I'll be... Well, I mean the evidence that we've got is that it's not used and the idea that you're going to keep something and maybe it will be used. We would keep every motor on the road forever, wouldn't we? That's the case. We're back to cars, Gail. I wonder what your connection is. We're also back to cars. I mean, it's just... If it's not been used... We can't just no harm in finding out where they go anyway, okay? So take it. You're content to make no recommendation relation to this instrument. Sorry. Who is going to go where if they are not used? That's exactly it. I feel somebody's put something in the water today. Now, let's just rewind. To keep Margaret's suite, I'm going to find out where they go pro tem, okay? That's all. Now, can we just move on and say, do you have any recommendation in no recommendation relation to this instrument? Are you with me? Thank you, Alison. I hope that I'm looking at you. The second negative incident around consideration is the police pension scheme Scotland amendment regulations 2015. Sorry, could I, at this point and I should have earlier, I was unable to open this particular link I think it's unlikely it will relate to me, but I should declare an interest and possibly as a recipient of a police pension. Yes, let's hope they put their funds in the right place then. Very much. Anyway, having stated that, the purpose of this instrument is to amend the police pension scheme Scotland regulations when it seems to correct errors and omissions in that instrument. Again, the DPLR committee has no concerns in the instrument. Do members have any comments on relation to this instrument? Do you have any comments? No. Sorry, you're content to make no recommendation on relation to this instrument. Thank you. The third and final negative incident consideration is the legal and miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2015. This adapts the framework arrangements and existing regulations to accommodate changes to criminal proceedings in the sheriff appeal court, all Scotland's sheriff courts and for specified civil proceedings and judicial review. Members will recall that last month the committee rejected my majority in affirmative instrument making provision in broadly the same area as this negative instrument. The Government responded by withdrawing that affirmative instrument and laying it in its place. The instrument does not require a solicitor to seek prior approval from the Scottish legal aid board before instructing council for cases in the new court. It also makes provision for solicitor advocates to be paid council rates for criminal legal aid working in the sheriff court. The DPLR committee made no comment on relation to drafting the instrument, but it has drawn our attention to failure to comply with the 28-day rule and the explanation with the Scottish Government for this breach, an explanation in which the committee says that it has accepted. Do members have any comments on relation to the instrument? Alison Foll of Eileen Thank you. Thank you. Well, it's welcome that the Government has responded in this way to the decision that we took in committee. But it is only an interim arrangement. The Law Society points out quite rightly, I think, that we need to keep our eye on this and we need to move this forward. The point to an interim scheme relating to the police station duty scheme in 2011, which is still an interim scheme and hasn't been resolved. So, if there is a way for this committee to monitor the situation and encourage the Government to resolve the situation amicably by within six months, that would be very helpful. To welcome the fact that the Government listened to the majority view of the committee, I think that that's welcome. I'm presuming that whatever the final scheme is, it will have to come back by instrument to us for discussion at the time when it's drawn up. Yes, so it changes if there's a final scheme. Because I thought Alistair MacDonald was saying that this is an interim scheme, so I'm a bit welcome in it at the time. Roderick, do you always think anxious but I mean I didn't notice you? No, no, no, no. No, I presume that presumably the committee in monitoring its own work could seek a progress support from the Government in January or February to see how we're doing. And indeed, according to the letter from the legal aid whom I'm looking at from Law Society is that in fact they're going to report to us on the discussions early in the new year, so we've got the two tranches. We've got the Law Society and we'll also be able to monitor it from the Government. Okay? Thank you very much. Right, we now move into private session and we've agreed so I'll suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the gallery to clear, please.


well folks samus hunter did it again hey everyone uh we have mario party news that's right i'm not calling it super mario party two that is what zippo talked about a little bit yesterday when we shared some of his details and his rumors out there about stuff that he knows zippo being a leaker from reset era not with a 100 track record but with a decent track record and they were the ones to break the story that hey we're getting a new mario party game in particular super mario party two uh this year now here's the thing uh that's the only person to ever really talk about this on an official capacity any other rumors about a new mario party this year came from places like 4chan which obviously for many reasons we don't really talk about 4chan rumors that much because it's unverifiable we don't know who is saying what every now and then we might revisit an old 4chan rumor if some of that rumor uh has come true and there's more information that's supposed to come later but outside of that we don't really talk about 4chan rumors all that much around here but this isn't 4chan this is coming from samus hunter for those who don't know who samus hunter is uh you must be new to my channel which if you are welcome samus hunter has a 100% track record with everything she's reported on in the last year and if you haven't heard of her it's because most people have now discovered who she is because of moi so let's get into it she put out a series of tweets today uh really long tweets so max it out those characters on twitter with information on the new mario party game that we supposedly are going to see at e3 apparently so here is what samus hunter said new mario party there are new rumors about a new mario party that are circling so again she didn't start the rumors on the mario party she's adding to them i can assure you that they are working on it so they are making a new mario party game but i don't agree with what i've read because it won't be a sequel to super mario party so we're not looking at super mario party two is what she's saying not only as a title but as a philosophy behind its development hashtag nintendo league super mario party is a game primarily enjoyable on the family model of switch the base one it needs joy con to be played with the console connected to the tv or in tabletop it is therefore a group experience on the couch and it lacks a portable experience of the series you can use joy con with the switch like to play the game but super mario party is one of the few games on switch that requires the use of joy con so it's it's very finicky uh to play it sometimes and people aren't necessarily that's one of the things that kind of held it back it's the mini games right the mini games are what make it so you have to use joy con there are certain mini game are just unusable without him you can't even use a pro controller so it is kind of one of those it tried to take advantage of what was available with the switch but also at the same point hey there's a larger audience also has lights there's also people are like using pro controllers what are we going to do about that uh and well dropping the super mario party name and going with i don't know mario party 12 whatever the old mario party i have no idea what what they're going to call it maybe it's maybe it's mario party super rush you know like it is for mario golf uh it goes in the top focus will be on a title playable for all configurations designed for light and with more immediate games with fewer moments of waiting as all players throw the dice and move simultaneous for an example that is a massive change by the way uh right now how mario party works it's worked forever you guys know you have to wait for everyone to do their turn everyone to do their dice instead everyone can just shake their dice at the same time that alone is going to speed up play and i think this is a fundamental change to really happen when you're going to have online play remember they added online to super mario party but one of the issues is obviously waiting for everyone's turns but if everyone can kind of like go at once and there's just an order in which activities happen you know or like one person goes and then as that person's moving on the board the next person can go and they don't have to wait that to me is a massive improvement and will make online play better so that to me is i've been wanting that change in mario party for quite some time all right and it says it will it will accommodate games played in local wireless and especially online so a huge focus online and local wireless not necessarily a focus on couch co-op which yes obviously you could do mario party couch co-op with multiple controllers that's going to be a given but it's one of those that's more of a you can do that but we're actually focused on the more individual user experience and being able to hook up with people in that way uh during the lockdown in fact the team has rethought the concept of multiplayer for the series expanding it with online this led to the all all new pop this led to all new game possibilities so different from super mario party so we're now we're hearing okay yeah you're gonna have your base game modes of course but we have new game modes specific for online multiplayer that's exciting i'm not sure if it's coming this year so sam senator can't confirm to her sources it's coming this year it is possible but they shifted the game focus with the online components during the pandemic adding new work for the projects that wasn't part of the original plan i would say this game is in is a continuation to the portable mario party games which i think the last one we got was what mario party 100 we're having the 100 best mini games in like one package uh so she's saying liking it more to the old mario party games in super mario party but also all these new ideas and because they came up with these new ideas during the pandemic it might have pushed it back to a 2022 release but it's still gonna be coming in 2021 she just doesn't know the exact timeline for release basically her source doesn't know when the game's coming it's just it's it comes when it comes but here's a bunch of really cool stuff it's doing i like this everything i'm hearing about this is great because i really enjoyed super mario party to me it's one of the better entries in the series but also some of the mini games uh just the really slow and cumbersome because of the way the game's trying to get you to play obviously the added online play is nice i'm glad they finally did that but also it's slow and cumbersome the game needs to be sped up in some ways that makes sense logically having multiple people roll dice at once i think is one way to do that obviously speeding up the the speed at which we get into and out of mini games and the speed at which some of the mini games function will be great mini games built around traditional controls yes yes please i'm glad to see that return uh and yeah obviously new modes for online or new ways to do multiplayer online beyond just the base game mode hell yeah like this all sounds fantastic to me this sounds like the mario party game of my dreams so it's not going to be called super mario party too even though super mario party sold extremely well it's going to be mario party something or it'll either have a sub name or maybe it'll go back to the numbered entries like we've had in the past although the numbered entries are so high will that hurt sales i have no idea um you know if you think about like mario kart they don't go in numbered entries all the time you know mario kart double dash you know i like i i'm just i'm just throwing out there that uh numbered entries could be it could be returning could not be returning i just know that this is exciting and for me as a mario party fan as a mario fan it's to me a mario like dude i i'm pumped i'm pumped i'm almost more excited for this than a potential mario kart game that's saying something because i really like mario kart but a mario party game done right with online multiplayer so i could play against all of you people so we can do live streams playing against our fans in mario party huh to the yeah yeah i'm all for that so you guys let me know what you think about this down in the console are you as excited for mario party design like some of my most hyped games this year yeah horizon zero dawn breath of the wild two or how horizon horizon fit in west um you know breath of the wild two halo infinite those are way up there for me but i mean right behind that's like mario go super rush and now maybe mario party baby i'm gonna say i'm a sucker for nintendo games uh if you guys enjoy this video drop a like i'll leave a comment down below as well all of that helps us with the youtube algorithm helps us grow our channel also hey uh we have a big e3 event going out for e3 2021 i try not to bring it up every video but every now and then i want to remind people at the end uh we are giving away 3500 with the stuff during the give uh during the the uh days of e3 on the 12th the 13th and 14th and 15th uh 12 13 14 and 15th of june uh 12 hour live streams during those live streams we're giving away all this stuff over 300 winners it's going to be really really exciting we're partnering with companies we're putting our own money into the giveaway pool we're giving away consoles we're giving away a whole bunch of fun stuff i'm i'm so stoked for e3 and as this news keeps coming to come it makes me more and more hyped we are live reacting to nintendo we're live reacting to microsoft and everyone else that's at e3 uh putting on our own show there'll be gaming competitions where you can compete against me in games like smash bros to win prizes oh i'm so pumped e3 e3 oh e3 also monday tuesday thursday and friday including tonight we do live streams on the channel around basically between 8 p.m and 8 30 uh central standard time we uh we sound off we talk about some of the news topics from the day uh and then i take questions q and a and we kind of q and a it for a few hours and have some fun uh you'll you'll see that we i like to spice up the streams a little bit and have a good time also there are other things that we do as well on wednesdays known as nintendo prime podcast that's right every wednesday at 8 p.m central time usually unless we got to delay it for a guest we had to delay it a half hour last time for andre's restart uh yeah we we get really pumped and excited about our wednesday nights now because we do a live podcast and it's a lot of fun big discussions uh i i oh man we have a special guest on every single time it's great so i'll see you guys tonight otherwise who knows maybe i got more videos coming there there's so much news today i guarantee i probably have at least one or two more videos coming there there's just so much great stuff and i want to cover all of it so thank you guys for tuning in and i'll catch you in the next video


Marcy Winnigrad, welcoming you all to Code Ping Congress. I'm the coordinator of this program and thrilled to be with you tonight and to be with our guest activist author, Norman Solomon. And we'll hear from Norman on how to break through the propaganda of the war machine. But first, a few details like the norms, I'll read them. For the most part, people are very respectful on our program, but a reminder never hurts. Okay, here we go. Show respect for our speakers and participants. Encourage healthy debate. Disagree agreeably, disrespect will not be tolerated. Stay on topic in the chat and let's organize and mobilize for peace with justice. With that, I would like to just share a few news updates. Some of you may be wondering what's the status of this supplemental war funding bill that President Biden has been pushing. It's a $95 billion supplemental. Well, the Republicans don't wanna bring it to the floor because they don't want to spend $61 billion to continue the war in Ukraine and they want more money to militarize the border. So Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House has said he will not bring it to the floor. Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to figure out how they can bring it to the floor. We have a normally progressive House member, Jim McGovern from Massachusetts, who is leading the charge to whip up votes for a discharge petition that is a procedural effort to force a vote. Now they would require 218 signatures and they don't have that yet. So we wanna make sure they don't get it because this bill is not a good bill, right? It includes another $14.3 billion for Israel's genocide in Gaza, $61 billion as I mentioned for Ukraine. It includes $8 billion, I think, for militarizing Taiwan and East Asia, more money for the border, a little bit of humanitarian aid that would be split amongst Israel, Ukraine, and Gaza. It also includes some terrible clauses such as one that prohibits, permanently prohibits the United States from funding under the lifeline for food and water and medicine to Gaza and allows President Biden to, whenever he wants, send more arms to Israel without notifying Congress. Of course, you may be doing that anyway, The Washington Post, I don't know if you saw this article just reported, not long ago that President Biden has approved 100 separate agreements to send weapons to Israel without Congress being involved, as far as we know. So that's what's happening on the discharge petition. In terms of activism, we have APAC on the Hill this week, and we're gonna see some videos of Medea and others challenging the lobbyists. I'm sure you'll appreciate this. And then we're also going to mention that there are 25 progressive organizations, including Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, the if not now movement, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, that have launched a reject APAC coalition. They did that this week and the plans to organize against APAC across the electoral spectrum and certainly come to the defense of those who are being targeted such as Summer Lee is one of them. All right, with that, we're gonna go to our videos. We have a compilation of Code Pink activists disrupting a hearing on the Hill about intelligence and we'll also see what they had to say to these APAC lobbyists. So thank you so much, Grace Siegelman. She's doing the tech for us tonight and here we go. Israel, stop sending weapons to Israel. Israel is exactly the threat you are describing. They are blocking humanitarian aid. I recognize people feel passionately. You have to be in Israel. Stop killing my people in Gaza. Stop killing my people in Gaza. Israel is the biggest threat to national security at the moment. So that will not just be for Ukraine or European security. Children are going to starve to death. Don't support the extermination of thousands of people. Stop sending arms to Israel. Stop supporting the starvation of children. Israel is the biggest threat to global security and we wanted to make that clear. They're conducting a genocide against Gaza, killing my people. I've had over 20 plus members of my family killed. There's a humanitarian crisis and this government is willing to continue to send weapons that is murdering children. So I'm getting arrested for this. When really all of the war criminals are there. Stop. I'm busy on the Hill and here we have the APAC lobbyists. Is that a curiosity? What is it to your lobbyists? Oh, to support Israel. So there's the $14 billion package. Absolutely. It actually should be more than that. I believe there actually is a solution about it being $17 billion. I feel there should be even more people. Every person from Hamas. Every person from Hamas. What do you think about? What do you ladies think about the hostages? What do you think about the hostages? We want them freed, which is why we want a ceasefire. After October 7th, you know there's been over 30,000 people killed. Do you feel okay about that? According to Hamas? Who do you think? Well, let me ask you something. Haven't you seen the pictures? Where are the pictures? I've seen a lot of pictures. Have you seen the 47 minute video? No, I would like to see it. How could I see that? I don't have a picture of it yet. Well, I've been asking. How'd you feel when 9-11 happened? 9-11 happened. I felt like we should have taken the people who attacked us and brought them to justice, not invade Afghanistan, not invade Iraq. And so what we're doing now... Do you believe in collective punishment? Can you answer me now? I've answered your question. Do you believe in collective punishment? I believe that there is no army that's more moral in the world than the Israeli army, that goes out of its way to protect civilian rights much more so than any army in the world. What happened when Japan attacked the United States and the thing that what Israel has done for the last five months is protect civilians when 30,000 of them have died, mostly women and children? Israel could have knocked out, made Gaza a parking lot if they wanted to on day one. Why did they have military there? They are making Gaza a parking lot. They turned it into a slaughterhouse. Is that why people are starving? Is that why they try? That's why they let down and sent tax everybody to move before they go ahead and die. And now they're starving them. Now they're starving them. Are they allowing it food and medicine? Yes, they are. I want to ask you, what about the thousands of trucks that are waiting on the border that are not allowed in? A lot of them are coming in and yes, it was taking them all. You know what? They're not allowing them. Yes, they are. How much is taking them? Are you concerned about the shield? Are you concerned about the food we're starving? There you go. Deluded? That's being kind. Yeah. So, again, there's a pact that's been formed to counter the $100 million that APEC has pledged to defeat anyone that's not on the Stand with Israel page for genocide. Nadia Makara, are you with us now? If you are, we'd love to hear about what's going on in New York City. If not, I will share. Okay, so a lot of them have joined. I think she just did. Okay. Well, I got to know Nadia because she's a member of our international court of justice team in New York City. A lot of new joined us a few months ago when we were visiting UN missions in New York City, embassies in DC, consulates across the country to say, we want you countries of the United Nations and the United Nations to speak out to denounce what Israel is doing, this slaughter, this genocide. We want you to submit a declaration of intervention in support of South Africa at the International Court of Justice. We know that the court has ruled that there is a plausible case of genocide and maybe years before a final ruling is issued, but they have said this has got to stop. Instead, we see what is happening now. And Nadia, speak up whenever you're ready to share what's happening in New York City this weekend, Friday. Thank you, Marcy. I hope no one minds if I keep my camera off. I was just in the middle of washing my hair. And then I got to get back from Marcy. So I hope it's okay. A few volunteers from New York have been, you know, working on doing a rally and vigil for Aaron Bushnell. So we intend to honor his memory, but also we hope that we hope that his memory can be used as a catalyst towards the liberation of Palestine. So we have brought on a lot of voices who are veterans, who are Palestinian artists, Palestinian public figures. We also have Cornel West and Jill Stein, who will be joining as well. And they will, you know, be there to honor his memory and also talk about the importance of continuing the fight to free Palestine. So it's going to be a really great event. And we hope that people can make it. It'll be at, across the street from the U, the U.S. mission to the U.N. And that's 799, 799 United Nations Plaza. It's on the corner of 1st Avenue and 45th Street. And we'll start at 4 and end around 7. So we hope that people in New York can join us. Thank you, Marcy. Thank you, Nadia, for organizing that with Zul Zulkwitz, another Code Pink supporter and Veterans for Peace answer the People's Forum. A number of organizations are involved and it should be a moving event. And hopefully some of the members of the United Nations will drop by. We'll have to invite them. Okay, with that, I am honored to introduce our featured speaker tonight, Norman Solomon. He's been a friend for a long, long time. Norman is the executive director of Roots Action, an activist organization that has been organizing vigils and webinars on the nuclear arms race. He is also the co-founder, well, he's the co-founder of Roots Action and the executive director, excuse me, of the Institute for Public Accuracy. Norman is an author. His most recent book is War Made Invisible. How America Hides the Toll of its Military Machine. This followed his other book, War Made Easy. With that, I welcome you, Norman Solomon, to tell us about the opportunities for breaking through the propaganda. Well, thanks a lot, Marcy, and for Code Pink Congress, which is doing such crucial work to get through the bubble of Capitol Hill and have constituents and really humanity heard. I should say that the title of my last book is a great title due to Marcy Winograd because we were talking a couple of years ago, I was saying, hey, a sequel to War Made Easy and Marcy said, well, wars are now being made invisible. And I thought of that a few minutes ago, seeing the video of in the Capitol, Medea trying to bring some sense to a conversation with the APEC activist. And a lot of the APEC lobbyists and much of the messaging that we are up against in media and in politics is coming from at this particular moment, especially the propaganda machinery and the distortions that are being generated from outfits such as APEC. And I was really struck by that moment when Marcy was, or rather Medea, was honing in on the point of the slaughter of civilians. And in response to what Medea said, the APEC lobbyist said, well, what about 9-11? And that really is, although there are decades and centuries of militarism from the U.S., it's really 9-11 that gave, as I say in the book, preemptive absolution in the U.S. media and politics for any war crimes, any slaughter committed by the U.S. And I bring that up because in recent days and recent weeks, Benjamin Netanyahu and others in the Israeli government have been saying that all of the suffering, all of the killing, all of the anguish in Gaza is because of Hamas. And I wrote in the book about a statement made soon after 9-11, soon after the invasion of Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense, that's his title, wouldn't call it the lower case defense department, but Secretary of Defense, Donna Rumsfeld said that every single death in Afghanistan, every American, every Afghan civilian, all of those deaths were due to al-Qaeda and due to the Taliban. This is a prototype for more than 22 years. The kind of propaganda messaging we get, often in the guise of simply reasonable, realistic commentary and punditry and news reporting. And as we go ahead and work to counter and get through the walls that constrain media discourse, I wanted to take just a few minutes to talk a bit about nuts and bolts matters. We have opportunities to get through the walls, and we know that corporate media, and that includes NPR and PBS, that media outlets with rare exceptions are a wall that are very difficult to get through with peace, disarmament, and diplomacy messaging. And one way to look at it is, just because they're walls, it doesn't mean there aren't cracks in the walls. The other, the obverse is true as well. Even when there are cracks, even when there are exceptions, there are still cracks in a wall that is very constraining. And the essence, as I say in the first chapter of War Made Invisible, the essence of propaganda is repetition. And repetition can allow, especially in a country with the extent we have free press, can allow exceptions. And we want those exceptions. We want to create more and more wider and wider cracks in those walls to get messages through that there are alternatives to slaughter and U.S. domination of the planet as much as the Pentagon and the State Department can manage. For us, with limited resources, that requires that we be more proactive and plan more and do more methodical execution of our plans. The classic problem is that when we have peace groups that are local, regional, national, we're operating all the time. We're 24-7. And a lot of the time, the media that we're trying to get through to reach a wider public has not only are they tone deaf, they've got fingers in their ears. They don't want to hear from us. And then when there's a break in the news where we are experiencing more of an opening where there's more interest from the public and the mass media, and when our supporters are more mobilized, quite often we don't have the mechanisms, the resources, the, if you will, the infrastructure or the ongoing processes to take advantage of that moment. So another way to say it is, no matter how big or small our organizations are, whatever we want to call it, we need an ongoing, all-the-time media department. We need to have a capacity that is happening all the time, whatever the amount of success we have, to build those relationships and the processes. If we're a local or regional group or a national one, we need to have a really excellent database. And a database that's a couple years old in terms of media is not very helpful. It's a constant need. There's a churn in who's covering what and who is on a staff of particular places. And who's covering what is especially important because if we send, to take an extreme example, a news release on a demonstration or an issue about war and peace to the sports department, it's obviously irrelevant. And actually it's irrelevant to most of the reporters. They're just going to toss it and treat it as spam. And that's where the dialogue comes in. We can do a lot of the research online, but also making calls if possible, visiting, finding out who in the news department is open to and on the beat of certain kind of topics that overlap what we're interested in. I'm sure people on this call are very familiar with letters to the editor. They are really important. There are surveys that they're the most read aspects of a daily newspaper. Of course, they generally are not published online. There's also the op-eds, which is often an underutilized possibility. There are a lot of barriers, and it's hard sometimes to get them in. However, they're op-ed editors. And unlike news articles, and we know that even when our demonstrations are covered, sometimes the spin and the selective quotations or misquotations are frustrating or even infuriating, but a beauty of op-eds is it's our voice. If it's six or 800 words, it's our words. If there's no intermediary, there's no external spinning or ways to characterize us that we don't want. That said, letters to the editor have a prerogative, properly or not, to be shortened by an editor of an editorial page. In theory, and it should be in practice, our op-eds belong to us. And words should not be changed without our permission, and we should ask to see an op-ed, if there's going to be an edit of it, to see what the version is before it goes into print, before it goes online. Which reminds me too, we should really monitor when it goes online, obviously unlike print. Online can be changed. If there's a screw-up, if there's something that is tinkered with by the copy department, we should go in and be willing and alert to very quickly get it changed. Overall, and looking forward to questions and comments and so forth, I think that we have the underutilized potential to get our message out through a wide range of corporate media and not really differentiate between progressive and corporate media in that sense. Obviously we're going to get a much better response, more receptive one from outlets that we know are progressive, and we're talking radio, TV, YouTube shows, websites, all the rest of it, podcasts. We should know what those possibilities are and who they are and where they are, but we should not self-marginalize. We should not say, hey, they're a conservative outlet, therefore we won't have anything to do with them if they're accurate. Some right-wing websites, we should be aware that we just shouldn't mess with them. They're vicious, they distort, and it's not hard to see when you go on the websites, but there are other conservative websites and some of them even have an anti-war orientation, however opportunistic that might be. Again, it's about relationship building and they sound like a cliche, but it's absolutely crucial. We need to get to know the editors, we need to get to know the reporters and not assume that they're personally out to get us. Some of them might be personally hostile, some of them might not. Some of them might be personally very sympathetic and they're looking for ways to get messages through their media outlet that are ordinarily blocked so we can find ways to work with those editors, work with those reporters, protect our own interests, but also keep at it. And so not to use a military metaphor unduly, but in our peaceful arsenal, we need to consider media outreach to be absolutely essential to what we're doing and I'll just close on this note that quite often we will put in a tremendous amount of work to organize a teach-in or a protest and we will put in a relatively small amount of work to optimize the possibility that the word spoken and the action is taken will actually get out to a broader public and that requires the kind of methodical groundwork that is necessary to maximize our possibilities to get the kind of media coverage that we really want. Thank you so much, Norman Solomon. And if you have a question for Norman, please put it in the chat and I'm going to ask Grace to email me those questions and I can bring them up as they come in. So Norman, if you were to, I thank you so much for some of the, much of what you said, it's so important. Yes, don't self-marginalize. We should be reaching out to the widest possible audience provided as you said that we are not going to be distorted or messaging and take advantage of a lot. I know, I read letters to the editor, absolutely. Repetition, repetition, of course. So what would you say are some of the main propaganda memes that we need to tackle today? A lot of it has to do with the conflation of Judaism and the state of Israel. This is a trope that has been a hundred years or more generated by the Zionist ideology that continues to combine in people's minds the Jewish religion and the nation of Israel. And it's a fact that there have been very many anti-Zionist Jewish individuals and organizations going back a century. And we have an opportunity, and I think Jewish Voice for Peace and other groups have done a great job of this. It's a continuous to challenge that mythology that they're one in the same. Another has to do with the real basics and people who were demonstrating on the Capitol, at the Capitol we saw the video and what Medea was talking about, is get back to the theme of human rights have to be universal and call out the discrepancy between the rhetoric and the reality. The reality is that the credibility, the moral stature such as it had been of the Biden administration has completely collapsed and the U.S. government is an accomplice to mass murder and genocide and yet the rhetoric hasn't changed. The rhetoric is still, if somebody was listening for another planet, oh, wow, they're the really, really humanistic people running the government. So we have an opportunity to say always that the words are not reality and to constantly beat on that drum, if you will, to drown out the nonsense because the nonsense never stops and we have a humanistic message that is about a single standard of human rights and if we can keep coming back to that theme of the slaughter of civilians, the continuation of the mass murder is morally and ethically unacceptable and that diplomacy is a possibility. Norman, here's a question. What do you say to somebody who says it's all because of Hamas? Well, I go back to the 9-11 analogy that if you look at the figures and of course behind each number is a human being, the cost of war project at Brown University says that about 950,000 people were directly killed in the aftermath of 9-11 in terms of the U.S. so-called war on terror and then the indirect deaths put the total number of killings as a result of the U.S. war of terror called war against terror, 4.5 million. And so we look at numbers and we say 3,000 people were killed on September 11, 2001 and as a result, 1 million people directly killed, 4.5 million total dead as a result. What kind of policy is that? And so the contrast is there and a related point which is sometimes caused for argument is when do we start history? And there are people who want to start history on October 7 of last year and the buzzword of retaliation is always very convenient. It's really hard in U.S. mass media to find instances where Palestinians retaliated against Israelis. It's always that Israelis or almost always that Israelis retaliate against Palestinians in the media frame and likewise when the U.S. is involved retaliation against the U.S. is not in the media vocabulary. So calling out all those contradictions it's hard work, we'll get pushed back but it's really valuable to change the frame of reference and the spin that people are accustomed to. I know that I find it challenging to understand that a lot of people believe Biden when he says that he wants to protect the civilians or dramatically cut back on harm to civilians and yet as I mentioned earlier the Washington Post and that's not the intercept that's not Al Jazeera that's the Washington Post reported that Biden has signed 100 separate agreements to send arms to Israel without going through Congress as legally required. And now we have this port that the Pentagon is going full speed ahead on to build a port of Gaza with a pier that is supposedly to allow aid in by sea when you have all these trucks packed up it's going to take a thousand U.S. soldiers they're sending a thousand U.S. soldiers over there supposedly not to take one step into Gaza but to somehow oversee this construction project and it will take at least 60 days as the Pentagon and to me this sounds absurd unless you look at well there might be another reason why they want to build a port because we know there are natural gas resources off of Gaza and that Israel has already signed contracts six different contracts for gas exploration off of Gaza what are your thoughts about people wanting to believe that Biden is sincerely concerned about civilians in Gaza while he and Congress go full speed ahead on funding this genocide and sending arms there we have to keep emphasizing that words are not deeds and that saying to the world do as we say not as we do doesn't work a quick example the U.S. launched missile strikes against quote Iranian backed militias in Syria the reason we were told is because Iran was going ahead and arming them and that Iran we were told was responsible for the results of arming these militias but the U.S. somehow is not responsible when we are arming Israel and so forth and so I think we have this constant need and opportunity to point out the huge gap between the two countries because anybody can say anything and we can point out that countries that invade other countries always have leaders that will sound the most humanistic possible this is underlying and that's one reason that changing the frame and the world view of media and so many people in Congress one of the reasons is part of the basics of U.S. foreign policy for the last few years we have heard Anthony Blinken and President Biden officially and unofficially in interviews and documents say that what they are seeking is a rules based order and they say it's essential to have a rules based order and what it really means is not only do as we say not as we do it means when we break the rules and when we say it's wrong for one country to invade another country or slaughter civilians when we say it's wrong therefore it is wrong but when we fund it and support it and give the arms to do the killing and the ammunition to do the killing that somehow we have the words to be exculpatory so harping on this that it is absolutely meaningless to say nice words when the U.S. government is helping to slaughter massive numbers of civilians we just need to keep harping on that and bringing that point across. I think just a simple question would you take more seriously actions or words? Here's a question from Don Smith in Washington isn't it better to build our own media infrastructure because traditional media is largely dying and they censor us also Facebook is mostly a black hole well you can actually I get a lot of likes when I post a picture It's a good question it's come up over the decades and I think our experiences tell us that it is definitely not either or we need to challenge and fight and look for those cracks and pick it and really push back in every way we can against the corporate media to build as many different kinds of media institutions that are progressive as possible and they look like they are separate tracks and to a large extent they are and they're both extremely valuable but have also been told by a reporter at the New York Times off the record that we would be surprised how many reporters and editors at the New York Times in the newsrooms in New York and DC how closely they look at progressive websites for instance there's a cross-pollination going on and we should try to encourage that Yes, alright here's another question please ask Norman to talk about colonial feminism as a means of demonizing Palestinians and Muslims Well, if I understand the question correctly there's been a lot of Ballyhoo that Israel is a place where feminism thrives and to flip that over we heard how the U.S. invasion and war in Afghanistan was necessary because the Taliban was so and is so anti-feminist and in some ways misogynist which is true the problem is one of the problems is that if you keep bombing families including women and children it's hard to make a case that that's a feminist policy in fact it's the antithesis of a feminist policy and this gets into the distortions in media just a quick example U.S. reporters in Afghanistan were mostly in Kabul and if they weren't they were usually escorted by U.S. troops who showed them the nice things they did building schools and bridges and so forth but there was a as Anand Gopal has pointed out and he was interviewed in democracy now after his New Yorker story was published just after the U.S. troops left better late than never is the vast amount of the bombing was in rural areas it was not any U.S. reporter or western reporter for hundreds of miles and the women were living under these bombs all the time and yet we had quote-unquote feminists and you know Hillary Clinton sort of a prototype saying hey you have to protect these women when in fact that meant bomb these women make their lives miserable slaughter people in the family similar to what's going on in the Middle East now and this effort to pretty up the Israeli society and in the process say well it's a feminist culture there which could be argued about it's just an absurdity that somehow feminism is being protected by this mass murder of primarily children and women I don't know if that was the intent of the question but anyway that's one set of thoughts Thank you Norman a very practical question how do you get a hold of a good list of press contacts with great difficulty it changes constantly and that's as I mentioned in passing if it's an old media list you're going to get a lot of bounces spam reports it's not really useful there's a lot of what used to be called chew leather if there's a media outlet read what they're putting out look at the names, look at the bylines you can usually online find the email addresses of reporters at most media outlets also you can see by reading or listening to the reporting who's covering what and that's the best way to build your own database it's really painstaking I remember our much beloved Tim Carpenter at PDA used to say the spreadsheets don't make it into the history books but they help us make history and that's still true Yes and you know on our CodePink Congress website codepink.org forward slash CodePink Congress we do have contacts for Twitter a lot of journalists are on Twitter and that's how I usually reach out to them not always but it's certainly one way I thought about leaving since Elon Musk took over I mean every day he's posting about the border but again it's a good way to reach journalists and also lawmakers on Twitter another practical question how do you cultivate relationships with editors dealing with editors well they begin well sending them something that you've already written at a certain publication is helpful being in the dialogue it is amazing to me still how many editors will respond especially for instance op-ed editors by email and send a query note sometimes you could ask do you want a query question or do you want a full draft by the way don't ever send an attached file it should always be pasted in to the email keep the paragraph short for op-eds it's an odd thing but it's a long tradition keep them paragraphs short just theoretically and really it's easier on the eye things like that are very helpful to get an in there have a very brief bio cover note with a couple sentences brevity is crucial don't send a 2000 page 2000 word op-ed keep it fairly short and be concise and a brief intro for why you are interested you might be willing and able to get through by telephone that's worth it as well I should mention we've been talking about various types of media and that includes books and we know Medea has co-written a very important book about the Ukraine war we have a lot of other progressive books that are out there it's always a battle to get them into the libraries to get them into the bookstores to have people hear about them and certainly that's my experience and in terms of the war made invisible book if people do want to go to war in the war made invisible dot org you'll find some background information if you can get into your library or share it with folks that's much appreciated yes I will do that and I also want to give a shout out to code pink radio we have our own radio program that's broadcast on most of the Pacifica stations nationwide it's on spotify and itunes and lots of college stations code pink radio is not broadcast in your town your city please reach out to your public community radio station college radio station and see if they'll air it if you want to know more email me marcie m-a-r-c-y code pink dot org so David is also with us I see him great well speaking of books I mean I just David's book about a base nation I was going to Ramstein I just the Ramstein base in Germany before I went I went through that book and I had so many stickers on so many pages just learning from that book and it's again an example a tremendously valuable book that needs to be and should be supported yes and we're going to talk about a curriculum guide that David developed after we have a Q&A after we finish up this Q&A but there are other questions so David hang on David also mentioned rethink media he said has a good of contacts okay here's a question this is tough thank you Marcia Norman how to isolate and prosecute the one percent the banks the national security state how to remove the military contractors and CIA from school campuses yeah exposure is the first step you know there is a gondian sort of algorithm that is sometimes forgotten that if we're going to do actions it is so helpful in terms of process to as much as possible inform people first about what the issue is and and sometimes it can be a cart before the horse I know it's often there's an urgency there's a crisis but to lay that groundwork and war profiteering is a clear example where it's it's scarcely on the national or local media's radar radar screen there is a bill I think that Bernie Sanders and others have introduced about war profiteering but this sort of a skate patch and it goes to the question of framing because sometimes the questions are just wrong and if you're interviewed the premise of the question is wrong in a box is you and sometimes you just have to say well I don't accept the premise of the question and by example as I mentioned an escape hatch it an escape hatch for militarism around questions of war profiteering is to say as unfortunately this bill does essentially I'm paraphrasing we want to make the war machine more efficient we want to oil the gears more effectively on the war machine and end the waste fraud and abuse well it's good to end the waste fraud and abuse but we don't really want to fight for a more efficient war machine we want to stop the war machine exactly and as far as that last question how to remove the military contractors from school campuses I'm in Santa Barbara it's about two hours north of Los Angeles we have a university here one of the nine or ten UC campuses the University of California at Santa Barbara and recently a group of us we have an anti-war coalition we went over to the university we went to the chancellor's office we went to the dean of college engineering and we said what's up with this you're advertising you're recruiting right on the university website there are portals for north of Grumman Raytheon and Lockheed Martin this is wrong this has got to stop and we want to stop all the development for these companies that are complicit in genocide well you know you should have seen the letter I got back basically the argument for recruitment was well we're just exercising academic freedom and we don't want to deny these students opportunities to work in the exciting field of engineering obviously nobody who's sincere can say this is an exciting field when it's a field of annihilation definitely it's a great point and those contradictions need to just constantly be hammered on Marcia you remind me too when you talked about copink radio that there is an opportunity not only for community radio stations which are really important NPR affiliates there's hundreds and hundreds of them of course around the country and in theory they're open to different points of view we're all living around NPR radio stations and it's important for us to push them to have programs like alternative radio that David Bar-Saman has been doing for 40 years pounder spin from fear pink radio that kind of work is sometimes very effective because in theory again these are non-conversial public broadcasting outlets but often the public is simply left out and just one of the many arguments that can be made almost all of those stations air a five days a week half hour program called marketplace none of them air a program called labor place because there is no American public media program with that focus or NPR program or anything else how many of them air any program that could be called peace place it's more war place and these are issues that need to be confronted and as if we didn't have enough to do we have the opportunity to challenge in Gandhi infestation get the changes requested and if we don't get the satisfaction get out the picket signs of the demonstration raise hell that is something that we need to be willing and able to do for a lot of different media outlets and we've been sort of if you would if you will propagandize that oh you're trying to you know constrict their first amendment no we're trying to use the first amendment these corporate powers including NPR and PBS they're sitting on the windpipe of the first amendment what we're trying to do is give democracy some oxygen Thank you very much Normansselman author activist profound thanks thanks to you CoPink Congress and everybody on this call, we're onward and upward Yes, and we're going to unmute and allow everybody to thank you so let's do that thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you Thank you. Love you. Thank you.