RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Venezuela's Struggle to Survive Print
Saturday, 11 June 2016 08:39

Excerpt: "Amid a reassertion of U.S.-backed neoliberal policies in Latin America, Venezuela's socialist government totters at a tipping point, beset by a severe economic crisis, but Lisa Sullivan sees a ground-up struggle of Venezuelans to survive."

People stand in line to buy bread in San Cristóbal, Venezuela. (photo: Carlos García Rawlins/Reuters)
People stand in line to buy bread in San Cristóbal, Venezuela. (photo: Carlos García Rawlins/Reuters)


Venezuela's Struggle to Survive

By Lisa Sullivan, Consortium News

11 June 16

 

Amid a reassertion of U.S.-backed neoliberal policies in Latin America, Venezuela’s socialist government totters at a tipping point, beset by a severe economic crisis, but Lisa Sullivan sees a ground-up struggle of Venezuelans to survive.

or 32 years I have called Venezuela home. Its mountains have given me beauty, its barrios have given me music, its struggles have given me purpose, and its people have given me love. Its Bolivarian Revolution gave me hope.

How could I not feel hope when most of my neighbors –ages 2 to 70, were studying, right in our little potato-growing town in the mountains of western Venezuela. How could I not be hopeful when 18 neighbor families received new homes to replace their unhealthy, crowded living spaces?

How could I not be grateful when my partner received life-saving emergency surgery? Or when my blind friend Chuy had his sight restored. Both for free.

But today, this is what I see from my porch:  neighbors digging frantically in barren, already-harvested potato fields, hoping to find a few overlooked little spuds. Rastreando they call it. It is an act of desperation to find any food source to keep the kids from crying, because for months, the shelves of the stores have been bare.

How did this happen?  That is the question that I bolt awake to every morning.  As I watch Juan Carlos claw the fields for potatoes; as I embrace a tearful Chichila – up and waiting in line since 2 a.m., searching, unsuccessfully, to buy food for her large family; as I see the pounds shed before my eyes from 10-year-old Fabiola. I am glad that my mangos are ripening now. They take some of the empty glare from Fabi’s eyes.

It is often in the deep of the night that I am kept awake by the burning question: When and how will all this end?  Followed by:  And what should I be doing?

When I keep thinking it can’t get any worse, it does.  When friends from the U.S. write to ask if they should believe the scary articles about Venezuela’s crisis in the press, I want to say no. Because I know that global vultures are circling my adopted nation, waiting for us to fall.  Venezuela is, after all, home to the planet’s largest reserves of oil.

Much of their suspicion of the barrage of articles about Venezuela’s crisis is the fact that almost every article begins and ends with the same mantra: Socialism = Hunger.  A good example is a recent article in Town Hall entitled: “Venezuelan Socialism Fails at Feeding the Children.” The article goes on to elaborate that between 12 and 26 percent of Venezuelans kids are food insecure (depending on their geography), which would average 19.3 percent childhood hunger in the country.

Just for a comparison, I looked up child hunger in the U.S. and found that most sites use the figure one in five. Or 20 percent. So, in the world’s most prosperous nation 20 percent of children face hunger, while in Venezuela the number is 19.3 percent .  Since these statistics are so close, I suggest that Town Hall publish a more accurate and equally urgent article entitled: “US Capitalism Fails at Feeding the Children, and Venezuelan Socialism Does only Slightly Better.”

But most of our caution with these stories comes because we smell danger.  How many times have we seen the first step on that well-traveled road to U.S. intervention paved by these heart-wrenching  stories rammed 24/7 by the media. They lay the groundwork, help to justify almost anything.

However, in spite of awareness of why we are being bombarded with stories of Venezuela’s crisis,  out of respect for friends, neighbors and family in Venezuela, I must acknowledge that this crisis is real and is brutal.  It is a crisis of critical shortages of food and medicine. Its reasons are extremely complex and fall on many shoulders. And it threatens the health, well-being and future of too many Venezuelans today, especially the poorest ones, such as my neighbors.

What Happened?

How did the nation with the world’s largest reserves come to this, a nation of hungry and desperate people?  Well, that depends on who you ask. The opposition blames President Nicolas Maduro. Maduro blames the U.S. The press blames socialism. Maduro’s ruling party blames capitalism. Economists blame price controls. Businesses blame bureaucracy. Everyone blames corruption.

Most would agree, however, that the underlying culprit is a three letter word.  OIL – the source of 95 percent of Venezuela’s exports. OIL – the cash cow that funds easy, cheap imports. OIL- the export giant that deters domestic production.

Living in a rural community that actually does produce food, and having also traveled extensively in this lush and fertile country, it is sometimes hard to believe that Venezuela imports more than 70 percent of its food.  But I shouldn’t be surprised. Quite simply, for decades, it has been much cheaper to import food than to produce it.

At least that was the case when oil prices were up. And they were up for a long time. As recently as two years ago, the price of oil was about $115 per barrel. This February, Venezuelan crude plummeted to barely $23 a barrel. That is only $3 more than the approximately $20 cost of extracting it.

So, when the profit per barrel of oil goes from $95 to $3, it’s like your salary going from something like $50,000 a year to $1,600. Could you feed your household?

Well, if you were wise, you would have saved for a rainy day, or not put all your eggs in one basket, or at least grown some food in your backyard in case you couldn’t get to the supermarket.  Indeed, the late President Hugo Chavez talked a lot about this. And he even took some steps to set this in motion.

But somehow, economic diversification never happened.  Oil became a larger share of the economy under the Bolivarian revolution. Imports grew. Some say this was because Chavez was too preoccupied with the task of providing healthcare, education and shelter to a previously-abandoned household before launching on major home repairs.

Some say because chavismo made it very hard for businesses to produce (although in reality, most large businesses in Venezuela don’t actually produce, they just import things already produced. And, then – to boot – they actually purchase them with dollars provided almost for free by the government.)  That puts a little perspective on their rants.

With oil prices crashing to the basement this winter, Venezuela  could no longer afford to import food. And to make matters worse, most of the imported trickles of food and medicine that do reach Venezuela these days, never actually reach the average person. Especially the average poor person.  A good chunk of this food and this medicine ends up in the greedy hands of corrupt businesses, bureaucrats, military, ruling party members, and black-marketers.

Scarcity almost always leads to hoarding and scalping products. But add to that mix the fact that most basic food and medicines are price-controlled by the government.  A kilo of corn flour costs about 2 cents at the regulated price, and can easily fetch at $2 – or much, much more – on the black market. Who wouldn’t want to get their hand in this business of hoarding and reselling? Especially considering that the salary of even an engineer hovers around $30 – $40 a month.

And I haven’t even talked about the dysfunctional currency system that contributes to the diminishing power of salaries. There is only too much bad economic stuff to stomach.

The Harsh Reality

No matter what the reason, the result that matters now is this: Venezuela depends almost totally on imports  for most items of basic necessity, and it has almost run out of money to buy these imports, which these days mostly end up in the wrong hands anyway.

Obviously, getting the motors of domestic agriculture and production up and running is the long-term solution. But while all this will take years – perhaps decades – Fabi is hungry.

So, is it true that Venezuela is about to go over the edge?  Well, it may, even before I finish this article. My partner just texted to say that roads to our town are blocked with hunger protests and he is returning to the city.

But to me, the extraordinary thing is that Venezuela has not exploded until now. This crisis is now several years old really, depending on how you measure it.

The fact that the upper echelons of Venezuelan have not exploded is because many have given up on their country and left: two million, mostly young professionals. They are the ones who can qualify for the visas and afford the plane tickets. Some with fewer resources have also left, like those who are paddling to neighboring islands in handmade rafts, including a few whose lifeless bodies drifted to the shores of Aruba.

The fact that those at the lower economic rung have not yet exploded (until now) has different reasons. Venezuelans are an extremely generous people, with a natural sense of solidarity. Whenever those few small spuds are culled from neighboring fields by Rafa, he places a bag of them at my doorstep. I pass bananas to Jenny over my fence. She passes pinto beans to Erica over hers. Erica passes yucca next door to Chichila, Fabi brings me fish that she caught when skipping school, I provide the oil in which to fry it.

This solidarity and natural bartering system that has unfolded in our Venezuela-in-crisis is beautiful, and it is what has allowed us to survive until now. These good-news stories can’t complete with the bad news that the press loves, you have to come and see with your own eyes.

The second reason for delayed explosion is this: Most Venezuelans know that chavismo has (or had) their back, and are very reluctant to give it up. President Chavez very concretely and very pro-actively cared about them. He reduced poverty dramatically and created the most economically equal society in the Americas.

In contrast, the opposition is widely perceived as caring only about themselves. Probably this is because their only agenda item over the years was to topple the government. Small wonder they rarely won the many national elections over the past 17 years.

The opposition did, however win December’s parliamentary elections. Decisively so.  But many see this as less a vote of confidence for the opposition, than one of punishment against the Maduro administration, perceived as tone-deaf to their suffering. Although many share Maduro’s belief that the crisis is caused by the right-wing-led economic war , they wonder why he hasn’t done more to combat it.

But this is my sense of the moment:  The majority of Venezuelans today are not fans of the opposition. Nor are they fans of the current administration. However (to the chagrin of the State Department) this doesn’t mean that the majority of Venezuelans are not fans of chavismo).

Solutions, Anyone? 

So, what is to be done? The solutions to the crisis are as conflicting as the causes. The three major players (Venezuelan government, opposition, and the U.S.) spend endless amounts of time and resources pointing fingers of blame to one another, while doing a poor job of hiding their real political and economic interests. Meanwhile, the losers are the people of Venezuela, who grow hungrier and hungrier.

Somewhat better solutions are coming from Latin America itself. The region has become far more integrated and vastly more independent from the U.S. than previously (and many believe this to be Hugo Chavez’s greatest legacy). This was clear when OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro tried to set into motion Venezuela’s removal from the organization. He received resounding no from its members, including those of the new emerging right. Instead, the OAS member states opted to give support to an ongoing process of dialogue between the government and the opposition. The idea of government-opposition dialogue is not a bad idea. It’s just not enough.

The long-term solution to Venezuela’s problems must come from all sectors of Venezuela. Not just from two polar opposites who have driven Venezuelans to hunger in their pursuit of political and economic power.

Many, but not all, of those excluded identify with chavismo. But there is no political space for them in the tightly controlled hierarchical ruling party structure, nor room for them on the ballot (the largest political party that identifies with chavismo was excluded from elections because the electoral board did not like their name.) Some identify more with the opposition, especially certain pragmatic administrators willing to listen to and accommodate ideas from across the aisle.

Most of these in-between sectors, that I believe make up Venezuela’s majority, want to see less political rhetoric and more economic action. The currency system must undergo radical change. The poor must be guaranteed access to food, but not by subsidizing the product (which ends up in the hands of the corrupt and not the mouths of the poor), but subsidizing their families.

And finally, there is a treasure trove of creative grassroots initiatives and productive solutions that this crisis has unleashed and that merit attention. While Maduro prays for higher oil prices and markets his nation’s pristine lands to Canadian mining companies in a desperate lunge for dollars; and while the U.S. and the Venezuelan opposition push for social explosion and/or military uprising; the  people of Venezuela  are busy.

They are busy planting food in their backyards and patios, using alternative medicine, sharing with one another, developing a barter system, and creating hundreds, or maybe thousands of products from recycled or locally-sourced renewable sources . These may not totally solve the immediate food crisis but, in the long run, they may actually be opening the door to the kind of society in which we can all survive and thrive.

And back to that 3 a.m. question of what can I do. I guess just more of the same, writing down my thoughts and ripping up more of my lawns to plant food with my neighboring children. Two more hours and I”ll be up with the dawn, awaiting Fabi and friends with shovel and hoe in hand.



Lisa Sullivan has lived in Latin America since 1977. She was a Maryknoll lay worker in Bolivia and Venezuela for over 20 years, coordinator for School of the Americas Watch and founder of grassroots leadership group, Centro de Formación Rutilio Grande. She has three children, raised in Barquisimeto Venezuela.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump: Mexicans Swarming Across Border, Enrolling in Law School, and Becoming Biased Judges Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Friday, 10 June 2016 14:43

Borowitz writes: "At a rally in San Jose, the presumptive Republican nominee said that 'making America great again' meant preventing the nation from becoming 'overrun by Mexican judges.'"

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)


Trump: Mexicans Swarming Across Border, Enrolling in Law School, and Becoming Biased Judges

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

10 June 16

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

nless the United States builds a wall, Mexicans will swarm across the border, enroll in law school en masse, and eventually become biased judges, Donald J. Trump warned supporters on Monday.

At a rally in San Jose, the presumptive Republican nominee said that “making America great again” meant preventing the nation from becoming “overrun by Mexican judges.”

“We don’t win anymore,” he told the crowd. “We don’t win at judges.”

While Trump offered no specific facts to support his latest allegations, he said that he had heard about the threat of incoming Mexican judges firsthand from border-patrol agents.

“They see hundreds of these Mexicans, and they’re coming across the border with LSAT-prep books,” he said. “It’s a disgrace.”

In a line that drew a rousing ovation from supporters, Trump blasted Mexican leaders for their role in the crisis, claiming, “They’re sending us their worst people: lawyers.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Fighting Tradition Print
Friday, 10 June 2016 14:33

Trasciatti writes: "The Verizon strike recaptured some of the uncompromising militancy of the early American labor movement."

Striking Verizon workers picket in Manhattan. (photo: Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times)
Striking Verizon workers picket in Manhattan. (photo: Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times)


The Fighting Tradition

By Mary Anne Trasciatti, Jacobin

10 June 16

 

The Verizon strike recaptured some of the uncompromising militancy of the early American labor movement.

fter decades of decline, the labor movement is flexing its muscles again. On April 13, approximately thirty-nine thousand Verizon workers represented by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) walked off the job over a contract impasse. Six weeks later, the union called off the strike and claimed a victory.

Highlights of the new contract (yet to be ratified) include an increase in wages, preservation of job security provisions, an increase in call center jobs within the existing footprint, and a first-ever contract for Verizon Wireless retail workers at two locations in Massachusetts.

Radicals have argued for some time that if labor is going to rise again, it needs to abandon tepid tactics and re-embrace militant strikes.

A hundred years ago, radical unions like the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) pioneered the disruptive tactics that the industrial unions of the 1930s would use to build the modern labor movement.

While the economic and political landscape has changed considerably since those early twentieth century strikes, Verizon workers have shown a similar ingenuity and tenaciousness — and provided a blueprint for others in the contemporary labor movement.

Wobblies knew that the best spot to hit the boss was his wallet. Manufacturing workers took money out of capital’s pocket by halting production or, in the case of mining industries, extraction.

The 1912 textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, often referred to as the Bread and Roses Strike, brought the worsted wool industry to a standstill. The following year, strikers tried to shut down silk production in Paterson, New Jersey. And in 1916, iron miners in northeast Minnesota refused to dig ore during the Mesabi Range strike.

“Look for your opponent’s vulnerabilities” — it could be a quote from the fierce and famous Wobbly organizer Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. But in fact it’s Mike Gendron, vice president of CWA Local 1108, explaining his strike strategy.

In Verizon’s case, the exploitable weakness was not on the shop floor, but the trading floor. “Verizon is a Fortune 200 Company. Wall Street is their master,” Gendron told me. “You’re looking to impact the stock value, revenue. Highlight the fact that customer service is terrible because they’re hiring scabs from out of state. And the managers have no experience.”

Because of the dispersed nature of the retail industry, the CWA was also active at the point of sale. Strikers set up outside of Verizon Wireless stores across the Northeast — one of the union’s two “avenues of attack,” in the words of Local 1106’s Anthony Eramo.

Two strikers would stand in front of the doors passing out flyers, while others picketed. The aim was to get positive exposure, educate customers, and hamper sales of new lines, which reportedly declined 20–30 percent during the strike.

A byzantine set of federal rules governed their behavior. Whistling could be sporadic but not rhythmic. Air horns and megaphones were prohibited. Walking in front of driveways was allowed, although police officers unaware of the rules occasionally threatened strikers with arrest.

The other avenue of attack was the mobile picket. First used in 1912 by Lawrence strikers, workers in those days would encircle a factory or some other place of business and try to convince strikebreakers, verbally and sometimes physically, not to go to work.

Today, a mobile picket might traverse several miles on a highway, but the goal is the same. Just with more baroque restrictions.

As Eramo explains: “When a van leaves a facility to do our work we are by law allowed to follow that vehicle, as long as we remain fifteen feet away, with no more than five guys picketing one person.”

Verizon strikers taunted, screamed, and generally attempted to make the situation as uncomfortable as possible for scabs. Eramo says the surveillance and heckling were very effective, “and kind of intimidating.”

When tempers flared, the picket turned into a contest between dueling cameras. Scabs tried to catch strikers making threats or engaging in other prohibited behaviors (which could cost them their jobs when the strike was over), and strikers recorded their own video for proof of innocence.

Wobblies knew that a strike was more likely to endure and succeed when strikers remained engaged. Picketers in Lawrence and Paterson sung their hearts out. They marched in strike parades and processed for May Day.

Led by Italian anarchist Carlo Tresca, whose flair for the dramatic is hard to exaggerate, they held public funerals (both mock and genuine) for fallen comrades.

Such tactics effectively transformed the strike into a form of political theater. In the case of Paterson, strikers actually reenacted their struggle as a pageant in New York City’s Madison Square Garden.

The CWA showed a similar penchant for performance. Pennsylvania strikers staged a funeral procession for the “corporate pig” (complete with a casket) in a Verizon retail parking lot that would have had Tresca cheering.

But the most raucous actions were reserved for hotels that put up strikebreakers — strikers harbored particular disdain for scabs who were willing to travel to take their jobs. Hundreds gathered at 5 AM to ring cowbells, blow whistles, bellow, and jeer until police arrived with special response teams.

Technically a form of third-party picketing, the tactic is illegal. It was also very popular. And it proved successful. At least one Manhattan hotel kicked out strikebreakers that were staying there.

Pivoting from hotels and retail stores, ten CWA members attended the annual Verizon shareholders meeting in Albuquerque to pressure the company. Their presence was buttressed by members of Citizen Action and the Working Families Party, who engaged in civil disobedience before the meeting.

Once inside, all ten CWA members questioned the board about astronomical executive compensation and other issues on the ballot.

Gendron asked Verizon about its plans for green initiatives and requested more company transparency regarding money donated to Super PACs.

Gendron and the other CWA attendees did not expect to change company policy. For them, going to the meeting was a matter of standing up and being heard by the bigwigs.

In doing so, they had to contend with a media often hostile to strikers. The IWW addressed that problem by publishing its own newspapers, Solidarity and The Industrial Worker.

In 1920, left-wing labor advocates established the Federated Press news service to provide daily content to labor and left newspapers around the country.

For their part, striking Verizon workers knew they couldn’t possibly outmaneuver or outspend the telecommunications giant for television or print coverage.

So they turned to social media, posting photos and videos of various mobilization activities, protests against CEO Lowell McAdam, and declarations of support from municipal governments.

Coverage of the Verizon strike was minimal (if largely even-handed) in mainstream news outlets. Consequently, most Americans likely only had a foggy idea of the picket lines stretching across the Northeast.

Even news of the settlement was drowned out by accounts of violence at a Trump rally and the growing brouhaha over Hillary Clinton’s email account. Next time around, the union is going to have to reach beyond Facebook and Twitter if it wants to generate public sympathy and support.

Fortunately, they’ll have a nascent international base to draw on.

During the strike, in a remarkable demonstration of transnational solidarity, the union sent a handful of rank-and-filers to a call center in Quezon City, Philippines, where they marched with workers (and were threatened with bodily harm by local law enforcement).

Their Filipino comrades, in turn, channeled reports about Verizon’s declining profits and increasing customer dissatisfaction to the CWA’s national office. This kind of internationalist solidarity, second nature to early generations of labor radicals, needs to be strengthened for future fights.

The Wobblies also knew that labor’s concerns didn’t stop at the workplace. In the early twentieth century, IWW radicals realized that limitations on political speech hampered their organizing efforts.

So between 1909 and 1916, they spearheaded a series of free speech fights in cities around the country. The union’s stand sparked a national conversation about the meaning of the First Amendment and inspired founders of the ACLU.

In 2016, climate change is arguably the most pressing issue outside of bread-and-butter concerns. Gendron’s question at the shareholders’ meeting about green initiatives suggests the CWA is interested in leveraging its power for environmental justice.

Going forward, if it’s able to meld an expansive progressive vision with dogged, militant tactics, the CWA will continue to be a model for the rest of the labor movement.

On the picket line, though, workers were grappling with more immediate concerns.

As the strike was entering its seventh week, Gendron prepared to grind it out. “When you have a campaign like this one there’s no silver bullet, no stake in the heart, it’s death by a thousand cuts. You’re up against real powerful forces here.”

When I asked him whether the union would outlast CEO Lowell McAdam, his response was unequivocal. “We’re all in, and we’re not going away. We have no other choice. The terms they want us to exist under will ruin us, and we’re not going to let that happen.”

Like striking mill workers in Lawrence, Paterson, and the Mesabi Range a century before them, the CWA realized it had more to gain than to lose from militant struggle. Gendron insisted: “We’re a strong and militant union. I would fight this to the very end.”

Workers I met on the picket line shared his determination. According to one member of Local 1104, “Rich people are not benevolent. You have to force them to give you what you’ve earned.”

Or, as the mill workers of Lawrence chanted as they walked defiantly out of the factories over a hundred years ago, “Better to starve fighting than to starve working!”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: We Now Know the Stakes of This Election Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Friday, 10 June 2016 12:47

Pierce writes: "HRC will probably edge back toward 'the middle.' However, 'the middle' is not where it used to be, blessings be unto Baal."

Senator Elizabeth Warren with Vice President Joe Biden. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
Senator Elizabeth Warren with Vice President Joe Biden. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)


We Now Know the Stakes of This Election

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

10 June 16

 

Thursday's endorsements drew the battle lines.

ong about 10:10 Thursday night, after an altogether remarkable day of political rhetoric and fence-mending in Washington, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times said that Senator Professor Warren would not be Hillary Rodham Clinton's vice presidential candidate because, now that the general election pretty much has begun, HRC will have to "tack toward the middle."

Everybody drink!

(And here is where I always tell you bastids to leave my senior senator alone. We found ours. Go find yer own!)

From a certain perspective, and I'm fairly sure it's not the perspective he had in mind, Kristof was correct. HRC will probably edge back toward "the middle." However, "the middle" is not where it used to be, blessings be unto Baal. 

"The middle," for example, is not where it was when HRC's husband had the big job. "The middle" is not even where it was when this president was inaugurated. Right now, as even the president admitted last week while talking about expanding Social Security (in Indiana), "the middle" is a place that has slid decidedly to port. The reason it has done so is that the old Bill Clinton solutions—many of which merely amounted to survival strategies, for his party and, ultimately, for himself—now represent the dogmas of the quiet past which are insufficient to our current stormy present. 

There were great shifts in the tectonic plates beneath our politics during the near-collapse of the entire economy. The tremors out in the country may have eluded the smart folks who organize campaigns in Washington, but they knocked down millions of lives in thousands of places. There was an awful lot of energy whirling around in the population ready to be tapped. I'm not sure HRC knew how strong it really was until Bernie Sanders went out there and marshalled it against her. 

She knows now. 

She saw it Thursday, when the remarkable murderers' row of surrogates she will have at her disposal all took their turn lining up with her. You'd have to be a blind and tone-deaf politician not to be affected by that—or by the inchoate rage that has animated the campaign of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Or stupid. HRC is none of those things.

The power of this new message, which has sprung unbidden from the unimaginable fraud that nearly killed the world, was best exemplified by the fire-and-ice speeches given to a gathering of progressive lawyers last night by SPW and Vice President Joseph Biden. SPW was in full roar, hanging Trump's assault on Judge Gonzalo Curiel around the necks of every Republican leader, and linking it to a well-financed and decades-long attempt by conservatives to lard up the federal judiciary with safe judges who were guaranteed to provide legal cover for the money power.

Where do you suppose that Donald Trump got the idea that he can personally attack judges regardless of the law whenever they don't bend to the whims of billionaires and big businesses? He's a Mitch McConnell kind of candidate ... He is exactly the kind of candidate you'd expect from a Republican Party whose script for several years has been to execute a full scale assault on the integrity of our courts, blockading judicial appointments so Donald Trump can fill them. Smearing and intimidating nominees who do not pledge allegiance to the financial interests of the rich and powerful. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want Donald Trump to appoint the next generation of judges. They want those judges to tilt the law in favor of big businesses and billionaires like Donald Trump. They just want Donald Trump to quit being so vulgar and obvious about it.

For his part, after doing his customary and endearing tour of stuff that popped into his head at the moment, Biden's treatment of the same material was cold-eyed and almost mournful.

"What does the court have? It has its reputation that it is in fact impartial. That it is in fact prepared to rule on the merits. It is not subject to intimidation. That's a precious, precious, precious commodity that in our separation of powers the court cannot afford to be undermined. All of these protections were designed to do two things—reinforce in the minds of the public the absolute impartiality of the federal judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, and protect the judiciary from being influenced by the two political branches…It sounds almost like a high school civics class, but it's real. It matters…For a candidate to call a judge a 'hater,' 'a total disgrace,' because he allowed people victimized by the candidate in his capacity as a private citizen to proceed, and because the judge dares to unseal some documents, which is in his power to do, detailing their victimization…Mr. Trump is not unique in his attempt to intimidate the federal judiciary. Other private citizens have attempted to pressure the federal judiciary, but not private citizens who are placed in close range of the White House by one of our great political parties…My view is that a presidential candidate who publicly attacks a sitting federal judge who ruled against his own economic interests cannot be trusted to respect the independence of the judiciary as a president….Let's look at what that presumptive nominee said. His own words. After calling the judge presiding over a fraud suit against him a 'total disgrace,' Mr. Trump said, and I quote, 'But we will come back in November, and won't that be wild, if I'm president and I do a civil case.' He went on to say, and I'm quoting, 'Wouldn't it be wild, as president, to come back in November and do a civil case?' How can that be interpreted as anything but a direct threat?...These are the words of someone who would defy the courts if they ruled against him in a case."

In a country just now still emerging from a scandalous looting of the national wealth, and in a country in which the feeling that every institution of government is an elaborate bag job, the Republican Party is preparing to nominate a dangerous and reckless amateur to the most powerful job on earth. 

That is the alpha and omega of the election. Those are the only stakes that matter. That battle began Thursday.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Note to My Friend Bernie Sanders Print
Friday, 10 June 2016 08:46

Reich writes: "Bernie Sanders has inspired millions of us to get involved in politics - and to fight the most important and basic of all fights on which all else depends: to reclaim our economy and democracy from the moneyed interests."

Robert Reich. (photo: Rolling Stone)
Robert Reich. (photo: Rolling Stone)


A Note to My Friend Bernie Sanders

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

10 June 16

 

ear Bernie:

I don’t know what you’re going to do from here on, and I’m not going to advise you. You’ve earned the right to figure out the next steps for your campaign and the movement you have launched.

But let me tell you this: You’ve already succeeded.

At the start they labeled you a “fringe” candidate – a 74-year-old, political Independent, Jewish, self-described democratic socialist, who stood zero chance against the Democratic political establishment, the mainstream media, and the moneyed interests.

Then you won 22 states.

And in almost every state – even in those you lost – you won vast majorities of voters under 30, including a majority of young women and Latinos. And most voters under 45.

You have helped shape the next generation.

You’ve done it without SuperPACs or big money from corporations, Wall Street, and billionaires. You did it with small contributions from millions of us. You’ve shown it can be done without selling your soul or compromising your conviction.

You’ve also inspired millions of us to get involved in politics – and to fight the most important and basic of all fights on which all else depends: to reclaim our economy and democracy from the moneyed interests.

Your message – about the necessity of single-payer healthcare, free tuition at public universities, a $15 minimum wage, busting up the biggest Wall Street banks, taxing the financial speculation, expanding Social Security, imposing a tax on carbon, and getting big money out of politics – will shape the progressive agenda from here on.

Your courage in taking on the political establishment has emboldened millions of us to stand up and demand our voices be heard.

Regardless of what you decide to do now, you have ignited a movement that will fight onward. We will fight to put more progressives into the House and Senate. We will fight at the state level. We will organize for the 2020 presidential election.

We will not succumb to cynicism. We are in it for the long haul. We will never give up.

Thank you, Bernie.

Bob

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Next > End >>

Page 2012 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN