RIGHT : Gingrich suggests Nadler’s push to further probe is an attempt to save his job in the House


Gingrich suggests Nadler’s push to further probe is an attempt to save his job in the House

Greg Norman

by Greg Norman

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is suggesting Friday that Democrat Jerry Nadler’s push for a fully unredacted Mueller report -- and his insistence to get the Special Counsel to testify on Capitol Hill – are desperation moves in an effort to save his job as House Judiciary Committee Chairman.

The comments from Gingrich come as Democrats are still floating the possibility of trying to impeach Trump, despite Mueller in his report not finding any evidence of collusion with Russia and not reaching a verdict on the obstruction issue.

“Look at poor Jerry Nadler’s problem,” Gingrich said Friday on ‘Fox & Friends’. “The left wing of his party is going berserk, they all want to find a way to keep this up, his presidential candidates are going berserk.

“He can’t as Chairman, not look like he is doing something – or they will, frankly, take away his chairmanship,” Gingrich added. “And that’s the dance in the House right now.”

U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chair of the House Judiciary Committee, speaks Thursday following the release of a redacted version of the Mueller report. (AP)

Nadler – a frequent Trump critic – said yesterday that the redacted version of the report released by the Justice Department "outlines disturbing evidence" that Trump engaged in misconduct and possibly obstructed justice. The New York Democrat also noted that Attorney General Bill Barr will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee next month and he has requested that Robert Mueller also appear before the committee to testify on his findings.

“Let him testify. I don’t have a problem with that,” Gingrich said about Mueller. “Let him come in and say ‘hey, I spent two years, interviewed 500 people, had an entire team of lawyers, spent 25 million dollars’ – it ain’t there.

“My guess is that Mueller will be a pretty impressive witness,” Gingrich also said. “But he will be a witness for ending the process.”

Gingrich concluded his ‘Fox & Friends’ interview by saying that he believes President Trump will come out stronger following the Mueller report’s release.

“Here’s a guy who, while he has 90 percent negative press coverage and he has an ongoing investigation, he just plows ahead,” Gingrich said. “I think you have to assume, now that he has been exonerated in every possible way, he’s going to be stronger, his re-election is going to be more likely.

“People around the world are going to accommodate him,” he added. “They are going to start saying ‘you know, I gotta deal with this guy through 2024’.”

And that, Gingrich says, is “an enormous change from a week ago.”

NYA Thanks Fox news


RIGHT : Admit it - Fox News has been right all along


Admit it:

Fox News has been right all along

Gary Abernathy
Attorney General William Barr appears before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee (Andrew Harnik/AP)

By Gary Abernathy

Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.

People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.

But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it. That turned out to be wrong.

Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for spending nearly two years clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the president’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.

But then comes Attorney General William P. Barr, dropping a bombshell last week by declaring during congressional testimony that he thinks “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he is looking into it. Democrats and many in the media immediately blasted Barr for carrying Trump’s water. Barr soon clarified his remarks, saying, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it.”

Just three weeks ago, before Mueller wrapped up his report, The Post — in a story representative of mainstream sources at the time — produced a mostly flattering profile of the new attorney general. “A Justice Department official told The Washington Post last month that Barr is viewed at the department as ‘a lawyer’s lawyer’ and is seen as less politically minded than his predecessors,” the story noted.

Timothy Flanigan, a former Barr colleague at the Justice Department, described Barr’s independent streak, saying, “If Bill starts getting the tweet treatment, Bill is a tough guy. He’s a tough, tough guy. Not that Jeff Sessions wasn’t, but I don’t think Bill’s just going to sit there and take it. I think he would make sure that the president understood that it is not really a smart thing to be lambasting the attorney general.”

Now, Barr is being cast by the liberal cable channels and others as an unscrupulous political hack attached to the president’s leash. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Barr “may be whitewashing” his summary of the report. Such accusations represent an unlikely turn of events for a 68-year-old professional with an impeccable record and a career more behind him than in front of him.

For Fox News devotees in southern Ohio and other Trump strongholds, nothing from the Mueller investigation has provided cause to waver from their preferred news source. Meanwhile, even regular viewers of CNN and MSNBC must certainly recognize the straws being grasped to justify sticking with a conspiracy theory that has been largely debunked — although the expected release of Mueller’s report this week will probably provide just enough juice for one last effort.

After two years of conjecture from all sides, some hard truths have emerged. Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. Neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russia. The president’s actions did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice. And how and why this all began may well turn out to be the most troubling story of all.

During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr told senators, “I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong. By anybody. Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.” Observers at the time took Barr’s comments as reassurance of his independence from Trump, but in hindsight it should be noted that he mentioned editorial boards and Congress first.

Barr’s career does not paint a portrait of someone who chases tin-foil-hat conspiracies. There’s enough evidence in the public record to raise valid suspicions that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was motivated not by real concerns about national security, but rather by a loathing of the candidate. And though new facts may emerge in the full, redacted report, they won’t change the larger truth. It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along.

NYA thanks Washington Post


RIOT BOOSTING : South Dakota Legislature invents new Legal Term to Target Pipeline Protesters


NYA

The government of South Dakota has made it very clear that it does not like people who protest the Keystone XL pipeline. The state’s governor has dismissed them as “out-of-staters who come in to disrupt.” And other officials have similarly leveraged long-debunked and harmful tropes, mischaracterizing those speaking out as “paid protesters.”

In this atmosphere, South Dakota enacted a new law last week, the Riot Boosting Act. The law seeks to suppress protests before they even start and prohibits people from engaging in full-throated advocacy. It does so by creating a new, ambiguous term: “riot boosting.”

If you’re wondering what that means, so is everyone else, including those who want to speak out. And that’s a big problem.

The new law gives the state the authority to sue individuals and organizations for “riot boosting,” but it does not clearly describe what speech or conduct it considers to be “riot boosting.” The law is written so broadly that even a tweet encouraging activists to “Join a protest to stop the pipeline and give it all you’ve got!” could be interpreted as “riot-boosting” should a fight break out at the protest. The law joins two existing state criminal laws that also target such speech, meaning that advocacy could now result in up to 25 years of prison time, fines, or civil penalties — or a combination of all three.

Let’s be very clear: States are within their rights to prohibit incitement of violence — a narrow category of unprotected speech that refers to words intended and likely to cause imminent violence. But these laws go far beyond that by criminalizing impassioned advocacy that lies at the core of our political discourse. They instill a fear among peaceful organizers that their actions or words could be misconstrued by the government as “riot boosting.” As a result, activists are now forced to think twice before even encouraging others to join a protest, let alone train, educate, or advise those who plan to protest. And, because of these laws, they may forgo such speech and association altogether.

That is a clear First Amendment violation — and why we are in court to challenge the laws on behalf of the Sierra Club, NDN Collective, Dakota Rural Action, and the Indigenous Environmental Network.

According to the state’s website, the Riot Boosting Act is a result of Governor Kristi Noem’s discussions with TransCanada — the company that is set to build and operate the Keystone XL pipeline — and other stakeholders. Notably, the state did not meet with Native American tribes or environmental groups.

This comes across loud and clear in the final law, which not only gives the state the authority to sue anti-pipeline groups and activists but also gives third-parties — including TransCanada — the ability to join in. Further, the money seized from protesters through these lawsuits can be used to fund the very thing they are protesting, thereby giving the company an added financial incentive to go after pipeline protesters.

In just the last two years, we’ve seen a rise in government efforts to stifle protests, particularly those led by Indigenous and environmental activists, often in opposition to pipelines. There have been attempts to equate protesters with domestic terrorists and [saboteurs](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=HSB 603&ga=87). Law enforcement authorities have partnered with private security companies to surveil activists and control protests. Known FBI informants have infiltrated activist spaces and camps. The federal government has implemented “no-fly zones” to black out media coverage during heightened police crackdowns.

And if Governor Noem’s rhetoric on “shut[ting] down” “out-of-state people” who come into South Dakota to “slow and stop construction” of the pipeline sounds familiar, it should. It echoes government attempts throughout our history to justify anti-protest actions by delegitimizing protesters as “outside agitators.”

In 1964, infamous segregationist George Wallace said racial tensions did not exist in the South “except in a very few isolated instances” caused exclusively by “outside agitators.” He was not alone in attempting to frame the civil rights movement in the South as the work of “outside agitators.” Southern authorities frequently attempted to discount legitimate grievances and protests by Black people as nothing more than an attempt by radical outsiders to sow dissent. They even called Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. an “outside agitator.”

More recently, in 2014, after the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, the police blamed “outside agitators” for the majority of the unlawful activities. Not only were these claims later debunked in a scathing report by the Department of Justice, they also allowed the police to minimize the harmful impact of their own improper practices that caused the citizens of the city to protest in the first place.

What’s happening in South Dakota is no different. The government has dismissed Native Americans, state farmers and ranchers, and residents of nearby states who opposed the pipeline as outside agitators. But the pipeline, if constructed, would have a substantial impact on all of their lives – including our clients, many of whom are South Dakotans. Moreover, the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is a national issue, and it deserves a national debate.

Opposition to the construction of the pipeline may agitate Gov. Noem, but the First Amendment guarantees the right to voice that opposition. Those affected by the pipeline’s construction deserve to be heard even if Gov. Noem and TransCanada want them all to shut up.

NYA thanks ACLU


GREEN NEW DEAL : Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline


AOC
photo: Amr Alfiky

The Green New Deal legislation laid out by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey sets goals for some drastic measures to cut carbon emissions across the economy. In the process, it aims to create jobs and boost the economy.

Whether it's a deadly cold snap or a hole under an Antarctic glacier or a terrifying new report, there seem to be constant reminders now of the dangers that climate change poses to humanity.

Ocasio-Cortez Talks About Ambitious Plan To Combat Climate Change

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., think they have a start to a solution. Thursday they are introducing a framework defining what they call a "Green New Deal" — what they foresee as a massive policy package that would remake the U.S. economy and, they hope, eliminate all U.S. carbon emissions.

That's a really big — potentially impossibly big — undertaking.

"Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us," Ocasio-Cortez told NPR's Steve Inskeep in an interview that aired Thursday on Morning Edition.

She added: "It could be part of a larger solution, but no one has actually scoped out what that larger solution would entail. And so that's really what we're trying to accomplish with the Green New Deal."

What is the Green New Deal?

In very broad strokes, the Green New Deal legislation laid out by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey sets goals for some drastic measures to cut carbon emissions across the economy, from electricity generation to transportation to agriculture. In the process, it aims to create jobs and boost the economy.

greennewdeal2-warming

Environment

2018 Was Earth's Fourth-Hottest Year On Record, Scientists Say

n that vein, the proposal stresses that it aims to meet its ambitious goals while paying special attention to groups like the poor, disabled and minority communities that might be disproportionately affected by massive economic transitions like those the Green New Deal calls for.

Importantly, it's a nonbinding resolution, meaning that even if it were to pass (more on the challenges to that below), it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years.

What are the specifics of that framework?

The [bill calls for a](https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf "document") "10-year national mobilizations" toward accomplishing a series of goals that the resolution lays out.

(Note: Ocasio-Cortez's office released an [updated version](https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf "file") of the bill on Thursday. The earlier version, which we had included in a prior version of this story, is still available here.)

Among the most prominent, the deal calls for "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources." The ultimate goal is to stop using fossil fuels entirely, Ocasio-Cortez's office told NPR, as well as to transition away from nuclear energy.

In addition, the framework, as described in the legislation as well as a blog post — containing an updated version of "FAQs" provided to NPR by Ocasio-Cortez's office — calls for a variety of other lofty goals:

  • "upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency;
  • working with farmers "to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions ... as much as is technologically feasible" (while supporting family farms and promoting "universal access to healthy food");
  • "Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary";
  • A guaranteed job "with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security" for every American;
  • "High-quality health care" for all Americans.

greennewdeal3-melting

Which is to say: the Green New Deal framework combines big climate-change-related ideas with a wish list of progressive economic proposals that, taken together, would touch nearly every American and overhaul the economy.

Are those ideas doable?

Many in the climate science community, as well as Green New Deal proponents, agree that saving the world from disastrous effects of climate change requires aggressive action.

And some of the Green New Deal's goals are indeed aggressive. For example, Ocasio-Cortez told NPR that "in 10 years, we're trying to go carbon-neutral."

According to Jesse Jenkins, a postdoctoral environmental fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, that may be an unreachable goal.

"Where we need to be targeting really is a net-zero carbon economy by about 2050, which itself is an enormous challenge and will require reductions in carbon emissions much faster than have been achieved historically," he said. "2030 might be a little bit early to be targeting."

Similarly, removing combustible engines from the roads or expanding high-speed rail to largely eliminate air travel would require nothing short of revolutionizing transportation.

Likewise, some of the more progressive economic policies — universal health care and a job guarantee, for example — while popular among some Democrats, would also be very difficult to implement and transition into.

On top of all that, implementing all of these policies could cost trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Altogether, the Green New Deal is a loose framework. It does not lay out guidance on how to implement these policies.

Rather, the idea is that Ocasio-Cortez and Markey will "begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution."

And again, all of this is hypothetical — it would be tough to implement and potentially extremely expensive ... if it passed.

So did the idea of a Green New Deal start with Ocasio-Cortez?

Not at all.

While the Green New Deal has in the last year or so grown central to progressive Democrats' policy conversations, the idea of a Green New Deal itself is well over a decade old. Environmentalists were talking about it as far back as 2003, when the term popped up in a San Francisco Chronicle article about an environmentalist conference.

It gained traction with a 2007 New York Times column from Thomas Friedman, where he used the phrase to describe the scope of energy investments he thought would be necessary to slow climate change on a large scale.

The phrase was also used around President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus, which had around $90 billion worth of environmental initiatives.

While the idea gained some currency in Europe and also in the Green Party, it wasn't until after the 2016 election that it really gained broad popularity on the left in the U.S.

This latest iteration is different both in the political energy that it has amassed and the grand scope it is taking. While it was a product of the progressive activist community, Ocasio-Cortez has been perhaps the most visible proponent of the plan and has helped it gain nationwide attention.

So will it pass?

That looks unlikely.

Yes, there's some energy for it on the left — some House Democrats have already said they will support the bill. However, there are indications House leadership isn't prioritizing the idea as much as those more liberal Democrats would like — Speaker Nancy Pelosi frustrated Green New Deal proponents by not giving them the kind of committee they wanted to put the policies together.

After the deal's Thursday release, she also cast the plan as simply one of any number of environmental proposals the House might consider.

"It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive," Pelosi told Politico. "The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they're for it right?"

greennewdeal4-fire

In addition, it's easy to see how the bill could be dangerous for moderate House Democrats, many of whom come from swing districts and may be loath to touch such a progressive proposal.

Among Republicans — even those worried about climate change — the package, with its liberal economic ideas, will also likely be a nonstarter.

"Someone's going to have to prove to me how that can be accomplished because it looks to me like for the foreseeable future we're gonna be using a substantial amount of fossil fuels," said Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., co-chair of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, speaking to NPR before the Green New Deal's text was released.

For his part, Rooney is in favor of a carbon tax, a policy he helped propose with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in November. Information from Ocasio-Cortez's office says that the Green New Deal could include a carbon tax, but that it would be "a tiny part" of the total package of policies.

Meanwhile, there's little chance of a Green New Deal getting a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

If it's not going to pass and it's not even binding, why is it worth even talking about?

It's worth talking about because it already is a politically powerful idea among Democrats.

greennewdeal5-candidates

Already, presidential candidates are being asked whether they support the idea of a Green New Deal, meaning it's easy to see the issue becoming a litmus test for some voters in both the 2020 congressional elections and the presidential election.

To more liberal Democrats, the prospect of such an ambitious economic and environmental package at the center of the 2020 campaign may be particularly energizing.

"I think it's like a really weird instinct that the Democratic Party develops to not be exciting intentionally," said Sean McElwee, co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress. "Most of politics is getting people excited enough to show up and vote for you. And I think that a Green New Deal and Medicare-for-all — these are ideas that are big enough to get people excited and show up to vote for you."

For her part, Ocasio-Cortez says that a policy like the Green New Deal could get voters excited enough to pressure their Congress members to support it.

"I do think that when there's a wide spectrum of debate on an issue, that is where the public plays a role. That is where the public needs to call their member of Congress and say, 'This is something that I care about,' " she told NPR, adding, "Where I do have trust is in my colleagues' capacity to change and evolve and be adaptable and listen to their constituents."

That said, it's easy to see how a Green New Deal litmus test could backfire on that front, endangering some Democrats — particularly in swing districts.

But it's not just about national politics. The national-level energy for a Green New Deal could boost efforts in cities and states. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for example, has been pushing a Green New Deal in his state.

Aside from the politics, there's the fact that climate change remains an impending threat — one for which the world has yet to come up with a fix.

"It's a big legislation because it's a huge (expletive) problem! We're all going to die," said McElwee. "Every week it seems like the risks of climate change become more real, and the amount of devastation it is going to wreak upon humanity becomes larger, and that means we have to do bigger things."


DEVASTATING MIDWEST FLOODS : FARM AID ACTIVATES FAMILY FARM DISASTER FUND - Organization to issue emergency grants in support of family farm relief efforts on the ground in the Midwest


FARM AID ACTIVATES FAMILY FARM DISASTER FUND

Organization to issue emergency grants in support of family farm relief efforts on the ground in the Midwest

Farm Aid

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — As farmers and ranchers in the Midwest deal with the impact of historic flooding, Farm Aid has activated its Family Farm Disaster Fund to provide aid to family farmers in the affected region.

“Farm Aid knows farmers and ranchers are being devastated by floods in the Midwest. We invite everyone to join us by donating to support farmers as they try to save their homes and businesses,” said Farm Aid President Willie Nelson. “We’ve heard from farmers that they can’t wait the months it takes for disaster assistance to come. We have too few family farms left to lose even one to a weather disaster.”

For more than three decades, Farm Aid has stepped in quickly after natural disasters, responding immediately to assist farmers and ranchers specifically. Farm Aid’s relief efforts will focus on the family farmers and ranchers who have lost their barns, livestock, crops, fields, pasture and other essential farm infrastructure. Record rainfall, flooding and wind damage have left farmers under standing water at a time when they are already struggling due to low prices and farm and trade policies that cause extreme financial, legal and emotional stress. Every dollar raised by the Family Farm Disaster Fund will support local and regional organizations working on the ground to distribute emergency grants to farm families affected by the flooding in the Midwest and to offer resources that help farmers navigate their farm recovery options.

Farm Aid grants will support Midwest farm organizations coordinating locally to:

  • Make emergency grants to farm and ranch families;
  • Help farmers and ranchers understand their farm recovery options;
  • Support local and state farm service providers to help farmers navigate recovery options, from mental health resources to federal funding opportunities; and
  • Advocate for needed disaster recovery funds and resources from the federal government.

Farm Aid is also working with partners in disaster-affected areas to determine the long-term needs of impacted farmers and ranchers. If you are a farmer who has been affected by the Midwest flooding, please visit farmaid.org/disaster for a list of resources available. To donate, please visit farmaid.org/disasterfund.

Farm Aid’s mission is to build a vibrant, family farm-centered system of agriculture in America. Farm Aid artists and board members Willie Nelson, Neil Young, John Mellencamp and Dave Matthews host an annual festival to raise funds to support Farm Aid’s work with family farmers and to inspire people to choose family farm food. For more than 30 years, Farm Aid, with the support of the artists who contribute their performances each year, has raised more than $53 million to support programs that help farmers thrive, expand the reach of the Good Food Movement, take action to change the dominant system of industrial agriculture and promote food from family farms.


A REAL CRISIS : America’s food giants swallow family farms


America’s food giants swallow family farms

NYA / The Guardian

farmcrisis1-600

Across the midwest, the rise of factory farming is destroying rural communities. And the massive corporations behind this devastation are now eyeing a post-Brexit UK market.

by Chris McGreal

farmcrisis2-600

farmcrisis3-600

When the vast expanse of rural Iowa was carved up for settlers in the 19th century, it was often divided into 160-acre lots. Four farms made a square mile, with a crisscross of dead-straight roads marking the boundaries like a sprawling chess board.

Within each square, generations of families tended pigs and cattle, grew oats and raised children, with the sons most likely to take over the farm. That is how Barb Kalbach saw the future when she left her family’s land to marry and begin farming with her new husband, Jim, 47 years ago.

“When we very first were married, we had cattle and calves,” she says. “We raised hogs from farrow to finish, and we had corn, beans, hay and oats. So did everyone around us.”

Half a century later, Kalbach surveys the destruction within the section of chessboard she shared with other farms near Dexter in southwestern Iowa. Barb and Jim are the last family still working the land, after their neighbours were picked off by waves of collapsing commodity prices and the rise of factory farming. With that came a vast transfer in wealth as farm profits funnelled into corporations or the diminishing number of families that own an increasing share of the land. Rural communities have been hollowed out.

And while the Kalbachs have hung on to their farm, they long ago abandoned livestock and mixed arable farming for the only thing they can make money at any more – growing corn and soya beans to sell to corporate buyers as feed for animals crammed by the thousands into the huge semi-automated sheds that now dominate farming, and the landscape, in large parts of Iowa.

Kalbach comes from five generations of farmers and suspects she may be the last. As she drives the roads around her farmhouse, she ticks off the disappearances.

It’s a story replicated across America’s midwest, with the rapid expansion of farming methods at the heart of the row over US attempts to erode Britain’s food standards and lever open access to the UK market as part of a post-Brexit trade deal. Last weekend, the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, appealed to the UK to embrace US farming, arguing that those who warned against practices such as washing chicken in chlorine had been “deployed” to cast it “in the worst possible light”.

As the medium-sized family farms retreated, the businesses they helped support disappeared. Local seed and equipment suppliers shut up shop because corporations went straight to wholesalers or manufacturers. Demand for local vets collapsed. As those businesses packed up and left, communities shrank. Shops, restaurants and doctors’ surgeries closed. People found they had to drive for an hour or more for medical treatment. Towns and counties began to share ambulances.

NYA thanks / THE GUARDIAN


WHY : HEARING IS BELIEVING!


nya

Xstream by NYA music sounds better everywhere on any device!

Especially Android cell phones that play full high resolution. They are sounding awesome now! We have heard them!
Android is in testing and will come very soon!

Here’s why. Xstream rocks!

Music on ‘Xstream by NYA’ sounds better right away because Xstream by NYA is able to play a full high res file anywhere! All the other services are limited to MP3, CD or a compressed file.

Imagine this:

  • Spotify is limited to 320 kbps or a lower tier of quality. That’s two levels of quality to choose from with Spotify.
  • Xstream by NYA has 15,000 levels of quality and continuously seeks the highest quality bandwidth allowed at your location, including extremely low bandwidth to super high bandwidth and every step in between. It’s seamless.
  • Because Xstream by NYA has no bandwidth limitations, it easily plays music over 6,000 kbps, more than enough for High Resolution playback.
  • High bandwidth allows all music to be heard in High Res, exceeding an iPhone’s capabilities for playback, still, even with that limitation, anyone can hear the difference between ‘Xstream by NYA’ and ‘Spotify’ on an iPhone. It’s big!
  • Some phones by ‘SAMSUNG’ and ‘LG’ can play full high resolution today, exceeding even an iPhone’s capabilities. The listening experience on those phones is truly amazing! That said, the High Res advantage of Xstream by NYA is still quite obvious on the iPhone. Our APP for Android will be ready in May.

Just try this:

  • listen to one of my songs on your iPhone using neilyoungarchives.com ‘Xstream by NYA’.
  • Now listen to the same song through Spotify or one of the other services.
  • Xstream by NYA is better sounding because we are able to play a file with all the quality (air, depth, dynamics, smoothness) of the original. Spotify is not capable of that.
  • It doesn’t matter if you are using Bluetooth speakers or whatever, Xstream by NYA sounds best.
  • Your only limitation is the playback device you have chosen to use, yet even on low quality playback devices the difference is obvious.

Hearing is Believing.
Xstream by NYA.


NYA SUBSCRIPTION FROM IPHONE? : simple instructions to subscribe


simple instructions to subscribe

nya
  • Visit neilyoungarchives.com from the browser on your phone.
  • Click the Global Menu (square in top left of of screen)
  • Click the blue "subscribe" button
  • Log in to your NYA account or Sign up if you don't already have one.
  • Click "Get NYA Unlimited" on the next page (or click global menu>account>plans)
  • Select Annual or Monthly Subscription and Check out.

It's that easy!

Enjoy NYA and all NY music on your APP!
NYA


MUSIC MOVES AGAIN! : THE SOUND OF TOMORROW?


THE SOUND OF TOMORROW?

NYA

A dream is finally coming true!

You know, I’ve worked on this for years. I’ve always heard it. I’ve tried to explain it. I failed to get across to people what this is. . . . . but now that’s over. . . . .

musicmoves-1

The NYA APP speaks for itself. Everyone hears it. It doesn’t matter how bad your system is. Just plug your phone into it. NYA music sounds more alive through it. You can hear and feel the difference. You can experience the music in a new deeper way for yourself through any playback device.

I feel great. Reading people’s reactions to this APP is wonderful. Finally, it’s on a level playing field with everything else and can be truly compared.

It’s Music to my Ears!
Check out what these folks are saying:

neilyoungarchives

4.6/5 rating at IOS app store.

Neil Does it again - Boundless50
Continuing his efforts to improve digital audio quality, Neil has hit a home run with a well-designed app that provides great sound (and flexibility when using a cellular connection) to enjoy even more his broad catalog of music. Now, if the technology could also be used with other artists’ music as well…

musicmoves-2

Great Sound Neil - JoeRay
***** (5-stars)
I just downloaded the Neil Young Archives app and the music sounds alive; right out of the studio…Thanks Neil for 24 bit sound…Merry Christmas to all…

24 bit steaming. Perfection! Love m… - WK-Y
*****
24 bit streaming from the iPhone, so simple! Perfect sound with no breaking up like the lower bit files. No more ssss. Even the 16 bit files sound better than Streaming from Tidal.
Why can’t Apple Music do this?
This is music streaming of the future!

I have Apple Music and Tidal, this is the one app I use the most now. I wish all the music is on your website, Neil, and all remastered in 24 bit. Use this app. Music moves again. I’m dancing and singing with it.

musicmoves-3

Yeah - Kathy
*****
It works. Sounds great. Yeah you need WiFi for high res, that ain’t Neil and company’s fault, maybe on 5G in a year or two. Been using this site all year and app does it justice.

musicmoves-4

Neil’s done it again- AWLionelGuy
*****
The difference is in the sound! Awesome app with amazing features. NYC allows you to listen to his discography the way it should be heard. Some navigation features are less than perfect, but I can’t wait to see the app evolve.

Must have for Longtime Neil Fans - BertTR6
*****
The Neil Young Archives is a treasure that music lovers around the world can enjoy with complete access to the life work of Neil Young. The sound quality at full resolution is unquestionably the best I’ve ever streamed on my mobile device. The fact that I can access all the gems, including the rare and obscure ones, and hear like I’m in the room with the music as it was meant to be…..

Better than expected - Hum1021

musicmoves-5

*****
I’ve been using NYA for a long time I think it’s easier to navigate using the app than it is on the actual site Great job!
If you like Neil, pay for the subscription. ..It’s well worth it.

Greatest music all of all time - Deathcoach
*****
Nothing less than the greatest music app of all time!

Brilliant - Captain Daver
*****
Simply brilliant app !!

*****
If you like Neil’s music, or maybe are looking for proof that music can come in hi-res through your phone, this is your place. I love the music (it’s what got me to pick up a guitar), so this works well for me.
A must for Neil Young fans - tag302

*****
With subscription you get access to EVERYTHING related to Neil’s extensive musical output.

In addition to music, NYA provides a daily newspaper, Te NYA Times-Contrarian, delving into inside the music stories and news of the day reflections. But back to the sound of NYA. . . . . .

Folks, what’s really amazing here is that even though it sounds great everywhere, there is much more to this APP’s sound . . . . it is all there on your phone and you can unlock it and play it loud, all of it, the Startlingly Great Sound of High Res- through your home system.

Realizing the full potential of Xstream by NYA

Now that you’re able to stream high res music anywhere, we want to offer some suggestions on how to use your phone and computer to hear Neil’s NYA music at its best quality. While you’d think advanced tech devices like iPhone could handle whatever audio is thrown at them, unfortunately the hardware manufacturers, including Apple, have never prepared for quality audio streaming. So, even though it makes an iPhone sound better than any phone you have ever heard, you are still not hearing all of what is being streamed to your phone.

Now that High Res Xstream by NYA is here, iPhones are unfortunately unable play all of it. While you can play NYA files and they do sound better than anything else, to hear the full High-Res sound from your iPhone, you’ll need this

The solution

Add a simple external device, some less than the size of your thumb, called a DAC, that upgrades the phone’s lower quality internal DAC. Simply, insert the DAC between the data port of phone (or computer) and headphone, speakers or amplifier, and you’ll hear music at its very best audio quality. Below are some DACs that are well-rated and capable of playing full High Res. They’re available from your local dealers and from Amazon.

Remember, a DAC is not something you need to make ‘Xstream by NYA’ sound better than anything else through your phone; it already is doing that and you can hear it. An added DAC simply will allow you to unlock and hear all of the music, more has ever been heard from any Iphone.

NextDrive Spectra - $149
Meridian - Explorer2 USB DAC - $199
Chord Mojo - $499

Today, some cellphones, particularly LG’s top models, are able to play high res (192/24) right from the phone with no added DAC. That is the way cellphones should be in the 21st Century.

NYA


BANKSY ON ADVERTISING : THEY ARE LAUGHING AT YOU


THEY ARE LAUGHING AT YOU

Banksy

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are the Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say whatever they like whereever they like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

Banksy
NYA


A WORD ABOUT SOUND : SMELL IT!


SMELL IT!

NY
both photos: dhlovelife

When you are looking at a bouquet, you can see how beautiful it is.

A-CLOSE-FLOWER970

When you see a flower up close, the detail you missed in the bouquet is now front and center in your eyes.

The detail in the sacred geometry of the flower’s petal makes you feel good. Humans like to feel. Sound is the same. High resolution is the petal of the flower. Smell it.

NYA