Skip to content

Month: September 2018

Up In Arms!

Up In Arms!

by digby



The right is very upset:

Meghan McCain and President Barack Obama took apparent swipes at President Trump on Saturday in a eulogy for John McCain — who sparred with Trump on a number of occasions before his death last week of brain cancer.

“The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great,’ McCain’s daughter said, in what appeared to be a reference to Trump’s presidential campaign slogan: “Make America Great Again.”

The remarks were made during a funeral service at Washington National Cathedral for the Arizona Republican, who died last week of brain cancer.

Obama’s jabs were more subtle but still appeared to be directed at the current occupant of the White House. He derided those in politics who traffic in “bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage.”

He also attacked “a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear.”

“John called on us to be bigger than that. He called on us to be better than that,” he said.

It was Meghan McCain who had the most searing swipes at the president however. Notably she said that her father’s passing represented the passing of “American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege while he suffered and served.”

Former President George W. Bush also paid tribute to McCain.

American service members in dress uniform carried Senator John McCain into the United States Capitol for the final time; chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel reports.
“John – as he was the first to tell you – was not a perfect man. But he dedicated his life to national ideals that are as perfect as men and women have yet conceived,” he said. “He was motivated by a vision of America carried ever forward, ever upward, on the strength of its principles.”

Yeah, Bush took a swipe at Trump too, Fox just ignored it:

“He was honorable, always recognizing that his opponents were still patriots and human beings. He loved freedom with the passion of a man who knew its absence. He respected the dignity inherent in every life, a dignity that does not stop at borders and cannot be erased by dictators.”

“Perhaps above all, John detested the abuse of power,” he added. “He could not abide bigots and swaggering. He spoke up for the little guy, forgotten people in forgotten places. One friend from naval academy days recalls John reacted to seeing an upperclassman verbally abuse a steward. Against all tradition, he told the jerk to pick on someone his own size. It was a familiar refrain during the six decades of service.”

Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit and his ilk are having a fit!

[i don’t know if he meant to say “heiled” but … yeah, probably.]

The fact that they are taking these comments as insults to Trump is very telling. They are all pretty anodyne references to a certain kind of iconoclastic American patriot type which, if Trump weren’t in the picture, would just be seen as a tribute to his “maverick” nature. It’s the context that makes them so pointed. The president of the United States is all those things “ptriots” used to hate but now they love.

Here are all the eulogies ICYMI:

Obama’s:

Bush’s:

The Three Cobardes

The Three Cobardes

by digby

Jennifer Rubin lets it all hang out about the cowardly GOP establishment triumvirate of Pence,McConnell and Ryan:

You had to control your gag reflex watching Vice President Pence, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) extol McCain’s greatness as he was accorded the honor of lying in state.

Consider Pence for a moment. He began with a ludicrous declaration that broke all records for disingenuousness: “The president asked me to be here on behalf of a grateful nation, to pay a debt of honor and respect to a man who served our country throughout his life, in uniform and in public office. It’s my great honor to be here.” President Trump despised McCain and routinely mocked him. Suggesting that Pence was there to represent Trump would require him to insult and mock McCain. Pence accepted the vice presidency and stuck with Trump despite the “Access Hollywood” tape, despite Trump’s denigration of McCain’s service, despite overt racism and contempt for human rights. He has not batted an eye over the hush-money payments to women, the attacks on the rule of law, the evisceration of decorum. Only in Washington could such a spineless creature sally forth to declare McCain a hero.

To call McCain a hero is to recognize his heroic qualities, of which Trump has none. You can worship Trump or admire McCain; it’s metaphysically impossible to do both. Meghan McCain’s glare was an appropriate reaction to Pence’s hypocrisy.

McConnell acknowledged McCain as a “generational leader in the Senate.” McConnell said that McCain represented all the values the Capitol stands for. But what does McConnell stand for? He has accommodated Trump, ignoring or rationalizing his worst behavior. McConnell personally destroyed the comity in the Senate by denying Judge Merrick Garland a hearing and then extinguishing the filibuster for Supreme Court justices. He has refused to protect the rule of law by preventing a bill protecting the special counsel from reaching the floor. In short, he too is everything McCain is not, and has presided over the very changes in the Senate that McCain despised. McCain, with all his soul, cared for and fought for the Constitution, the dignity of all men and women and the basic values we hold dear. McConnell cares about power, ready to enable Trump at every turn. There is no principle for him beyond winning.

And then there was Ryan, come to pay his respects. When he repeated McCain’s admonition that “our identities and sense of worth were not circumscribed but enlarged by serving good causes bigger than ourselves,” you wondered whether Ryan is capable of self-reflection. He lauded McCain: “The sense of purpose that a battle joined can bring. The common humanity that burns in each of our hearts. . . . This is one of the bravest souls our nation has ever produced.” When exactly has Ryan exemplified those qualities? When has he demonstrated an ounce of courage to do what is right rather than expedient?

When Ryan urged us “to stand up and to embrace the cause of [McCain’s] life,” you wondered when and how Ryan will manage to do this. Might he remove Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) from chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, which Nunes has used to smear our intelligence community and the FBI? Perhaps he’d actually hold a hearing on the grotesque conflicts of interest and emoluments clause violation that Trump has committed? Don’t hold your breath. Instead of the causes dear to McCain — the rule of law, simple decency, the obligation to defend the country against abuses of power — Ryan has again and again taken the road of least resistance. He is quite simply a moral coward.

They have always been craven opportunists. It’s just that Trump forces them to own it which is actually one of the few good things he’s ever done.

.

Trump being presidential

Trump being presidential

by digby

He cannot stand not being the center of attention even when it makes him look like even more of an ass than usual.

.

McCain and war heroism

McCain and war heroism


by digby

This piece by Eric Levitz is one of the best things I’ve read about McCain and war heroism:

During the Vietnam War, our country dropped more bombs on southeast Asia than all sides let loose in World War 2, and doused more than 3,000 of the region’s villages with one of the deadliest substances known to humankind. Those 7,662,000 tons of ordnance – and 13 million gallons of Agent Orange – recognized no distinction between civilian and soldier. America’s war planners didn’t either. When Henry Kissinger ordered “a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia” in 1970, his instructions were simple: “Anything that flies on anything that moves.” Our bombs brought hundreds of thousands of unarmed humans to a permanent stillness by the conflict’s end – and nearly 40,000 more in the decades since. There are Vietnamese children walking the Earth today who will die by stumbling on the landmines we planted, or unexploded ordnance we left behind. There are as-yet unborn Vietnamese babies who will enter the world with misshapen heads and giant tumors as a result of the defoliants we showered on their country 50 years ago.

During the Vietnam War, we measured our success in dead “Viet Cong”; except when we measured it in dead “gooks” of any kind. In the village of My Lai, our soldiers slaughtered more than 500 civilians (after raping and torturing some lesser number). In the Mekong Delta, the 9th Infantry division claimed an enemy body count of nearly 11,000 – but turned in fewer than 750 weapons. By our government’s own estimates, the unit killed as many as 7,000 civilians. By the account of one soldier within the 9th, the unit committed a “My Lai each month.”

During the Vietnam War, we sent nearly 60,000 American soldiers to their deaths, and condemned more than 300,000 to serious injuries. We did all this in the name of democracy (even though we’d helped the government of South Vietnam block a national unity election, which had been mandated by the Geneva Accords, because it was afraid that it would lose). Or, we did it all because the Communists could not be allowed a foothold in Southeast Asia (even though the presidents who waged the war all suspected that they couldn’t be denied one).

But also, during the Vietnam War, a patriotic young American from a military family requested combat duty, and was assigned to an aerial campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder (which would kill at least 50,000 civilians). On his 23rd mission, the young man’s plane was shot out of the sky. He broke both arms and one leg ejecting from the vehicle. North Vietnamese beat and bayoneted him once he hit the ground. Then, they took him to a military prison where he was tortured, starved, and beaten to the brink of suicidal ideation. He was offered a way out of this torment, thanks his father’s clout. But availing himself of that special privilege would have devastated the morale of his fellow prisoners, and handed a propaganda victory to the enemy. So he refused his opportunity for release, and spent the next five years in near-constant suffering – and the rest of his life, as an American war hero.

This week, that last story was referenced in the first sentence of countless obituaries. The preceding context was mentioned in virtually none of them.

And, on one level, that’s perfectly appropriate.

John McCain did not plan the Vietnam War. He didn’t lie to the American people about the nature of the conflict, the atrocities it entailed, or the probability of its success. He merely trusted the civilian leadership that did. There is no reason to doubt that McCain believed he was in Vietnam to risk his life – and then, to endure a living hell – in defense of our nation’s highest ideals. His willingness to sacrifice his own well-being to what he believed to be America’s interests deserves our awe-struck admiration. (As an upper middle-class “soyboy” – whose most heroic feat of self-abnegating physical endurance probably involved a full bladder and broken-down A train – I have no doubt that I’d prove myself a lesser man than McCain, were I ever asked to accept years of torture for a cause that I believed in.) As the senator is laid to rest, one can reasonably argue that respect for his family, and legacy, compels us to isolate his act of transcendent patriotism from the indefensible war that produced it.

But there are hazards to such myopia. McCain’s loved ones deserve to take pride in the sacrifices he made at the “Hanoi Hilton.” But we, as a nation, do not. The United States asked John McCain to risk his life – and kill other human beings – for a war built on lies. We asked him to give some of his best years on Earth – and the full use of his arms – to an illegal, unwinnable war of aggression. The story of McCain’s time as a prisoner of war should inspire national shame. It is a story about our government abusing the trust of one its most patriotic citizens. But it’s (almost) never presented as such. Instead, in stump speeches, op-eds, and obituaries, McCain’s service is typically framed as a testament to our nation’s greatness, or an affirmation of its finest values.

This distortion invites broader misconceptions. The selfless sacrifices of American soldiers are supposed to be lamentable costs of war, burdens that can only be redeemed by the justness of the cause that demanded them. And yet, the way we remember McCain’s heroism threatens to invert this principle. In celebrating his discrete act of patriotism – while ignoring the question of what cause it served – we risk treating the selfless sacrifices of American soldiers as ends in themselves.

In his tribute to McCain this week, the Rand Corporation’s Phillip Carter aptly describedthe model of heroism that he epitomized (without interrogating its more troubling implications):

[A]s America wrestled with the violence done on its behalf in Vietnam, society came to venerate more those warriors whose courage was exemplified by their suffering and perseverance. McCain epitomized that type of heroism—all the more so because he volunteered to stay in Hanoi and endure more, out of loyalty to his country and fellow captives. His was a valor that even those opposed to the war could honor; McCain’s suffering is a parable for America’s during a long, costly, and polarizing war.

Christian Appy, a prominent historian of the Vietnam War, has argued that the cultivation of this peculiar form of heroism enabled an eradication of America’s historical memory of the conflict, and thus, of its capacity to learn from the war’s mistakes:

In 1971…a remarkable 58% of the public told pollsters that they thought the conflict was “immoral,” a word that most Americans had never applied to their country’s wars.

How quickly times change. Jump ahead a decade and Americans had already found an appealing formula for commemorating the war. It turned out to be surprisingly simple: focus on us, not them, and agree that the war was primarily an American tragedy. Stop worrying about the damage Americans had inflicted on Vietnam and focus on what we had done to ourselves. 

…Americans began to treat those who served the country as heroic by definition, no matter what they had actually done… You no longer had to believe that the missions American “heroes” fought were noble and just; you could simply agree that anyone who “served America” in whatever capacity automatically deserved acclaim. 

…Although a majority of Americans came to reject the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraqin proportions roughly as high as in the Vietnam era, the present knee-jerk association between military service and “our freedom” inhibits thinking about Washington’s highly militarized policies in the world.

In 2012, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes voiced a similar concern on a Memorial Day episode of his weekend talk-show. “It is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words ‘heroes,’” Hayes observed. “Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word ‘hero’? I feel comfortable — uncomfortable — about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.”

This sentiment was not well-received. Hayes quickly issued an apology. And yet, the idea that invoking the heroism of the war dead is “rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war” isn’t a radical one. In fact, it’s a notion tacitly endorsed by president Trump’s own speechwriters.

Last year, when the commander-in-chief made his argument for prolonging the longest war in American history – a conflict in which the U.S. has neither a credible strategy for victory, nor significant national interest – he devoted much of his remarks to celebrating the sacrifices of fallen soldiers.

American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives — and though their lives were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality.

By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and to remain one nation under God. The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission, and one shared sense of purpose.

…Our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.

But what the “men and women who serve our nation in combat” truly deserve is a country that reveres their lives more than their suffering – and, therefore, that only asks them to endure the latter in wars that are just, winnable, and necessary.

If we wish to honor McCain’s wartime-sacrifice, we must remember it less as an example of the kind of heroism we wish to emulate, than of the kind of tragedy that our nation is duty-bound to avoid repeating.

I’m constitutionally averse to getting too sentimental over war heroism. It’s not that I don’t admire physical courage. It’s just that I find the exercise of war itself to be so insane that it’s hard for me to separate those two feelings.

I get it. Wars are part of human nature. And once in great while it’s necessary to fight them when some psychopath can only be stopped with awful violence. But humans like wars, really like them, and that’s the part I can’t understand. War heroism seems to be part of that which is why I guess I’m reluctant to join those sorts of tributes. I would never insult the military. They aren’t the ones making the decisions. But neither do I think this military fetish is good for our country.

My dad was in WWII and Korea. He stayed connected to the military long after he retired from it and went into civilian life, working in the military industrial complex throughout his life. But he didn’t have this obsession with sacred “service” and was actually quite cynical and dark about war and the war machine. This new obsession and the pageantry and pomp wasn’t present when I was a kid born in the shadow of those big wars.

The romantic patriotism everyone has celebrated this week is very seductive. Who doesn’t like the rare communal feeling of listening to the music and seeing the flag flying and believing you re part of some grand idealistic experiment in freedom and opportunity? That’s all nice. But John McCain’s romantic patriotism also meant that he never saw a war he didn’t think America should fight — all in the name of freedom, of course. If you worship war heroes there’s always a need for wars isn’t there?

.

Coffee boy in hot water

Coffee boy in hot water

by digby

Emptywheel takes apart the Papadoupolous sentencing memo:

George Papadopoulos submitted his sentencing memo last night. Rather than writing an honest sentencing memo, he’s still working with co-conspirators, in this case, in hopes of getting a pardon from Trump. Reading it, I’d be shocked if the government doesn’t charge him as a knowing participant whenever they drop the conspiracy indictment.

PAPADOPOULOS CLAIMS HE TOLD TWO OTHER COUNTRIES RUSSIA WAS DEALING STOLEN EMAILS, BUT NOT HIS BOSSES

The most important sentences in the sentencing memo — which have no purpose in an actual sentencing memo — are his revelations that he kept denying that he had told the campaign that Russia was planning on releasing emails stolen from Hillary.

He told the agents he was unaware of anyone in the campaign knowing of the stolen Hillary Clinton emails prior to the emails being publicly released.

[snip]

If investigators wished to know what George did with the information from Professor Mifsud, they could have asked George during his interview. Indeed, they did ask if George provided the information to the campaign and George denied ever doing so. In his later proffer sessions, George reiterated that he does not recall ever passing the information along to the campaign.

The introduction to the second of these mentions in fact serves no other purpose than to provide an excuse to repeat, again, in case Trump missed it the first time, that Papadopoulos lied and continued to lie about telling the campaign about the emails.

Rick Gates (among others) has surely told the FBI this is a lie, but Papadopolous repeats the lies for Trump’s benefit.

And Papadopoulos makes this claim in spite of the fact that he casually told Alexander Downer about Russia dealing stolen emails and, in the memo, he admits he also told the Greek Foreign Minister.

He detailed a meeting in late May 2016 where he revealed to the Greek Foreign Minister that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. He explained that this meeting took place days before President Vladimir Putin traveled to Greece to meet with Greek officials.

So for the entire month of May, Papadopoulos was telling complete strangers about Russia dealing stolen Hillary emails. And yet, even though he professes to have “unbridled loyalty” to the Trump campaign, at a time he was thrilled that “his career [was] skyrocketing to unimaginable heights” and “gidd[y] over Mr. Trump’s recognition,” he didn’t tell any of those people on the campaign with whom he was currying favor.

Again, the notice that he always denied telling the campaign about Russia’s offer of stolen emails has no purpose in a sentencing memo designed as a sentencing memo. The FBI knows he continued to claim he didn’t tell the campaign. The judge — the one legally entrusted to sentence Papadopolous, anyway — has no need to know it. Trump, on the other hand, surely wants to know it.
TEN PAGES, OF WHICH THREE ARE DRIVEL

And Trump is presumably the only audience Papadopolous cares about with this memo, or he would have spent more time talking about the case (indeed, he would have made an effort to be honest) and less time spouting drivel. Much of the first three pages, for example, lead up to a request for probation served with platitudes like this:

It is essential that a court’s sentencing decision be informed and guided by the fundamental doctrines of mercy and compassion. See United States v. Blarek, 7 F.Supp.2d 192, 210 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). While these principles are not specifically delineated as rationales for sentencing, they are evidenced by the federal sentencing statute’s mandate that the court impose the lowest possible punishment to accomplish the goals of sentencing.

Papadopoulos does this without making an honest case about his conduct, but I guess it makes sense to start pitching Trump with a request for mercy.

There’s a lot more at the link.

I’ve never seen this kind of open begging for a pardon even before sentencing before. I’m not sure it’s ever happened. If it has I don’t think it’s ever been at the presidential level.

On the other hand, this won’t go over well:

Convicted former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos has publicly contradicted Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ sworn testimony to Congress, saying both Sessions and Donald Trump apparently supported his proposal that Trump meet with Vladimir Putin during the 2016 campaign, according to a court filing late Friday night.

“While some in the room rebuffed George’s offer, Mr. Trump nodded with approval and deferred to Mr. Sessions who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it. George’s giddiness over Mr. Trump’s recognition was prominent during the days that followed,”

He’s a confused puppy.

.

Begin it now by @BloggersRUs

Begin it now
by Tom Sullivan


Remedy NC district map suggested by federal court in Monday ruling.

Common Cause and The League of Women Voters of North Carolina on Monday won their federal partisan gerrymandering case. Writing for the three-judge district court, Judge James A. Wynn Jr. said plaintiffs had proved “invidious partisan discrimination” in the GOP-led legislature’s drawing 12 of the 13 districts. The court insisted on new maps for the November elections. Plaintiffs and the Republican legislator-defendants had until Friday to respond to the ruling. The GOP Chairman of the North Carolina Senate Redistricting Committee and his colleagues requested a stay on the court’s ruling and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“With utmost frustration and regret,” the plaintiffs acknowledged in their response, “attempting to impose a new districting plan in time for the 2018 election would be too disruptive and potentially counterproductive.” They requested the elections go ahead with the 2016 maps the court had just ruled illegal. Should that occur, the election nonetheless will be a travesty.

The Raleigh News and Observer has more, noting the three-judge panel isn’t required to use the plaintiffs’ suggestion. Neither does the court believe the defendants are entitled to a third bad-faith attempt to draw acceptable districts. It will appoint a special master. The ruling even hinted at an acceptable map (above).

What a 4:4 SCOTUS will do in the meantime is guesswork. Situation Normal, etc.

As drawn, the North Carolina districts ruled unconstitutional heavily favor Republican candidates. If, however, the lower court’s decision stands that regardless of what happens in 2018, the 2016 maps will not see use beyond 2018, fairly drawn districts open possibilities for Democrats in 2020. That requires laying groundwork now and a commitment to a view longer than a single election cycle.

Rep. Mark Meadows’ district in the western mountains, for example. The aim of the NCGOP’s original 2011 gerrymandering was to split the district’s blue baby in two, sending the larger part of Asheville to Rep. Patrick McHenry’s already very red NC-10. The effect of NC-10’s Asheville-grabbing, amoeba-like appendage was to make NC-11 uncompetitive for Democrats without harming McHenry. Democrat Heath Shuler had won the NC-11 seat in 2006 under different district lines. Seeing the handwriting on the map, Shuler retired. Freedom Caucus chair Meadows has held the NC-11 seat since 2013 without strong challenge.


2016 NC congressional maps ruled unconstitutional on Monday.

Should the court’s special master redraw the districts (before or after this year), Meadows will be vulnerable in 2020. Viable Democrats will emerge to challenge him and money will pour in.

But the time to put effort into NC-11 (as well as other NC districts) is now, win or lose, not 2020.

The progressive shift in western North Carolina began before North Carolina became a swing state. In 2004, Kathy Sinclair led the de facto John Kerry campaign in western North Carolina, organizing hundreds of volunteers opposed to the Bush administration. Democrat Patsy Keever (later a state House member and state party chair) took on seven-term Rep. Charles H. Taylor. Taylor’s bank was involved with fraud, conspiracy, money laundering, and shady Russians before that was presidential.

Both Kerry and Keever lost in 2004. But the experience gained by 2004 staff and volunteers from both teams set the stage for Shuler to defeat Taylor in 2006. Keever’s 2004 campaign was more the most fun I ever had losing, but watching Taylor concede on a rainy November day in 2006 was monumental. On Election Night 2008, late-reporting of vote from Asheville-Buncombe tipped North Carolina blue.

A lot of armchair progressives hate their GOP congressmen. They need to engage now, not wait until a more favorable map to do it. What they sow this year they can reap in 2020.

* * * * * * * * *

For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Friday Night Soother: baby elephant walk

Friday Night Soother: baby elephant walk

by digby

Via:

Animal care staff at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park are celebrating the birth of a baby Elephant, born just before midnight on World Elephant Day, August 12. The calf, a male, was born to mother Ndlulamitsi, better known as ‘Ndlula,’ without complications and began nursing shortly after birth.

“Mother and baby were in a small area of the yard, separate from the rest of the herd,” said Curtis Lehman, animal care supervisor at the Safari Park. “This separation, much like what would occur in natural habitats in Africa, allows mom and baby time for bonding.”

The baby Elephant, named Umzula-zuli, tipped the scales at more than 270 pounds—making him the largest Elephant calf ever born at the Safari Park. A newborn calf generally weights 200 to 268 pounds at birth. By late morning, with the baby appearing healthy and well bonded to his mother, animal care staff offered the pair the opportunity to move into a larger area of the habitat with the rest of the herd.

“This morning’s introduction of ‘Zuli’ to the other 12 Elephants in the herd was one of the most endearing animal scenes I have had the privilege of seeing,” said Mindy Albright, lead keeper, San Diego Zoo Safari Park. “The other Elephants were clearly excited to meet the new baby—touching him, trumpeting and smelling him with their trunks.”

The average gestation period for African Elephants is 649 days, or 22 months, so Zuli’s birth had been long anticipated. When the Park opened at 9 a.m., guests at the African Elephant overlook were able to see Ndlula and her newborn interacting with the herd. The new baby and his herd may also be seen on the Safari Park’s Elephant Cam.

The Safari Park is now home to 13 Elephants—4 adults and 9 youngsters. The adults were rescued in 2003 from the Kingdom of Swaziland, where they faced being culled. A lack of space and long periods of drought had created unsuitable habitat for a large Elephant population in the small southern African country. At the San Diego Zoo and the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, Elephant studies are underway on nutrition, daily walking distance, growth and development, and bioacoustic communication. Since 2004, San Diego Zoo Global has contributed $30,000 yearly to Swaziland’s Big Game Parks to fund programs like anti-poaching patrols, improve infrastructure and purchase additional acreage for the Big Game Parks. African Elephants are listed as Vulnerable to Extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).