RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: An Open Letter to Dolores Huerta Print
Friday, 01 April 2016 12:19

Dawson writes: "My intention is not to tell anyone how to vote, but instead offer the facts and invite you to a healthy dialogue and debate about Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton."

Hillary Clinton with Dolores Huerta. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Hillary Clinton with Dolores Huerta. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)


An Open Letter to Dolores Huerta

By Rosario Dawson, Reader Supported News

01 April 16

 

hen you have a conflict, that means that there are truths that have to be addressed on each side of the conflict. And when you have a conflict, then it’s an educational process to try to resolve the conflict. And to resolve that, you have to get people on both sides of the conflict involved so that they can dialogue.” — Dolores Huerta

Dear Dolores,

Before responding to your article on Bernie Sanders on Medium, I want to take a moment to acknowledge you and the work you have done for Latina/os, workers’ rights, unions, the feminist and LGBTQ movements, as well as against police brutality and pesticides. You stood up and gave a voice to the less fortunate and unrepresented parts of our communities, no matter what obstacles or challenges were thrown in your way. This is exactly why your article on Bernie Sanders came as such a surprise to me — that the same woman who has made it her life’s mission to speak the truth and shed light on corruption, lies, and false narratives created by the corporate elite and special interest groups, would now suddenly create a narrative that distorts facts and misguides American voters.

Just like you stated in the above quote, I, too, believe in the American ideal of reasonable and robust debate between opposing viewpoints in order to move a discussion forward and ultimately arrive at a sensible resolution. This becomes impossible, or at least unnecessarily difficult, when one of the parties involved is purposefully trying to obfuscate the facts. I recognized that very same tactic that the mainstream media has been using when I read your opinion piece, where the details of Bernie Sanders’ voting record and positions were misrepresented and, again, when you and America Ferrera spread the false story on Twitter that Bernie supporters chanted “English only” at a Nevada caucus. Though it was debunked by multiple media outlets and video evidence, neither of you have corrected, apologized for, or taken down the posts. It’s race baiting, misleading, divisive and inaccurate and I hope you both will rectify that immediately. Regardless of either your interpretations of the event, the guidelines strictly prohibited any form of communication with caucus participants by campaigners once the caucus was called to order!

The democratic process, as it was intended, is quite simple: Present your facts, track records and plans, move forward honestly and openly, debate, call out discrepancies, explain and educate, then let the American people decide whom they would like to lead the country based on such answers. By distorting and omitting facts you do not give us, the American people, a transparent picture. You cheat us out of making an educated and well-informed decision and dishonor our voting process and democracy itself.

My intention is not to tell anyone how to vote, but instead offer the facts and invite you to a healthy dialogue and debate.

So let me address your statements made:

1. People of good will can disagree about the H.R. 6094 (109th): Community Protection Act of 2006, which Bernie Sanders voted for. But:

— The words “indefinite detention” did not appear anywhere in the bill Bernie voted for. The bill only applied to people awaiting deportation (“under orders of removal”), often for having criminal records.

— The Congressional research office said people could be detained indefinitely under the bill if they were “specified dangerous aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed.” Only about 4,000 people had been detained for more than six months as of 2009 — and the bill Bernie voted for would have required review of their detention status every six months.

— The bill split liberals in Congress, with some voting against it and many others (including Nancy Pelosi, Hillary supporter Sherrod Brown, and DNC chair and Hillary supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz) voting for it, along with Bernie.

2. About the 2007 bill you criticized Bernie for voting against and have made your main argument:

He supported the DREAM ACT, but the entire bill had too many sections that would have been detrimental to American workers, immigration reform, immigrants and their families, so he ultimately decided to keep fighting for a better bill. A couple of the more contentious points were:

— It stepped-up border security, adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of additional fencing (you might call that “Trump wall” building) along the U.S.-Mexico border.

— It removed four of the five family-based categories under which an immigrant could apply for permanent residency. All that was left was the preference for spouses and children of U.S. citizens (which strikes me as a form of privilege).

— It expanded the horribly abusive guest worker program that has left some people in what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “close to slavery“ in its report on the subject. (There are other horror stories, too.)

— The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), a federation of our country’s largest trade unions, both opposed the bill. LULAC’s Executive Director said the group “cannot support a bill that will separate families and lead to the exploitation of immigrant workers while resulting in widespread undocumented immigration in the future.”

— The AFL-CIO compared the exploitative nature of the guest worker provision to a “modern-day Bracero Program,” referring to the program launched during the Second World War to meet labor demands in the United States — one which led to the forced deportation of millions of Mexicans, including a few U.S. citizens, from the United States under Operation Wetback beginning in 1954. (Article by Hector Luis Alamo here.)

3. You mention that Bernie did not sign Harry Reid’s letter to president Obama in 2011:

— The letter was written and issued by 22 Senate Democrats. It was not presented to the entire Senate for signature, nor to Bernie Sanders (an independent at the time), and was signed by only a small fraction of the Democratic Party.

— Hillary Clinton did not respond to the letter sent to Obama. She did not denounce the deportations at that time, which makes the whole mention of the letter unreasonable.

4. The “Minutemen” amendment:

— The majority of politicians involved agreed that it actually didn’t do anything, since the Customs and Border Patrol said it directed them to do what they were already doing anyway.

— Hillary was blatantly misleading in the debate when she said Bernie “sided” with “hardline Republicans” on it, since 76 other Democrats voted for it too. She made it sound like it was just him and the extremist right-wingers. The ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee said of the amendment “If people want to put it in the bill, I guess that is okay because it apparently does nothing.”

5. Your claim that Hillary has a better immigration track record and plan. Let’s compare a few of their points on each subject:

(photo: The Huffington Post)

About your side comment of “not knowing where Bernie Sanders stands” and “Hillary Clinton being on the right side of history”:

(photo: The Huffington Post)

Hillary Clinton’s track record goes directly against what you and every other activist before and after you has fought for: the rights of the people based on the Declaration of Independence and the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are principles that Hillary did not uphold when taking away American citizens’ freedom by voting for the Patriot Act, twice; by not treating all men as equal when going against same-sex marriage until 2013; and when she sold out her own citizens by taking money from lobbyists and promoting the rise of the private prison complex. This has led to modern-day slavery for the impoverished, and especially for Latino and African American communities. She has put corporations and special interest groups before the people of this great country by voting to bail out banks and not her constituents. She does not uphold the sanctity of life when endorsing wars, condoning fracking or the death penalty.

Bernie Sanders, the proud son of an immigrant, wants to raise the minimum wage and make it easier for workers to join or form a union. He led the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history, protesting the University of Chicago’s segregated housing policy; walked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the 1963 March on Washington, supports ending all family deportations;l and is the leading voice on issues of income inequality, global warming, LGBTQ issues, and universal health care. He is transparent and consistent and has been, time and time again, on the right side of history fighting for all of us and our rights. He has done so, oftentimes when it was unpopular to do so, because he didn’t need public opinion to evolve in order to take a stand.

That is leadership and vision. Bernie is the only candidate running who will not blindly lead us into another war. He is using his position to champion free higher education for our children and fight for the future of our country. He has refused to take money from Super PACs and special Wall Street interest groups, inspires participation and engagement with his constituents, and once in the White House will leave the door open for average citizens to become active participants in government. This is the cornerstone of the political revolution he has inspired.

Dolores, I am surprised, dismayed, and concerned that you would do your legacy such a disservice by becoming an instrument of the establishment, rather than joining this movement to create a better America like you once inspired us to do.

I write this letter in the hopes that we can continue to have a robust and honest conversation based on the facts and on the actions that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have taken during their legislative careers. I, like you, continue to be encouraged by the millions of young people that have flooded the streets demanding that we address issues of race and power, class and privilege. They show us what true inclusion and democracy looks like. From #BlackLivesMatter to the migrant rights movement, young people are pushing us to live up to our highest ideals and values. And today, young people are demanding that Bernie Sanders is allowed to run in a fair and transparent primary. This election is too important to do anything less.

In solidarity,
Rosario Dawson

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.” Abraham Lincoln

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Lies of Neoliberal Economics (or How America Became a Nation of Sharecroppers) Print
Friday, 01 April 2016 10:54

Excerpt: "The Wall Street vocabulary is one of conquest and wiping out. You're having a replay in the financial sphere of what feudalism was in the military sphere. And in essence, we become a kind of nation of sharecroppers."

Chris Hedges and Michael Hudson. (photo: Concordia University/teleSUR)
Chris Hedges and Michael Hudson. (photo: Concordia University/teleSUR)


The Lies of Neoliberal Economics (or How America Became a Nation of Sharecroppers)

By Chris Hedges and Michael Hudson, CounterPunch

01 April 16

 

HRIS HEDGES: So, we spoke in previously about the parasitic quality of the banks, hedge funds and the speculative class that has in essence cannibalized the country – including, interestingly, industry itself, and forced down the throats of the American public an unsustainable debt peonage, whether that’s through student loans, predatory credit card interest rates where it’s that bait and switch – where you get zero percent interest and next thing you know, you’re paying as high as 26 percent, 23 percent …

MICHAEL HUDSON: If you miss a payment.

HEDGES: If you miss a payment. Mortgages, with many houses now underwater because of 2008. I want to look first at the self-identified liberal class within the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama. It often uses the language of economic justice, and will even chastise Wall Street rhetorically, but has been as committed to this neoliberal project as the Republicans.

HUDSON: The key of demagogic politics is to realize that the people who are really backing you are your campaign funders. Your job as a politician is to say, “I can deliver this constituency to your backers.” Obama was a genius at doing what Donald Trump is trying to do today: taking a constituency. That’s his column A: a focus group listing everything the constituency wants. They want debt relief. They want better jobs. They want higher minimum wage.

HEDGES: And not trade agreements like NAFTA and …

HUDSON: Right. And then column B, that he didn’t tell them, was what the campaign backers on Wall Street want. Obama was picked essentially by Robert Rubin, who then became head of Citibank after having come out of the Goldman Sachs. Obama was picked by Rubin of Wall Street to promise was he was going to really do. It was what any president today is going to do: A politician’s job is to deliver whoever voted for you to your backers, who are on Wall Street. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, but especially if you are a Democrat – that’s really the Wall Street wing of the American political system. The Republicans are for the corporate monopoly, oil and gas wing of it.

As soon as Obama got in, Hank Paulson – the Republican Treasury Secretary – was talking to Barney Frank and said, you know, we were supposed to, under TARP, have some of the money to go for debt writedown.

HEDGES: Explain TARP.

HUDSON: TARP was Troubled Asset Relief Program. It was supposed to treat banks as if they were troubled. If you’re a criminal and you’re stealing from people, that was called “troubled.” There’s a lawsuit recently in in the news about a rich boy drove his car and killed four people. His defense was, “It’s not my fault, I have affluenza. I’m so rich that I don’t have a social sense. So of course I drove away. But I’m innocent, because I’m rich. What do you expect?”

Essentially that’s the Goldman Sachs view of the economy. You cause collateral damage all over, but that’s what Wall Street does. You can’t punish them for it. They’re just doing what a predatory financial institution does. So Obama said “No, , I’m not going to do that,” [meaning write down the mortgage debts as he had promised voters in Column A]. He came in and appointed Wall Street’s main lobbyist, Tim Geithner, as Treasury Secretary.

HEDGES: You spend a lot of time in your book, Killing the Host, on him.

HUDSON: That’s right. Geithner appears in almost every dirty dealing episode of the book. He was the bagman. He was the person who [Sheila Baoir] accused of blocking the FDIC when it wanted to take over Citibank, which not only was broke but was a criminalized organization.

HEDGES: Explain just quickly why it was criminalized.

HUDSON: Citibank, along with Countrywide Financial, was making junk mortgages. These were mortgages called NINJA. They were called liars’ loans, to people with no income, no jobs and no assets. You had this movie, The Big Short, as if some genius on Wall Street discovered that the mortgages were all going to go down. And you have the stories of Queen Elizabeth going to the economist …

HEDGES: “How come none of you knew?”

HUDSON: Right. The fact is, if everybody on Wall Street called these mortgages liars’ loans, if they knew that they’re made for NINJAs, for people who can’t pay, all of Wall Street knew that it was fraud.

The key is that if you’re a really smart criminal, you have to plan to get caught. The plan is how to beat the rap. On Wall Street, if you buy garbage assets, how do you make the government bail you out? That was what the president of the United States is for, whether it was Obama or whether it would have been John McCain …

HEDGES: Or Bush.

HUDSON: Or whether it would be Hillary today, or Trump. Their job is to bail out Wall Street and make the people pay, not Wall Street. Because Wall Street is “the people” who select the politicians – who know where their money is coming from. If you have a campaign contributor, no matter whether it’s Wall Street, or locally if it’s a real estate developer, you all know who your backers are.

The talent you need to have as a politician is to make the voters think that you’re going to be supporting their interests …

HEDGES: And what’s that great Groucho Marx quote?

HUDSON: The secret of success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

HEDGES: Well, and that’s kind of it. You know, there’s Ron Suskind in his book, what’s it called? 

HUDSON: Confidence Men.

HEDGES: Confidence Men. He interviews someone on Wall Street, and asks why they’re so hostile to Obama when he’s so protective of Wall Street. And the answer is, because if we keep being publicly hostile, he can always do what we want.

HUDSON: This is like Uncle Remus and the Briar Patch, when Br’er Rabbit keeps saying, don’t throw me into the briar patch. And finally the fox throws him into the briar patch, and the rabbit runs away, singing “Born and bred in the briar patch.” He runs away and is happy. The moral is that there’s a pretense that if a politician talks against Wall Street and can vocalize people’s resentment, that he must understand them and thus will support them.

HEDGES: Well, that’s what Hillary Clinton’s doing in spades.

HUDSON: That’s exactly it. There’s a movie, La dolce vita, by Fellini, with Anita Ekberg. You have the Italian reporter Marcello go after Ekberg, and then her boyfriend comes up to him and says, “I can understand you.” Then whomp, he hits him right in the face. That basically is what we have here. The politician says to the voters, “I feel your pain. I can understand you.” And they think oh, he understands it. Then the politician hits them in the face and backs Wall Street, and tries to privatize pension funds, privatize Social Security. And doesn’t send a single banker to jail, by appointing Justice Department people who are vetted by Wall Street and treat them simply a “troubled” rich.

So essentially Wall Street campaign contributors have a veto over who you’re going to appoint as Secretary of the Treasury. They want the …

HEDGES: Attorney General.

HUDSON: Yeah, Attorney General, to make sure that nobody has to pay the price for financial crime. Then the Council of Economic Advisors comes to assure people that Wall Street really is adding to the economy, and if you can only do what the Federal Reserve is doing. So Janet Yellen says, let’s give the banks more money, and the economy can borrow its way out of debt … if only we can have enough quantitative easing.

So the Federal Reserve has given Wall Street $4.5 trillion. That $4.5 trillion could have been used to write down the debt. And then we wouldn’t have a problem. Then everybody would have a lower costs of living. The $4.5 trillion could have been spent into the economy.

HEDGES: We could have saved people from being foreclosed and driven from their homes.

HUDSON: Yes. But that wasn’t what Obama did.

HEDGES: Even though he promised that he would. And then he turned around, he earmarked some money to save people who were being pushed out of their homes. And then he never spent it.

HUDSON: That’s right. It wasn’t spent. That’s what Niel Barofsky, the SIGTARP head – Special Inspector General for TARP – found out. He said, wait a minute, they’re not spending any of it. It’s a fraud. And he wrote a whole book, Bailout, describing the lies Geithner told. Then, when Geithner came out with his own autobiography, Barofsky reviewed it and exposed him as a liar who should go to jail.

Geithner was suitably rewarded by getting a rich job on Wall Street. The Japanese call that “descent from heaven.” When you take your rewards, having sold out the economy to your backers, you get a nice job and end up rich for life.

HEDGES: So, let’s talk a bit about what this means for the future, because there’s been no brakes put on this kind of criminal and fraudulent behavior on the part of the speculative class. Bubbles have been re-inflated with public funds. I think you had written an article in Harper’s magazine before 2008 saying this – we’re all going to have a big car wreck. Since we’re playing the game again, what’s going to happen? Are they going to be able to go back and loot the U.S. Treasury the way they did before?

HUDSON: What’s ahead first of all is that the economy hasn’t recovered since 2008. People talk about that there’s been a recovery, but the recovery has only been for the One Percent. The 99 Percent know they haven’t recovered. That’s why they’re voting for Trump, and that’s why they’re voting for Sanders. But they’re blaming themselves. There’s a tendency of victims to blame themselves. And the other part of that …

HEDGES: But let’s be clear: The media doesn’t explain the economic reality at all. They’re always talking about the recovery.

HUDSON: That’s the point. The result of the media telling people that is to create a Stockholm syndrome: The victim, the kidnap victim, identifies with the victimizer. The thinking is that if only we can give more money to Wall Street, it will save us. So if the Federal Reserve can only pump more money into the economy …

They talk about the Federal Reserve creating money with a helicopter. But the Federal Reserve’s helicopter only drops money over Wall Street. It doesn’t drop money over the economy. People don’t get it. The Fed doesn’t say, “We’re going to add $200 to everybody’s checking account so they can have more money and pay their debts.” It’s only lending money to Wall Street.

And what does Wall Street do? It lends out money. So the solution to the debt problem that we’re in – debt deflation – is to lend even more money.

That’s what makes the economy a Ponzi scheme, as you mentioned at the beginning of the first half of this interview. In a Ponzi scheme, people seem to make a lot of money, but that’s because you’re really not making profits. You’re just getting more and more people convinced that you’re making money. And you’re paying the early entrants out of the money from new subscribers. That’s what Bernie Madoff did. The whole economy has become a Madoff scheme.

HEDGES: And largely through real estate, right?

HUDSON: Largely through real estate, because that’s the largest asset.

HEDGES: So the worth of your house ostensibly rises and rises and rises, and you believe that you have created it – that this is a form of wealth creation.

HUDSON: Here’s the problem that existed in 2008. Either Obama could have saved the economy, or he could have saved Wall Street. He chose to save Wall Street. And the only way to save Wall Street, if banks have made a lot of bad loans, is to help them not go bankrupt. So what do you do? You give them more money.

The theory, the pretense in the media, is that banks will make money by lending to industry to build more factories and hire people.

HEDGES: And credit dried up for small businesses and consumers.

HUDSON: That’s right. Wall Street knew that the real estate market was already loaned up. In other words, the game was over. Nobody could pay any more of their income for rent or for mortgages. Banks couldn’t even make more credit card loans. So they began to cancel their credit card exposure. What they did was they gamble on foreign currency.

HEDGES: And student debt.

HUDSON: And student debt.

HEDGES: Because it’s guaranteed.

HUDSON: That’s right. They make, the government …

HEDGES: I mean, the government guaranteed them.

HUDSON: Since the 2008 crash the government has guaranteed almost all new mortgage loans. Up to 43% of the borrower’s income, that was guaranteed. Student loans, all guaranteed. But basically the banks made money abroad. If you could borrow at one-tenth of a percent from the Federal Reserve, you could buy Brazilian loans, bonds paying 9% or more. You could gamble on writing default swaps in Greece.

And when Greece had real problems, the fact that the German and French banks had made too many loans to it, the IMF was going to write down the Greek debt. But then Geithner got on the phone with Europe, and Obama went to the G20 meetings and said, “Look, you can’t write off the Greek debt, because the American banks have essentially turned into horse race betters. We have casino capitalism. They have bet and promised to guarantee, the Greek bonds. If the Greek bonds are written down, the American banks will go under. And if we go under, we promise we’re going to bring you down too. We’re going to bring down the European banks. Do you really want that to happen?”

So the gambles made by Wall Street ended up almost driving Greece out of the European Union. Wall Street was willing to tear Europe apart politically just for the Wall Street investment banks – basically four banks – to make gains by insuring the Greek debt, by treating the financial market like a horse race.

That’s where we are now. It’s not really about imperialism draining foreign economies. It’s Wall Street making bets. And essentially it’s by Wall Street running the European Central Bank. Just like Europe has to do burden sharing in NATO, the financial ministries have to do burden sharing with the U.S. Treasury.

HEDGES: So let’s talk a bit about what this means, where we’re headed.

HUDSON: It means that markets are not growing, because the American consumer has to spend so much money paying the banks and paying taxes that they don’t have enough money to buy more goods and services.

HEDGES: One of the things you pointed out in your book, which I didn’t know, is that when we measure the economy we actually count the paying off of debt, credit card debt, whatever it is, as a form of savings.

HUDSON: That’s right. After 2008 the savings rate jumped way up. But the saving isn’t available. But to an accountant, if you owe less money, then actually you’ve done the same as paying it out of saving. So we’re in a savings economy. The savings rate in 2008 was zero. Actually, it was minus 2% when you take into account borrowing from foreigners. The whole economy was essentially consumers maintaining their living standards by running up their credit card debt, and by taking out what Alan Greenspan called cashing out on your house’s rising value, by taking out an equity mortgage loan. But that’s not really cash. That’s taking on more debt.

So you had an inside-out vocabulary. America was going into debt thinking it would get rich, and all of a sudden it finds, it’s in a state of what you said, debt peonage, where the wage workers and others have to pay any increase in wages they get; it goes to pay down …

HEDGES: Because you’re spending all of your income to service the interest rather than paying off the principal. And that’s why wages have been suppressed since the ‘70s. The speculative class on Wall Street does not want people to be able to pay off their debt.

HUDSON: This was the one thing that Alan Greenspan contributed to economic theory: the Traumatized Worker Syndrome. He said, the reason you’ve had this huge productivity gain without any wage increase is workers are afraid to go on strike, or even to complain about working conditions, because they’re just one paycheck away from homelessness.

HEDGES: Which is true.

HUDSON: And if they miss a credit card payment, all of a sudden their credit card fee escalates to 29%. Even if they’re late on a utility bill, the bank will raise the fee.

HEDGES: So what does this mean? I mean, what’s going to happen?

HUDSON: It means a slow crash. It means what was …

HEDGES: Which we’ve already begun, haven’t we?

HUDSON: Yes. we’re in a slow crash now. All this was analyzed in the 1930s when it was called debt deflation by Irving Fisher. But debt doesn’t appear in the textbooks. They talk about saving, but not debt. The fact is, all money is debt of one form or another. The cash in your pocket is a government debt, technically. It’s on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. What people thought was an asset turns out to kept afloat by debt. But rather than the rising tide of debt raising all boats, it raises the yachts, but the rest of the economy is underwater, to make a metaphor.

HEDGES: So, spell it out for people. What’s going to – I mean, we’ve lost control of this predatory or parasitic force.

HUDSON: Well, you can look at the future as what’s happening in Greece, what happened in Russia after their traumatic shock therapy. America’s in for shock therapy, no matter who wins the presidential …

HEDGES: So play it out for me. What’s it going to look like?

HUDSON: Well, more people are going to have higher and higher charges for what they spend for medical care. More for schooling. More just to break even. And they’re going to have to draw down their existing savings, or they’re going to have to downsize, or they’re going to have to default. The rate of default is still rising very sharply on student loans. And these are loans you can’t wipe out in bankruptcy.

HEDGES: Not unless you’re dead. And it’ll go to your parents, if they’re still around.

HUDSON: That’s the point. The parents have countersigned. Meanwhile, the students who have taken out these loans are having to live at home with the parents. They can’t afford to buy a house. And if you can’t buy a house it’s really hard to get married. I was in China recently, and my translator there said that women in China are looking for a husband who can get his own house, because you need a house to have children. All that has stopped here.

When you have this phenomenon in Greece, Russia or other places, you have shrinking birth rates, rising mortality rates and disease rates, shorter life spans. Latvia followed this policy and lost 20% of its population since the late 1990s. You have a huge emigration from Iceland, from Greece. There’s nowhere for Americans to emigrate to.

HEDGES: Right. And you say in the book that really, the only option left is a form of debt slavery or revolt.

HUDSON: That’s exactly it. But the enzymes that the parasite have inculcated via the control of the media tell people it’s not Wall Street’s fault, it’s not the parasite’s fault, it’s your fault. The victims haven’t been able to make enough money to pay the One Percent, the victimizers. That’s financial affluenza after kills an economy.

HEDGES: But is it working? I don’t think the lie of neoliberal economics is being swallowed by larger segments of the population, including the people gathered around Trump.

HUDSON: That’s right. They know that something’s wrong, but they don’t know what it is, because nobody’s spelling out how the economy actually works. That’s why I wrote my book, to say here’s what’s happening. The reason I was able to warn about the crisis a year before it happened was that I had the charts that were published in Harper’s. My charts were cited in the Financial Times as the only charts by those who did foresee the crisis and said just how and why it would happen.

Anyone who does Wall Street charts about the ability to pay sees that this is what happened in the 1920s. Anybody who did charts like that can tell that there’s an intersection, a breaking point, and there’s a crisis. America now is having the same crisis that Argentina had, that Greece had, that Latvia had, that Russia had. These economies are our future. And it’s going to go down and down in a slow crash.

HEDGES: But could it go down and down, and what we end up with is a form of neofeudalism, a rapaciously wealthy, oligarchic elite with a kind of horrifying police state to keep us all in order?

HUDSON: This is exactly what happened in the Roman Empire.

HEDGES: Yes, it did.

HUDSON: You had the great Roman historians, Livy and Plutarch – all blamed the decline of the Roman empire on the creditor class being predatory, and the latifundia. The creditors took all money, and would just buy more and more land, displacing the other people. The result in Rome was a Dark Age, and that can last a very long time. The Dark Age is what happens when the rentiers take over.

If you look back in the 1930s, Leon Trotsky said that fascism was the inability of the socialist parties to come forth with an alternative. If the socialist parties and media don’t come forth with an alternative to this neofeudalism, you’re going to have a rollback to feudalism. But instead of the military taking over the land, as occurred with the Norman conquest, you take over the land financially. Finance has become the new mode of warfare. Not militarily – except in Europe, of course – but simply financially. You can achieve the takeover of land and the takeover of companies by corporate raids.

The Wall Street vocabulary is one of conquest and wiping out. You’re having a replay in the financial sphere of what feudalism was in the military sphere.

HEDGES: And in essence, we become a kind of nation of sharecroppers.

HUDSON: That’s exactly right, having to shop at the company store.

HEDGES: At the company store.

HUDSON: Yes.

HEDGES: Well, that lays it out. I think it illustrates the point that we need a vision to counter the vision of predatory, parasitic capitalism. If we don’t get a vision very soon, we’re in for a dark age.

HUDSON: And the job of the politician is to promise the nice vision, and then double-cross the constituents.

HEDGES: Well, so far, unfortunately, they’ve done it very well.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why I'm for Bernie Sanders Print
Friday, 01 April 2016 08:45

Stone writes: "Bernie Sanders is the only candidate willing to cut back on our foreign interventions, bring the troops home, and with these trillions of dollars no longer wasted on malice, try to protect the 'homeland' by actually rebuilding it and putting money into its people, schools, and infrastructure."

Oliver Stone. (photo: Rolling Stone)
Oliver Stone. (photo: Rolling Stone)


Why I'm for Bernie Sanders

By Oliver Stone, Oliver Stone's Facebook Page

01 April 16

 

hen fear becomes collective, when anger becomes collective, it’s extremely dangerous. It is overwhelming… The mass media and the military-industrial complex create a prison for us, so we continue to think, see, and act in the same way… We need the courage to express ourselves even when the majority is going in the opposite direction… because a change of direction can happen only when there is a collective awakening… Therefore, it is very important to say, ‘I am here!’ to those who share the same kind of insight.” – Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhist Monk, “The Art of Power.”

I’ve been in deep despair these last few months about our political landscape. This quote from Thich Nhat Hanh recently elevated my spirit, and I share it with you. Because I am—we are—still here! Though it’s clear that the die is cast and that Clinton will win -- that is, if you believe in numbers and materialism, but I don’t, not completely.

I enclose here several recent articles, which you need to read to understand how difficult a situation we’ll be in if we continue with a harder-line version of Obama. Hillary Clinton has effectively closed the door on peace, blasting both the Palestinian peace process and the Russians in the same week. NATO is her god, the best thing the ‘exceptional’ US has to export in this new “American Century.”

But who set this policy and who controls this country? Her point of view is steeped in the traditional post-World War II, Atlanticist, NATO-domination of the universe. It’s set in stone. No president it seems, no democratic vote, no dissenting media can alter this. We’re going to be in border, resource, and forever wars for the next 10, 20, 100 years, until Trump (who our Shadow Government will never allow to exercise power) actually said in his straight way of talking, “our cities go bust.” Our media has been drained and made callous by war, increasingly sensationalized by TV, looking for the next high in the next headline, the more outrageous the better. Modesty in American politics is dead—it’s better to be sensational. Ironically, as they call Trump unelectable (which he is), it leaves you to think Clinton is the ‘new normal’, in which case you’ve been deceived by the unnecessary dichotomy that Clinton is actually ‘respectable’ in the same way that Eisenhower/Dulles 1950s were respectable when we went about intervening and overthrowing governments in many countries. But the difference was they at least had the brains not to get into shooting wars. To suggest NATO should’ve expired in 1991 when the Soviet Union disintegrated, I suppose isn’t questionable anymore. NATO, which has expanded to 13 countries since 1991, must be supported and Clinton has been brainwashed by the neoconservatives to believe it’s about “Russian aggression” when it’s the United States that’s ensuring the greatest build-up on the European borders of Russia since Hitler did it in World War II.

We’re going to war—either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its 1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don’t because our media is dumbed down in its ‘Pravda’–like support for our ‘respectable’, highly aggressive Government. We are being led, as C. Wright Mills said in the 1950s, by a Government full of “crackpot realists: in the name of realism they’ve constructed a paranoid reality all their own.” Our media has credited Hillary Clinton with wonderful foreign policy experience, unlike Trump, without really noting the results of her power-mongering. She’s comparable to Bill Clinton’s choice of Cold War crackpot Madeleine Albright as one of the worst Secretary of States we’ve had since…Condi Rice? Albright boasted, “If we have to use force it is because we are America; we are the indispensible nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.” Hillary’s record includes supporting the barbaric ‘contras’ against the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, supporting the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, supporting the ongoing Bush-Iraq War, the ongoing Afghan mess, and as Secretary of State the destruction of the secular state of Libya, the military coup in Honduras, and the present attempt at “regime change” in Syria. Every one of these situations has resulted in more extremism, more chaos in the world, and more danger to our country. Next will be the borders of Russia, China, and Iran. Look at the viciousness of her recent AIPAC speech (don’t say you haven’t been warned). Can we really bear to watch as Clinton “takes our alliance [with Israel] to the next level”? Where is our sense of proportion? Cannot the media, at the least, call her out on this extremism? The problem, I think, is this political miasma of “correctness” that dominates American thinking (i.e. Trump is extreme, therefore Hillary is not).

This is why I’m praying still for Bernie Sanders because he’s the only one willing, at least in the name of fiscal sanity, to cut back on our foreign interventions, bring the troops home, and with these trillions of dollars no longer wasted on malice, try to protect the ‘homeland’ by actually rebuilding it and putting money into its people, schools, and infrastructure.

Albert Camus, talking about the doomed Spanish Civil War in the 1930s wrote, “Men of my generation have had Spain in our hearts. It was there that they learned … that one can be right and yet be beaten, that force can vanquish spirit, and that there are times when courage is not rewarded.” It’s true the light was extinguished for generations in Spain. America was sleeping, but it finally did the right thing and went to war against Fascism. I believe Fascism is still our greatest enemy and its face is everywhere in our so-called ‘democracies.’ It was always about the moneyed interests that had the power. That is what Fascism is and that is the danger we are in now. Sanders talks about money, listen to him. He talks cogently about money and its power to distort. He’s the only one who has raised his voice against the corruption in our politics. Clinton has embraced this corruption.

The Clinton/Trump AIPAC ‘Pander-Off’ by Robert Parry
http://bit.ly/1q0QTRi

Critics Aghast at ‘Disgusting Speech’ Clinton Just Gave to AIPAC
http://bit.ly/1UJxdfP

Fearing Sanders as ‘Closet Realist’
http://bit.ly/1UsmHee

A World War has Begun. Break the Silence.
http://bit.ly/1Zskij3

Risking Nuclear War for Al-Qaeda
http://bit.ly/2130kQz

Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton
http://bit.ly/1Tc02mc

Sanders the ‘Realist’: Hillary the ‘Neocon’
http://bit.ly/1ollg3e

A Crazy Establishment Demands ‘Sanity’
http://bit.ly/1MAx0dJ

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
This Obama Endorsement Is a Sign Pro-Corporate Democrats Are Getting Nervous Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36103"><span class="small">David Dayen, The Intercept</span></a>   
Friday, 01 April 2016 08:41

Dayen writes: "President Obama on Monday endorsed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his handpicked Democratic National Committee chair, in her congressional race. What's stunning about that is that Obama felt the need to endorse a six-term congresswoman running in a heavily Democratic district at all."

President Barack Obama has endorsed U.S. representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz who faces a rare primary challenge for her Broward/Miami-Dade congressional district. (photo: Getty)
President Barack Obama has endorsed U.S. representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz who faces a rare primary challenge for her Broward/Miami-Dade congressional district. (photo: Getty)


This Obama Endorsement Is a Sign Pro-Corporate Democrats Are Getting Nervous

By David Dayen, The Intercept

01 April 16

 

resident Obama on Monday endorsed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his handpicked Democratic National Committee chair, in her congressional race. What’s stunning about that is that Obama felt the need to endorse a six-term congresswoman running in a heavily Democratic district at all.

Tim Canova, a law professor and Federal Reserve expert, jumped into the Democratic primary in January, challenging Wasserman Schultz from the left. At that time, my Intercept colleague Glenn Greenwald interviewed Canova, revealing multiple contrasts between his opposition to bank bailouts, corporate-written free trade agreements, and the Patriot Act and Wasserman Schultz’s support of those policies.

Populist primaries of entrenched incumbents don’t usually get the attention of the White House, because success for the challenger is so remote. Obama very rarely involves himself in House primaries. That he felt the need to endorse Wasserman Schultz suggests that Canova’s message is gaining traction in her district.

The endorsement comes fully five months before the primary — and days before the end-of-the-quarter deadline for Federal Election Commission reporting. While Wasserman Schultz has never needed help soliciting campaign contributions from wealthy donors, the presidential endorsement has the appearance of a vote of confidence to ensure the continued flow of money.

“Debbie has been a strong, progressive leader in Congress and a hardworking, committed chair of our national party since I proudly nominated her to the role in 2011,” Obama said in his endorsement statement. “She always stands up and fights for what is right for her district while passionately supporting middle-class families.”

But Wasserman Schultz is more than anything a creature of the pro-corporate Democratic Party establishment. She has been accused of using her position as DNC chair to favor Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, including by scheduling low-profile debates on weekend nights. Her opposition to a medical marijuana initiative in Florida and sponsorship of a failed internet censorship bill in Congress have angered progressives, as have her ties to corporate money.

More recently, Wasserman Schultz sponsored a bill that would severely hamper the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed regulations for payday lenders. The bill would pre-empt the CFPB rule in favor of state laws like Florida’s, an industry-backed model that permits borrowers to take out an average of nine payday loans a year at an interest rate of 278 percent.

Payday lenders have cost Floridians $2.5 billion in fees over the last decade, according to a recent report, which has fallen disproportionately on African-Americans and Latinos. Wasserman Schultz also voted for a bill that would have gutted CFPB rules prohibiting racial discrimination by auto lenders.

Activist groups in Florida have run ads against Wasserman Schultz over her support for payday lenders. Canova has made the payday lending legislation a key talking point of his campaign, noting that Wasserman Schultz has taken over $68,000 in contributions from the industry.

The Florida Democratic Party initially denied Canova access to the party’s voter information file, but after pressure from the state’s progressive caucus, it reversed course, allowing Canova to use the data. The situation was reminiscent of Wasserman Schultz’s DNC temporarily denying voter-file access to Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign after Sanders staffers improperly accessed Clinton campaign data.

Canova, who recently announced support from the National Nurses United union, reacted to Obama endorsing his opponent on Twitter, saying, “Our grassroots movement is undeterred and this is our best fundraising day yet. Thank you @DWStweets,” referring to Wasserman Schultz’s Twitter handle.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Proposes Building Wall Inside Uterus Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 31 March 2016 13:53

"Donald Trump, the Republican Presidential front-runner, touched off a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by suggesting that, if elected, he would build a wall inside the uterus."

Donald Trump. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty)
Donald Trump. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty)


Trump Proposes Building Wall Inside Uterus

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

31 March 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."


onald Trump, the Republican Presidential front-runner, touched off a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by suggesting that, if elected, he would build a wall inside the uterus.

In proposing an addition to the uterus, a major female reproductive sex organ, Trump sought to draw a distinction between such a wall and the wall that the uterus already has, commonly referred to as the uterine wall.

“No, no, no, this would be a much better wall than that wall,” Trump said. “People are going to love this wall.”

As has been his custom on the campaign trail, Trump offered few details about his plan to build a wall inside the uterus, other than to say that he would make women pay for it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 Next > End >>

Page 2091 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