RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Carly Fiorina: The GOP's Anti-Woman Woman Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32445"><span class="small">Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Sunday, 01 May 2016 12:56

Lund writes: "On Tuesday, Donald Trump swept all five Republican presidential primaries. The next day, Ted Cruz, who now cannot enter the Republican National Convention as a first-ballot winner without somehow impossibly winning 104 percent of the remaining primary delegates, named Carly Fiorina as his running mate."

Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz. (photo: Eric Thayer/The New York Times)
Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz. (photo: Eric Thayer/The New York Times)


Carly Fiorina: The GOP's Anti-Woman Woman

By Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone

01 May 16

 

If a quarter century of sexism hasn't bothered Republican voters up to now, what does Fiorina offer?

n Tuesday, Donald Trump swept all five Republican presidential primaries. The next day, Ted Cruz, who now cannot enter the Republican National Convention as a first-ballot winner without somehow impossibly winning 104 percent of the remaining primary delegates, named Carly Fiorina as his running mate.

There's an indispensable Simpsons moment where Homer's brain says, "That's it, I'm gettin' outta here," before you hear the sounds of footsteps and a door slamming. That moment might as well be now. 

Sometime next year we'll all have to figure out when the moment happened to each of us, probably to some more profound organ. Call it a soul, the spirit, a lingering faith that something meaningful is happening. We will all have to pinpoint the moment each of us broke. It doesn't even have to be a serious or grand moment. It can be stupid. It just has to be enough.

Cruz and Fiorina are enough. My God, are they ever enough. A bumper crop, mother lode and doorbuster clearance of it. They are such a surfeit of enough that it's practically homeopathy: one molecule of themselves diluted endlessly amongst the world's tides would fix us all for good.

You can see why Cruz's picking Fiorina happened, if you need to view these things through the kaleidoscope of election sense. Ted Cruz knew Wednesday's news cycle would feature wall-to-wall coverage of Donald Trump handing him his ass in a box stamped RETURN TO HOUSTON. He knew Trump's closing press conference comments about Hillary Clinton and his history of misogyny are a relevant electoral liability. And he knew Carly Fiorina is a woman and not busy doing anything else right now.

This is Cruz's argument: Forget that I'm losing and pay attention to how — with the help of Carly Fiorina, noted woman — I wouldn't lose a general election the same way Donald Trump will.

There's no doubt that Cruz and Fiorina will get along just as well on the ticket as they have for the past several weeks. For one thing, they are two spectacular failed approximations of human beings, a man-and-woman pair with more rigid affect and two-dimensional representation of what people are like than the plaque NASA slapped on the sides of Pioneer 10 and 11.

They campaign alike, too. Ted Cruz "totally didn't coordinate" with his super PAC by recording hours of forced family video and leaving them on YouTube where they could be "found" and turned into commercials. Carly Fiorina "totally didn't coordinate" with her super PAC — which hilariously skirted the naming rules by being an acronym that spelled out CARLY — despite having almost zero official campaign and publicly booking appearances where that gosh darn super PAC could always track her down! 

Both of them have a fun sense of biography. Ted Cruz comes from the Ivy League and once clerked for William Rehnquist and cynically portrays himself as a down-home duck-huntin' yahoo who doesn't know that Jemmy Madison would kick his ass up and down Independence Hall for treating the First Amendment as a blueprint for a Christian theocracy.

Fiorina cratered two companies and blames every economic woe on bureaucracy, despite the latter being impotent enough that it didn't stop HP from using a third party to circumvent U.S. sanctions against Iran during her tenure. She also wants to fight for American jobs, despite shipping 30,000 of them to China, equivalent to half the population of Palo Alto, where her company was headquartered.

Both are great at following a script when it comes to a really good lie. Just as Ted Cruz reliably lets you know that we are one liberal Supreme Court justice away from sandblasting all the crosses and Stars of David off the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery, Fiorina hit her marks over and over again during the debates. 

Remember the impassioned testimony at seeing a video of an abortion that didn't exist? Then there was the litany of absurd national security moves on day one. After "calling [her] good friend Bibi Netanyahu," she would start pushing more paper military commands around the map than Hitler in the bunker during the last ten days.

But there's one script Fiorina followed that Cruz is especially interested in. The core substance of Fiorina's campaign was this: I, Carly Fiorina, female person, will attack bad-woman Hillary Clinton for youIt makes sense, up until you notice all the ways it doesn't.

First, no amount of Carly Fiorina attacking Clinton in a woman's voice now erases nearly a quarter century of the relentlessly sexist commentary the GOP has directed at Clinton. Nor can her presence magically silence every chauvinist twit who thinks the one thing conservative hopes are counting on is his zinger. 

(Hell, it probably took less than an hour after Cruz's announcement for someone to paste Fiorina into another one of those, "If the Democrats are the party of women, how come ours are so much hotter?" image macros. If that disgusts you, Fiorina can't fix it. Willingly or not, she's just going to become its symbol.)

Second, however, a move like this presupposes that conservative women voters needed a feminine mouthpiece to hate Hillary Clinton, instead of relying on everything they already believe in. If you're a woman member of the party that wants to defund Planned Parenthood, you don't need a woman running against a woman avatar of ideas you oppose to clarify the issue for you.

Third, if Carly Fiorina is an alternative, the question is to what? Ted Cruz hopes that the short answer members in his party will see is, "Donald Trump." But that trick only works if they don't look at the rest of the party. Fiorina's presence on the ticket can't save the GOP from Donald Trump's misogyny when a huge and vocal chunk of the party has been taking political comportment lessons from Rush Limbaugh for a generation.

Leave aside institutional opposition to equal pay for equal work, forget opposing the re-signing of the Violence Against Women Act, ignore derision for Title IX, skip over attacks on reproductive rights and ask who came up with the 25 years of ridicule of Clinton. Forget the Todd Akins and lesser women-hating knuckle-draggers of the GOP menagerie and remember that the chief purveyor of FEMINAZIS! and CANKLES! material has been feted, feared and obeyed by the conservative establishment for all that time. People's heroes have a tendency to show you the things they don't value every bit as much as the things they do.

If a quarter century of that bothered Republican voters, then Carly Fiorina is not the solution, especially when her idea of acknowledging a war on women is claiming that Hillary Clinton invented it, and her spin on the gender pay gap is to blame unions, seniority and women leaving work to have children, the same boilerplate with a feminine face. At worst, she's another misogynist misdirection, the model standing in front of the prototype car rolling on four-tire fires, a cynical reduction of person to parts and accessories to satisfy only the most superficial of criteria. 

And if a quarter century of sexism and legislative scorn didn't bother Republican voters, then what single thing does she change in the slightest?

The literal answer is a single thing: She adds one delegate to whatever mathematically insufficient total Ted Cruz winds up with.

Something that ridiculously small is enough. Her singing tuneless songs to the same Cruz children who recoil from Ted Cruz, singer of unrequested show tunes, is enough. She and Cruz exchanging rictus grins and constant non-verbal cues that they have no idea what to do with their bodies is enough. We have never in American electoral history had more enough than we have right now. 

The only thing we don't have is an answer Fiorina cannot give and Ted Cruz lacks the self-awareness and the humility to ask for: How much will the Republican Party break itself at its convention, and for how long? Until then, everything else is more than enough, a deep unkindness — a long forced downward march into national indignity, with the only light at the end coming from the thought of Fiorina's valediction as a failed running mate taking the form of raising a well-practiced hand and firing Ted Cruz's entire staff.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | A Note to Bernie Supporters: Never Stop Fighting! Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 01 May 2016 10:56

Reich writes: "I'm getting lots of emails and notes on this page from those of you who say you're feeling discouraged, given the diminishing likelihood of Bernie's nomination. And from others of you who ask me what you should do in the event he doesn't get the nomination. To both, I have these three suggestions."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty)


A Note to Bernie Supporters: Never Stop Fighting!

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

01 May 16

 

’m getting lots of emails and notes on this page from those of you who say you’re feeling discouraged, given the diminishing likelihood of Bernie’s nomination. And from others of you who ask me what you should do in the event he doesn’t get the nomination. To both, I have these three suggestions:

1. First, continue to work hard to increase Bernie’s chance of success. (Despite what you hear in the media, he still does have a chance.) California’s June 7 primary will be critical.

2. If Bernie doesn’t win the nomination, you have to decide for yourself how active you’ll be in supporting Hillary Clinton. If Trump is the Republican nominee, my personal view is Hillary’s election to the presidency is absolutely essential to the future of this nation and the world.

3. Finally, and regardless of the outcome of the 2016 election, remember that you’re part of a long-term movement to reclaim our democracy and economy from the moneyed interests that now have a chokehold on both. No movement to change the allocation of power in America can succeed in a single presidential election. It will take time and effort. Continue to join with others in your city and your state, and across America, and get involved in elections at all levels, including the presidential election of 2020. Do not succumb to cynicism. Do not give up. Never stop fighting.

What do you think?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What Is Bernie's Price for Playing Nice? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 01 May 2016 08:57

Weissman writes: "Poor Hillary. She just doesn't get it. Neither do the Very Important People who back her. Call it arrogance, willful blindness, or rotten judgment, their collective failure to understand Bernie Sanders and those of us who support him could cost Clinton the presidency - not to Bernie, but to Donald Trump."

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)


What Is Bernie's Price for Playing Nice?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

01 May 16

 

oor Hillary. She just doesn’t get it. Neither do the Very Important People who back her. Call it arrogance, willful blindness, or rotten judgment, their collective failure to understand Bernie Sanders and those of us who support him could cost Clinton the presidency – not to Bernie, but to Donald Trump.

To understate the case, a victory for bully-boy Trump would not be good news. Not for the planet. Not for women. Not for Mexicans, other Latinos, and blacks. Not for Muslim-Americans. Not for Jewish-Americans. Not for immigrants facing deportation. Not for disaffected white working-class men, whom he would inevitably betray. Not for the poor, whom he despises as losers. Not for the different or disabled. Not for the Supreme Court. And, not for those of us committed to continue our fight for a democratic socialist revolution.

On foreign policy, he will run well to Hillary’s left. His open support for improved relations with Russia and China, his skepticism toward NATO, which I share, his iffy opposition to the no-win war in Iraq and French-led intervention in Libya make him appear far more realistic than the hawkish Hillary. But he favors torture whether it works or not. He revels in targeted assassinations far more than do Obama and Clinton. He speaks too easily about using nuclear weapons. And he’s too xenophobic, simplistic, reckless, and unpredictable to be allowed anywhere near the CIA, the Pentagon, or the nuclear button.

Hillary is bad enough. Look at her history as an imperial warmonger long before the neo-cons backed her. Listen to her self-righteous avowal of “American exceptionalism,” which is just another form of too much nationalism. But, like her or not, she has shown herself more cautious, circumspect, and open to dissuasion by allies than Trump would ever be. She is indeed the lesser evil.

Trump has already sharpened his tongue against her, calling her “Crooked Hillary” and promising a devastating campaign against her supposed foreign policy strengths as well as her personal unpopularity, which easily rivals his own. I still don’t think he can win, but she would be a fool to underestimate him. This is especially true because he poses a threat that takes us into a very dark realm. By spouting his off-the-cuff racist, religious, and nationalist bigotry, Trump has opened wide the door to America’s venomous Ku Kluxers and other white supremacists, violent skin-heads, and Christian nationalists with all their armed militias. He has even begun to extend his hand to Europe’s neo-fascists, welcoming a visit and endorsement from Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s racist and anti-immigrant Northern League. Trump is still showing caution about getting too close to other of Europe’s neo-Fascists, many of whom have shown caution about getting too close to him. But, stay tuned.

In the meantime, Sanders understands that Hillary will almost certainly win the nomination and has once again promised that he would vote for her against Trump or any other Republican. He is playing nice, but he will not play dead. Asked on the Today show about Trump calling Clinton crooked, he condemned it as “an ugly statement.” But pressed on whether his own attacks on Hillary for taking money from Wall Street did not imply that she was crooked, he simply smiled. “In that case,” he said, “the entire United States government is crooked.”

He has also refused to call on his supporters to back Hillary, explaining – quite correctly – that he did not have the power to demand that they fall in line behind her. She would have to win them over, he said. How? He has told her quite clearly.

“We are in this campaign to win,” he told a crowd of students at Purdue. “But if we do not win, we intend to win every delegate that we can so that when we go to Philadelphia in July, we are going to have the votes to put together the strongest progressive agenda that any political party has ever seen.”

This is Bernie’s price. If Hillary refuses to pay it – as she is now doing by using her party apparatchiks to stand in the way of a truly progressive platform – she will lose many who voted and worked so enthusiastically for him. Some of us may put clothespins on our noses and vote for her, even as we build a movement to oppose much of what she or Trump would do as president. Others will vote for the Greens. A few will vote for Trump, damned fools they. And no one knows how many will write in Bernie’s name or just stay home. The choice is now Hillary Clinton’s, and she appears to be making the wrong one.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Today Is Our Day Print
Sunday, 01 May 2016 08:56

Walters writes: "The first May Day was celebrated in 1886, with a general strike of three hundred thousand workers at thirteen thousand businesses across the United States. It was a tremendous show of force for the American labor movement, which was among the most militant in the world."

People celebrate the passage of the minimum wage increase for fast-food workers. (photo: AP)
People celebrate the passage of the minimum wage increase for fast-food workers. (photo: AP)


Today Is Our Day

By Jonah Walters, Jacobin

01 May 16

 

This May Day, we should celebrate the historic triumphs of the labor movement and the struggles to come.

he first May Day was celebrated in 1886, with a general strike of three hundred thousand workers at thirteen thousand businesses across the United States. It was a tremendous show of force for the American labor movement, which was among the most militant in the world.

Many of the striking workers — who numbered forty thousand in Chicago alone — rallied under the banners of anarchist and socialist organizations. Trade unionists from a variety of ethnic backgrounds — many of them recent immigrants — marched shoulder-to-shoulder, making a unified demand for the eight-hour day.

The movement to limit the workday posed a significant threat to American industrialists, who were accustomed to demanding much longer hours from their workers.

In the late nineteenth century, successive waves of immigration brought millions of immigrants to the United States, many of whom sought work in factories. Because unemployment was so high, employers could easily replace any worker who demanded better conditions or sufficient wages — so long as that worker acted alone. As individuals, workers were in no position to oppose the dehumanizing work their bosses expected of them.

But when workers acted together, they could exercise tremendous power over their employers and over society as a whole. Working-class radicals understood the unique power of collective action, fighting to ensure that the aggression of employers was often met by a groundswell of workers’ resistance.

For the last decades of the nineteenth century, industrial titans like Andrew Carnegie and George Pullman could get no peace. Periodic explosions of working-class activity provided a check on their power and prestige. But industrialists and their allies in government often responded with brutal force, quelling waves of worker militancy that demanded a fundamentally different kind of American prosperity, one in which the poor and downtrodden were included.

The movement for the eight-hour day was one such mass struggle. On May 1, 1886, workers all over the country took to the streets to demand a better life and a more just economy. The demonstrations lasted for days.

But this surge of working-class resistance ended in tragedy. In Chicago’s Haymarket Square, a police massacre claimed the lives of several workers after someone — likely a provocateur working for one of the city’s industrial barons — tossed a homemade bomb into the crowd. The Chicago authorities took the bombing as an opportunity to arrest and execute four of the movement’s most prominent leaders — including the anarchist and trade unionist August Spies.

It was a severe setback to the workers’ movement. But the repression wasn’t enough to douse the struggle for good. As August Spies said during his trial:

[I]f you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labor movement — the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil and live in want and misery, the wage slaves, expect salvation — if this is your opinion, then hang us! Here you will tread upon a spark, but here, and there and behind you, and in front of you, and everywhere the flames will blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out. The ground is on fire upon which you stand.

These words would prove prophetic. The next May Day, and every May Day since, workers across the world took to the streets to contest the terms of capitalist prosperity and gesture towards a fundamentally different world — a world in which production is motivated not by profit, but by human need.

Today, the power of the American labor movement is at a low. Many of its most important gains — including the right to the eight-hour day — have been dismantled by the anti-labor neoliberal consensus. But May Day still looms as a lasting legacy of the international movement for working-class liberation.

Obviously, a great deal has changed since those explosive decades at the end of the nineteenth century. The defeats suffered by the American workers’ movement may seem so profound that it can be tempting to regard the militancy that once rattled tycoons and presidents alike as a nothing more than a piece of history.

But we don’t have to gaze so far into the past for inspiring examples of struggle. Far more recent May Days provide glimpses at the transformative potential of worker movements.

Just ten years ago, in 2006, immigrant workers across the country stood up to restrictive immigration laws and abusive labor practices, organizing a massive movement of undocumented laborers that culminated in the so-called Great American Boycott (El Gran Paro Estadounidense). On May Day of that year, immigrant organizations and some labor unions came together to organize a one-day withdrawal of immigrant labor — dubbed “A Day Without Immigrants” — to demonstrate the essential role of immigrant workers in American industry.

Protests began in March and continued for eight weeks. The numbers are staggering — 100,000 marchers in Chicago kicked off the wave of demonstrations, followed by half a million marchers in Los Angeles a few weeks later, and then a coordinated day of action on April 10, which saw demonstrations in 102 cities across the country, including a march of between 350,000 and 500,000 protesters in Dallas.

By May Day, the movement had gained momentum, winning popular support all over the United States and around the world. On May 1 of that year, more than a million took to the streets in Los Angeles, joined by 700,000 marchers in Chicago, 200,000 in New York, 70,000 in Milwaukee, and thousands more in cities across the country. In solidarity with Latin American immigrants in the United States, labor unions around the world celebrated “Nothing Gringo Day,” a one day boycott of all American products.

Ever since, May Day has been recognized as a day of solidarity with undocumented immigrants — a fitting reminder of May Day’s origins in a movement that saw native-born and immigrant workers standing together to defend their common interests.

And this year, May Day presents us with more opportunities to mobilize support around an American labor movement showing signs of revitalization — this May Day, workers and activists across the country will stand in solidarity with the almost forty thousand striking Verizon workers, whose  intransigent managers have thus far refused to bargain with the union in good faith.

This May Day we follow in the footsteps of generations of labor radicals. These radicals saw in capitalism the horrors of an unjust economy, but dared to dream of something different — a reimagined economy in which the fruits of prosperity could be shared equally, among all people, in a just and democratic society.

Despite the setbacks of the labor movement — at home and worldwide — that dream is still living. The struggle continues.

Happy May Day. Take to the streets.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Massive Victory for 7 Kids in Climate Change Lawsuit in Washington State Print
Sunday, 01 May 2016 08:49

Excerpt: "Today, in a surprise ruling from the bench in the critical climate case brought by youths against the State of Washington's Department of Ecology, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill ordered the Department of Ecology to promulgate an emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session."

Five of the seven youth petitioners with their attorney, Andrea Rodgers, after the hearing today. (photo: Our Children's Trust)
Five of the seven youth petitioners with their attorney, Andrea Rodgers, after the hearing today. (photo: Our Children's Trust)


Massive Victory for 7 Kids in Climate Change Lawsuit in Washington State

By Our Children's Trust

01 May 16

 

oday, in a surprise ruling from the bench in the critical climate case brought by youths against the State of Washington’s Department of Ecology, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill ordered the Department of Ecology to promulgate an emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session.

Judge Hill also ordered the Department of Ecology to consult with the youth petitioners in advance of that recommendation. The youths were forced back to court after the Department of Ecology unexpectedly withdrew the very rulemaking efforts to reduce carbon emissions the agency told the judge it had underway. This case is one of several similar state, federal and international cases, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, seeking the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate.

“For the first time, a U.S. court not only recognized the extraordinary harms young people are facing due to climate change, but ordered an agency to do something about it,” Andrea Rodgers, the Western Environmental Law Center attorney representing the seven youths, said. “Ecology is now court-ordered to issue a rule that fulfills its constitutional and public trust duty to ensure Washington does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the planet.”

In granting the youth a remedy, Judge Hill noted the extraordinary circumstances of the climate crisis, saying, “This is an urgent situation … these kids can’t wait.” The court discussed the catastrophic impacts of climate destabilization globally, including the impending loss of polar bears and low-lying countries like Bangladesh. The court explained that while it had no jurisdiction outside of Washington state, it did have jurisdiction over the Department of Ecology and would order the agency to comply with the law and do its part to address the crisis.

“It was absurd for Ecology to withdraw its proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions,” petitioner Aji Piper, who is also a plaintiff on the federal constitutional climate lawsuit, supported by Our Children’s Trust, said. “Especially after Judge Hill declared last fall that our ‘very survival depends upon the will of [our] elders to act now … to stem the tide of global warming.’ I think Ecology should be ashamed by its reversal of potentially powerful action and today, Judge Hill issued a significant ruling that should go down in history books. Our government must act to protect our climate for benefit of us and future generations.”

After a landmark November, 2015 decision, in which Judge Hill found that the state has a “mandatory duty” to “preserve, protect and enhance the air quality for the current and future generations” and found the state’s current standards to fail that standard dramatically, the Department of Ecology nonetheless unilaterally withdrew its proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions in the state in February, just months after Judge Hill specifically underscored the urgency of the climate crisis.

“This case explains why youth around this country and in several other countries, are forced to bring their governments to court to secure a healthy atmosphere and stable climate,” Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust, said. “Despite clear scientific evidence and judicial recognition of the urgency of the climate crisis, Washington and most governments across the U.S. and other countries are failing to take correspondingly urgent, science-based action. That failure unfairly consigns youth to a disproportionately bleak future against which they can only reasonably ask the courts to step in to address this most time sensitive issue of our time.”

Related cases brought by youth to protect the atmosphere are pending before other U.S. courts in the federal district court in Oregon and in the state courts of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Massachusetts and Oregon.

“This is a massive victory,” petitioner Gabe Mandell said.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 Next > End >>

Page 2057 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