September 15, 2014
JEP Diplomacy
Tuesday, November 24, 2020
James Patterson Reviews Letter on Ukraine from President Barack Obama
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
James Patterson and Breaking Point The War for Democracy in Ukraine
July 15, 2016
Dear Jim,
111 years after the sailor’s mutiny aboard the Russian battleship Potemkin and 90 years after Soviet film director’s Sergei Eisenstein’s monumental film comes the epic documentary BREAKING POINT: The War for Democracy in Ukraine. The decision by Ukrainians to pursue prosperity with Europe brought on Russian aggression and illegal annexation of Crimea. In both films men and women seeking peace and freedom confront brutality and death.
Battleship Potemkin is famous for its depiction of Russian troops gunning down ordinary citizens on the Odessa Steps. The filmmakers of BREAKING POINT similarly bring the audience unflinchingly close to images of the war unleashed by Russia, using startling documentary footage and emotional interviews with participants to make us feel that “We Are There”.
Free societies value a people’s right to peaceful protest and self-determination. It is a rare film that can demonstrate these democratic values and can inspire people suffering from oppression. BREAKING POINT shows courageous Ukrainians striving to live as a free people in peace and prosperity, in a world ruled by laws, not by gun, tank or bomb.
Monday, August 17, 2020
James (Jim) Patterson Redirects Readers.
This site is no longer maintained by Mr. Patterson. He posts his work on his LinkedIn page. See
https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-patterson-474002a8/ He has a Facebook Page at Foriegn Service Career Coach.
James Patterson Group
Washington, D.C.
August 2020
Friday, February 21, 2020
Jim Patterson on U.S. Sanctions on Members of Iran's Guardian Council
U.S. sanctions clerics in Iran over election
Matthew Lee, ASSOCIATED PRESS February 21, 2020
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration on Thursday ratcheted up pressure on Iran by slapping sanctions on top members of a powerful clerical body that disqualified thousands of candidates from running in that country’s parliamentary elections.
A day before Iranians go to the polls, the administration imposed sanctions on two senior officials of the Guardian Council, including its chief and three members of its elections supervisory committee. Officials said those targeted were responsible for silencing the voice of the Iranian people by rejecting more than 7,000 candidates. See endnote 1.
The penalties announced by the State and Treasury departments include freezes on any assets the five may have in U.S. jurisdictions, or that they try to move through the U.S. banking system. Also, Americans are barred from doing business with them. It was not immediately clear if the sanctions would have any practical effect, but Brian Hooks, the U.S. special envoy for Iran, said it’s important to highlight the role of clerics who are not widely known outside Iran. Endnote 2.
Thursday’s announcement was the latest move in the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran that began after the president withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear deal and began to re-impose sanctions that had been eased under that accord.
Barely a week goes by without new sanctions. U.S. officials have said the campaign will continue until Iran changes its behavior.
The five Iranians targeted Thursday “have denied the Iranian people free and fair parliamentary elections,” Hook told reporters. “Together these five officials oversee a process that silences the voice of the Iranian people, curtails their freedom and limits their political participation.”
Those targeted include the chief of the council, Ahmad Jannati, and senior member Mohammad Yazdi. Jannati, 92, is a hard-line cleric who once supported former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yazdi is another influential member of the council who served as the Iran’s judiciary chief in the 1990s. The sanctions also affect Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the council’s spokesman.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Jim Patterson and Vice President Mike Pence
Jim Patterson is a member of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations and Friend of the Israeli Defense Forces.
I mailed President Trump a copy of my recent New York Post, Letter to the Editor.
Saturday, November 2, 2019
Jim Patterson Commentary on Global Political Advertising By Social Media Re: San Francisco Chronicle Editorial
EDITORIAL On Political Advertising
A social network disconnect
This fall, Facebook announced that the company wouldn’t fact-check advertisements from politicians, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has faced a tsunami of political and media criticism ever since.
On Wednesday, he faced the most interesting rebuke so far — from one of his peers.
“We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally,” tweeted Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey. “We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.”
Dorsey went on to explain what he believed to be the difference between free expression and political advertising: “Paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle,” he wrote.
He added that it was “not credible” for Twitter to say that it was working hard to stop people from “gaming our systems,” but that they “can say whatever they want” should they pay Twitter for a targeted ad.
Both statements were a clear swipe at Zuckerberg, who has insisted that Facebook’s policy is about democratic free speech, and that the company’s investments in election security are working to prevent bad actors from spreading misinformation on the platform. (Dorsey certainly drove the point home by making his announcement just a few minutes ahead of Facebook’s quarterly earnings call.)
It’s certainly entertaining to watch two tech titans duke it out in the court of public opinion, but this battle is bigger than both of them.
Political misinformation on social media platforms warped the 2016 presidential election. In the years since then, technological improvements in artificial intelligence and “deep fake” video have increased the sophistication of misinformation campaigns, while inaction on Capitol Hill and loopholes in platform policy have ensured that bad actors will continue finding ways to deceive voters.
The landscape is complicated, and there are no easy answers.
Zuckerberg’s refusal to engage with the realities of political propaganda and platform responsibility is sophomoric and dangerous. Free speech is not the same thing as paid speech. Neither is the same as misinformation. It’s galling enough that Facebook has chosen to profit from the latter; pretending that it’s doing so for the good of the republic is simply outrageous.
Hundreds of Facebook’s own employees agree — in a letter they recently sent to Zuckerberg, they wrote “this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections around the world,” and urged him to hold political ads to the same standards as other ads. Vocal internal dissent is relatively rare at Facebook. The public opposition of both employees and competitors should encourage Zuckerberg to reconsider this decision — ideally as soon as possible.
But Dorsey’s approach carries risks of its own. How will Twitter judge what kind of advertising should be labeled political? Could the policy have a disproportionate impact on advocates for social causes, or new candidates seeking to challenge incumbents?
When an increasing number of issues carry political overtones, simply banning political advertising is a more complex task than it may first appear.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Jim Patterson Reports on the 40th Anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis
Lecture: Iran Hostage Crisis 40th Anniversary Panel Discussion