RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Monsanto vs. Freedom of Information Act Print
Wednesday, 07 October 2015 08:49

Nader writes: "As the FOIA approaches its 50th year, it faces a disturbing backlash from scientists tied to the agrichemical company Monsanto and its allies."

Ralph Nader. (photo: Guardian UK)
Ralph Nader. (photo: Guardian UK)


Monsanto vs. Freedom of Information Act

By Ralph Nader, EcoWatch

07 October 15

 

ext year, the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) will celebrate its 50th anniversary as one of the finest laws our Congress has ever passed. It is a vital investigative tool for exposing government and corporate wrongdoing.

The FOIA was championed by Congressman John E. Moss (D-CA), who strove to “guarantee the right of every citizen to know the facts of his government.” Moss, with whom I worked closely as an outside citizen advocate, said that “without the fullest possible access to government information, it is impossible to gain the knowledge necessary to discharge the responsibilities of citizenship.”

All fifty states have adopted FOIA statutes.

As the FOIA approaches its 50th year, it faces a disturbing backlash from scientists tied to the agrichemical company Monsanto and its allies. Here are some examples.

On March 9, three former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science—all with ties to Monsanto or the biotech industry—wrote in the pages of the Guardian to criticize the use of the state FOIA laws to investigate taxpayer-funded scientists who vocally defend Monsanto, the agri-chemical industry, their pesticides and genetically engineered food. They called the FOIAs an “organized attack on science.”

The super-secretive Monsanto has stated, regarding the FOIAs, that “agenda-driven groups often take individual documents or quotes out of context in an attempt to distort the facts, advance their agenda and stop legitimate research.”

Advocates with the venerable Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) do worry that the FOIA can be abused to harass scientists for ideological reasons. This is true; for example, human-caused global warming deniers have abused the FOIA against climate scientists working at state universities like Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

Among other suggestions, UCS recommends the following:

  • “Universities should clarify their policies and procedures with regard to open records requests, ensure that their employees understand these policies and make sure they have considered how they will respond when overly broad requests are used to harass their researchers.”
  • “Legislators should examine their open records laws and ensure that they include appropriate exemptions that will protect privacy and academic freedom without compromising accountability.”
  • “The National Academy of Sciences and other research organizations should provide guidance to legislators and universities on what should be disclosed and what should be protected.”

For more on the UCS positions click here.

The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA.

There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year.

In February, Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the New York Times used documents obtained by the Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center through the FOIA to expose the corporate ties of the climate-change-denying scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, who received more than $1.2 million in contributions from the fossil fuel industry over the last ten years. Soon even called his scientific papers “deliverables” to his corporate donors.

Another area of risk to food and health was revealed by FOIA requests. There are legitimate concerns about the health and environmental perils of genetically engineered crops and food. And the concerns are mounting. For example, in March, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the herbicide glyphosate—which is sprayed as Roundup on many genetically engineered crops—as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

On Aug. 20, in the New England Journal of Medicine, Philip J. Landrigan and Charles Benbrook wrote that “the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.” Another study published on Aug. 25 in the journal Environmental Health suggests that very low levels of exposure to Roundup “can result in liver and kidney damage” in rats, “with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.”

U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit consumer group staffed by consumer advocates, is conducting an investigation of the food and agrichemical industries, including companies like Monsanto and how they use front groups and taxpayer-funded professors at public universities to advance their claims that processed foods, artificial additives and GMOs are safe, wholesome and beyond reproach.

Based on documents that U.S. Right to Know obtained through the FOIA, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote a front page New York Times article about how Monsanto and the agrichemical industry use publically-funded scientists to lobby and to promote its messages and products. For example, Lipton reported on a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, who had repeatedly denied having ties to Monsanto: “‘This is a great 3rd-party approach to developing the advocacy that we’re looking to develop,’ Michael Lohuis, the director of crop biometrics at Monsanto, wrote last year in an email as the company considered giving Dr. Folta an unrestricted grant.”

One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests.

The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.

The FOIA is a valuable tool to help citizens uncover corruption and wrongdoing and to vindicate our right to know what our own governments are doing.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
At Bedtime, My Five-Year-Old Daughter Asked Me if Guns Existed 'in Real Life' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30488"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Wednesday, 07 October 2015 08:47

Valenti writes: "How do I tell my daughter that we live in a nation where people's right to own a weapon that kills trumps her right to safety and a life free from fear?"

Faculty members embrace as they are allowed to return to Umpqua Community College Monday, Oct. 5, 2015, in Roseburg, Oregon. (photo: John Locher/AP)
Faculty members embrace as they are allowed to return to Umpqua Community College Monday, Oct. 5, 2015, in Roseburg, Oregon. (photo: John Locher/AP)


At Bedtime, My Five-Year-Old Daughter Asked Me if Guns Existed 'in Real Life'

By Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK

07 October 15

 

I resent that I have to tell my daughter anything about guns. I resent that I have to be afraid for her

he night before the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, my daughter and I went through our normal nighttime ritual: we each tell each other our favorite part of the day, and then she can ask me any question that’s on her mind. Usually the question is along the lines of “how do teddy bears get made” or “can I have a treat tomorrow?” But that night Layla asked me a question about guns. And I couldn’t help but feel that there was no right way to answer, because all the answers are terrible.

In her room, Layla has a picture of Martin Luther King that she brought home from school earlier this year, and so her question that night was about how he died. I don’t believe much in lying to kids, and Layla is getting bigger - so I told her the truth. And that’s when she asked, shocked, if guns existed “in real life.” It had never occurred to my five year old daughter that guns could be anything but fantastical - something found only in stories, like fairies or unicorns. If only.

It only got harder from there. Layla wanted to know why, if guns hurt people, they were “allowed.” She wanted to know if only the good guys have guns, and if cops are good guys.

The truth is that I resent that I have to tell my daughter anything about guns. I resent that I have to be afraid for her. In 2012, after the shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that left an unimaginable 20 children dead, my husband and I got a message from Layla’s daycare that they were starting lockdown drills. They informed us that these drills taught to the children would “become as familiar as our classroom naptime routines.” She was two years old at the time.

The majority of advice I found online about how to talk to your kids about guns had to do with teaching your children that they live in a world where guns are everywhere, rather than questioning that reality. The NRA, for example, has plenty of tips for parents and lessons for children - complete with a cartoon character named Eddie Eagle. Something tells me Eddie doesn’t let kids know just how many of them get hurt every year thanks to the obscene amount of firearms in this country.

How do I tell my daughter about that? How do I tell her that some people hurt children with guns, or that we live in a nation where people’s right to own a weapon that kills trumps her right to safety and a life free from fear?

This is not the world I want for her - not the world I want for any child.

My husband and I did the best we could that night explaining that guns were, in fact, real, and that despite the fact that they are dangerous some people still own them. I hope Layla wasn’t too confused or scared by this, and I hope she keeps asking us questions. But most of all I hope that by the time my daughter is grown, if her child has questions - she’ll be able to provide them with very different answers.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Meet the Right-Wing Rebels Who Overthrew John Boehner Print
Tuesday, 06 October 2015 13:31

Dickinson writes: "The Republican civil war has claimed its biggest casualty yet. The revolution that toppled John Boehner was carried out by a group of intransigent conservatives who had made the speaker of the House's job hell ever since the Tea Party wave of 2010 elevated him to power."

John Boehner. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
John Boehner. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


Meet the Right-Wing Rebels Who Overthrew John Boehner

By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone

06 October 15

 

The House Freedom Caucus is an ideological and uncompromising band of anti-government radicals. And they're just getting started

he Republican civil war has claimed its biggest casualty yet. The revolution that toppled John Boehner was carried out by a group of intransigent conservatives who had made the speaker of the House's job hell ever since the Tea Party wave of 2010 elevated him to power. It is only in recent months that this disruptive force in American politics even has a name: the House Freedom Caucus.

Composed of nearly 40 of the most committed ideologues in the House, the Freedom Caucus has a simple mission: to get GOP leadership to deliver on the extreme, anti-government and social-conservative rhetoric that nearly all Republicans spout to get elected.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, a member from South Carolina who played football at Clemson, insists the Freedom Caucus just wants to take the fight to the Democrats: "Republicans are in control of the House and the Senate — and it's about time we pass bills that reflect what Republicans stand for."

Eric Cantor, the former House majority leader, himself ousted by Tea Party forces in a primary last year, counters that House hard-liners just don't comprehend the GOP's strategic weakness, in the face of the Democratic filibuster and presidential veto: "I have never heard of a football team that won by throwing only Hail Mary passes," Cantor wrote following Boehner's ouster, "yet that is what is being demanded of Republican leaders today."

If you're not a close observer of Washington politics, the archetype of the Freedom Caucus member that's springing to mind right now is almost certainly wrong. New York Republican Rep. Peter King may have called Boehner's unseating "a victory for the crazies," but there's little lunatic about this fringe. The Freedom Caucus features whip-smart politicians who know how to tell it plain to the folks back home — but may prefer to keep their book-learning on the down-low. Take Rep. Tim Huelskamp. The third-term Kansan sports a buzz cut and a goatee and has the aw-shucks bearing of farmhand-gone-to-Washington. What he doesn't advertise is the political-science doctorate he earned at American University. "Please don't put this in the story," he says with a self-deprecating smile, "but my Ph.D. studies include public administration — organizational theory."

Other members include medical doctors, high-powered attorneys — even a former governor, Appalachian Trail hiker Mark Sanford. Though Southerners predominate, Freedom Caucus members come from all corners — 25 states in all — including New Mexico, Wyoming, Michigan and New Jersey. There's a fierce Southwestern streak: Four of Arizona's five Republican representatives are members.

Two Freedom Caucus members who played pivotal roles in ousting Speaker Boehner come from the Carolinas — and they dress like corporate CFOs. Tall and immaculately tailored, Rep. Mark Meadows looks like he should play himself in the Hollywood re-enactment of this drama. First elected to his rural North Carolina district in 2012, Meadows has zero national profile. But in July, he introduced a measure to unseat the speaker — the first in more than a century — a move that wildly exceeded his goal of sparking a "family conversation" over Boehner's future.

The congressman who sealed the speaker's fate was Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a trim, clean-cut bulldog of a conservative who wears French cuffs and works at a standing desk. Mulvaney represents the same rural South Carolina district served by the fictional Frank Underwood in House of Cards.

During Congress' August recess, Mulvaney signed 31 right-wingers to an open letter committing to blocking funding of Planned Parenthood, which he claims trafficks in "dead-baby parts." And when Congress reconvened in September, the 48-year-old threw down the gauntlet to GOP leaders, demanding they put teeth behind their pro-life rhetoric: "Leadership is going to have to choose," he said. "Do they want it to be a talking point, or do they want to do something about it?"

In a House of 435 members, why would this small bloc of Republicans matter? Management of the chamber demands party discipline, and the speaker's agenda can be paralyzed by just 29 defections. By standing firm against Planned Parenthood, this gang of 31 signaled that the House GOP could not unite behind any budget bill that President Obama would actually sign. Mulvaney had set the clock ticking on another government shutdown — a time bomb that Boehner found he could only defuse by resigning.

We most often think of the Tea Party in opposition to the Obama presidency. In fact, the seeds of division in the modern GOP were sown late in the Bush administration. This anti-establishment movement was born of hard-right furor over GOP government intervention in the economy — including the bank and automaker bailouts — following years of K Street corruption and deficit-bloating social spending.

Freedom Caucus members define themselves less in opposition to Democrats than to "establishment" Republicans — politicians they see as quick to betray their voters, and subservient to K Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents big business in Washington. It's a view articulated by their Senate co-conspirator, Ted Cruz of Texas, who inveighs against a "Washington Cartel" of "lobbyists and career politicians" that "favors giant corporations over taxpayers."

Stocked with ex-jocks, the Freedom Caucus exudes a locker-room camaraderie. They speak in the argot of ESPN football announcers, blasting deceptive turns by GOP leadership as "trickeration" — as though they were describing a flea-flicker or a fake punt. Discussing legislative tactics, they're more apt to cite Bill Belichick, the champion NFL coach, than Sam Rayburn, the legendary speaker from Texas. To plot their latest mischief, the caucus retreats to the basement of the Tortilla Coast, a three-star Yelp-rated Tex-Mex joint just off the Capitol grounds that serves up happy-hour mini-tacos, fried pickles and Bud Light on draft.

To understand these representatives, focus less on personality than on political circumstance. They serve blood-red districts — "homogenous echo chambers," says Norman Ornstein, the American Enterprise Institute scholar who wrote the book on congressional dysfunction, It's Even Worse Than It Looks.

Their districts are typically composed of far-flung suburbs, exurbs and rural communities, sometimes with a third- or fourth-tier city — Grand Rapids, Michigan — thrown in. Economically, these districts fare slightly better than average: Their voters are hanging on in the middle class but hardly thriving, with a median household income of $54,000, just $1,000 above average.

The defining characteristic of these districts is race — they are 83 percent white, or nearly 10 percentage points higher than the national average. That demography is reflected in the makeup of the Freedom Caucus itself. With the prominent exceptions of a woman named Cynthia and a man named Raúl, these are all white men.

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

When election season rolls around, these politicians don't fear moderate Democrats — they are only threatened by even more right-wing Republicans in a primary fight. Instead of seeking to make inroads with Hispanics or independent women, their political imperative is to serve up red meat to furious constituents who say they want "their country back."

Unaccountable to House leadership, these politicians respond to conservative pressure groups like Heritage Action — an offshoot of the Heritage Foundation. (Long a bastion of the establishment, Heritage is now run by reactionary ex-South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, and is a beating heart of insurgency in Washington.) Running afoul of Heritage's metrics of right-wing purity is the quickest way to invite an electoral challenge. "They have score cards," says Dick Durbin, the Senate's number-two Democrat. "It scares the bejesus out of Republicans: 'Vote yes, vote no — or get ready, we're coming at you in the primary.'?"

For Freedom Caucus members, careers in Washington are not defined by incremental legislative progress, but by a chest-beating performance of red-state identity. Winning is subordinate to fighting — a dynamic that leads members to reverse Ronald Reagan's famous admonition: "I'd rather get 80 percent of what I want than go over a cliff with my flags flying."

The commander of the Freedom Caucus is Rep. Jim Jordan, whose rural Ohio district is gerrymandered into the shape of a pelican: The bill reaches into the outskirts of Cleveland, while the tail feathers ruffle up against Speaker Boehner's district in exurban Cincinnati.

Driving across Jordan's district — 89 percent white; R+9 — you go through idyllic cornfields dotted with red barns painted with American flags, and lush fields of soy with dystopian markers reading croplan genetics. On the AM dial, listeners can flip between at least three stations carrying Rush Limbaugh. The road into Lima — pronounced like the bean — passes United States Plastic Corp., whose sprawling headquarters is graced by a giant cross and a sign testifying: christ is the answer.

Lima is a hard-bitten Rust Belt city of 40,000; there is no Starbucks in town and the POW MIA flag flies in front of the county courthouse. The twin economic anchors are an oil refinery and the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center that rolls out Abrams tanks — a weapon that Army Gen. Ray Odierno insists "we don't need," but Congress keeps funding anyway, to the tune of $120 million in 2015 alone.

In June, Heritage Action honored Jordan on the Lima campus of Northeastern Ohio University for scoring 90 percent on its exacting score card. "It's hard to believe an organization as fine as Heritage could be wrong 10 percent of the time," Jordan joked to dozens of local Heritage activists. He then played a numbers game against members of his own party. "Do you know why 65 percent of Republicans think Republican leadership is not doing what they said they were going to do?" he asked, citing a recent Pew poll. "Because we're not doing what we said we were going to do!"

Jordan is broad-shouldered and wiry, with thinning hair up top. He wears baggy dress shirts and speaks in rat-a-tat bursts. "You're the energy in American politics that's going to hold us accountable and force us to do what we campaigned on last fall, why you elected us, why you gave us back the Senate, and why you gave us the largest majority we've had in the House for 80 years," he told the crowd. "It's never been more important that we stand up and fight."

Jordan was a Tea Partier before the moniker was minted. First elected in 2008, he rose to command the Republican Study Committee — at the time, the most conservative caucus in the House. When the influx of ideological Tea Party freshmen arrived in 2010, Jordan picked off dozens disenchanted with establishment leadership to build the forces he'd lead into battle against Boehner.

Jordan's competitive fire was kindled during his career as a wrestler; he racked up four high school championships in Ohio and two NCAA titles at Wisconsin. Diminutive — he wrestled at 134 pounds — the 51-year-old hasn't lost his athletic build. A wrestling fan I met after a town-hall meeting in corn country told me, "He looks like he could still go."

Jordan isn't a natural politician. He's too wonky — like a less-polished version of Paul Ryan — with a habit of making his hands into the vectors of the line graph that he's trying to describe to constituents. But back in Washington, Jordan is a master of political leverage.

For a conventional politician, leading a bloc of 40 backbenchers, plus a dollar, gets you a cup of coffee. But Jordan's command of House rules empowers him to run unconventional plays — thrusting his right-wing bloc to the center of the most contentious policy debates in Washington.

Jordan embraces obstruction. And he has perfected the House equivalent of a filibuster. In a procedural wrinkle you don't learn about in civics class, bringing major legislation to the House floor first requires passage of a procedural "rule." These are party-line votes — these days, Republicans only — and historically perfunctory.

Jordan and his cohorts have found power in refusing to back these tallies — denying their speaker the 218 votes needed to tee up his agenda. Jordan's gang leveraged this tactic to stymie Boehner's plan to fund the government in 2013 — sparking a feckless two-week shutdown over Obamacare that cost the economy $24 billion. Last December, they came within a single vote of derailing the "Cromnibus" budget bill. And they were at it again in the Planned Parenthood fight: Mulvaney's open letter telegraphed to Boehner that he would not have the party-line votes to move a "clean" funding bill to the floor.

Ironically, Boehner had already been bending over backward to honor House conservatives, observing the "Hastert Rule" — by which only bills with the support of the majority of the GOP conference advance to the floor. Freedom Caucus obstruction of rule votes ratchets this bar even higher, blocking bills not backed by 218 of 247 members — or 88 percent.

The backbench rebellions that bedeviled Boehner are a new feature of American politics. In the recent past, Republicans fell in line because party leaders had carrots — OK, pork — and sticks: the threat of cutting off fundraising. "There were always conservative members and conservative districts," says a GOP consultant to a prominent presidential candidate. "But the incentives were different: You had to curry favor with leadership, so you were willing to compromise."

Today, the incentives are missing — or reversed. Leaders have no earmarks to bribe intransigent lawmakers. And conservatives who buck the establishment are rewarded by ideological Super PACs like the Club for Growth. If a representative is committed to disruption, the GOP consultant says, "What power does anybody in leadership have to move them off of that position? There isn't any."

The frustration among old-school House GOPs is visceral. Deputy Whip Tom Cole of Oklahoma likens the Freedom Caucus' tactics to extortion: "I don't think 40 people should be in the position of blackmailing 200 of their colleagues who hold a different view," Cole tells Rolling Stone. "You can't govern this place that way."

But politically, Freedom Caucus obstruction works, because it plays with the base back home. Take it from Virginia Rep. Dave Brat, the bespectacled economics professor who pulled off the biggest upset in congressional history last year by defeating majority leader Cantor in a primary.

"The idea that we're not on the team is false," says Brat, who has found a home in Jordan's fold. "We're the conservatives! We're the very heart of the Republican Party that's trying to represent the American people."

The nexus of power for the House Freedom Caucus is a high perch of the Longworth House office building — a redoubt for backbenchers, far from the gold leaf and bas-relief of the Capitol — where Jordan and Rep. Raúl Labrador of Idaho hold neighboring offices.

When I arrive at Labrador's office, Jordan is just leaving, accompanied by Congressman Meadows. Since his 2012 election, Meadows has been nothing but trouble for Boehner. In the 2013 shutdown fight, it was Meadows who played the instigator, circulating an open letter demanding the defunding of Obamacare.

In a sweltering week in June, Meadows had been the target of Boehner's wrath, stripped of a subcommittee chairmanship for refusing to back a rule vote. But just hours after this powwow in Labrador's office, Meadows would get his gavel back. Jordan and his deputies discovered a wrinkle in the House rule book that empowers a majority of committee members — in this case, held by Tea Partiers — to overrule a decision by leadership. This reversal was more than embarrassing for Boehner — it sparked Meadows' retaliation in late July, a historic motion to "vacate the chair," accusing the speaker of abusing the "power of the office to punish members who vote according to their conscience."

Jordan will size up reporters with a wary smile and an alpha handshake. Labrador, his top lieutenant, is gregarious, rumpled and far less guarded. Labrador comes by his small-government ideology honestly; he was raised by a single mother in Puerto Rico, who instilled in him a bootstrapping sense of self-reliance. "My mom never used welfare because she believed welfare was destructive to the soul," he says. "I became a Republican because of that."

The purpose of the Freedom Caucus, Labrador says, is to hold party leadership's feet to the fire of the activist base. All Republicans — establishment and insurgent alike — vow they'll combat "out of control" government spending, fight for small business and stand tall for conservative social values. But the Tea Party congressmen are convinced that few members of the GOP are truly committed. "Once they get here," Labrador says, "they reject those things."

Labrador views his establishment colleagues as corrupt — selling out small-government principles for PAC donations — or, at best, mindless: "Any monkey can do what we do here, if all we're going to do is what our leadership tells us to do." He isn't bothered by being labeled an obstructionist: "When we stop bad legislation, it's just as functional as when you pass good legislation." And he couldn't care less if you think he's not a GOP team player: "I came here to represent my constituents," he tells Rolling Stone, "not the party."

Get Labrador rolling, and he reveals open contempt for GOP leadership: Contrasting the competence of Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to Nancy Pelosi, Labrador insists, "She's smarter than our leaders." He lets those treasonable words hang in the air for a moment before taking the same swipe at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: "And so is Harry Reid."

In his unvarnished attacks on GOP leadership, Labrador echoes Cruz, the Texan who led the 2013 government-shutdown fight from the upper chamber. The senator's sway with the Tortilla Coast gang has led even top House Democrats to dub him "Speaker Cruz."

Cruz is an imperfect populist. A silver-tongued Princeton debater and Harvard-educated superlawyer, he is married to a Goldman Sachs banker. His bread has been buttered by the same Wall Street bailouts he denounces. Cruz's political patron is a billionaire hedge-fund manager, Robert Mercer, whose firm has been accused by the Senate of $6 billion in tax avoidance — casting a less virtuous light on the senator's campaign to "abolish the IRS."

But Cruz connects with the Tea Party in his denunciation of the Kabuki theater of the GOP establishment — wherein the party stages "show votes" of opposition to appease the party base, while stage-managing a process in which Obamacare gets funded or the debt ceiling rises.

Cruz doesn't see pragmatism in GOP leaders' refusal to pull out all the stops to advance a conservative agenda. He sees cowardice and an ulterior agenda — to conserve political capital to keep the party's corporate patrons well tended.

Cruz's frustration with GOP leadership boiled over in July when he denounced McConnell, on the Senate floor, as a "flat-out" liar who cuts "corrupt" deals while running a "government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists and for the lobbyists."

Freedom Caucus members share Cruz's hatred of the Senate leader — whose first name they practically spit as they say it. "Mitch McConnell is infinitely worse as a leader than Boehner," said Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona. "He surrenders at the sight of battle every time."

McConnell's establishment ties run deep. He's raised $80 million in campaign cash since his election to the Senate in 1984. His wife was a member of George W. Bush's Cabinet. And the Super PAC of the establishment, American Crossroads, is run by his former chief of staff.

McConnell is no liberal — he believes companies are having a hard time finding workers because America's poor are "doing too good with food stamps." But he is a master politico: never one to let rigid ideology stand in the way of cutting a deal.

In conservative ranks, McConnell is also despised for the campaign he waged in 2014 to de-Tea Partify the Senate. Over several elections, the Senate GOP had been drifting to the hard right, largely because establishment money sat out primary elections. This left reactionary groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund, founded by DeMint, to have a field day. DeMint's network launched some of the most recognizable names in modern politics — including senators Cruz, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky. But SCF also cost the GOP as many as six winnable seats by backing unelectable wingnuts like former witchcraft dabbler Christine O'Donnell of Delaware.

McConnell set out to deny SCF "a single nominee anywhere in the country," vowing to "crush them everywhere." To aid this campaign, American Crossroads and the Chamber of Commerce plowed more than $20 million into Senate primary fights.

SCF, and allied groups like the Club for Growth were primed for battle — and even took the fight to McConnell. SCF spent nearly $800,000 on attack ads against the majority leader. But McConnell's powerful friends had his back: The chamber itself invested $1 million to support the Republican leader.

In the end, it wasn't much of a fight. McConnell trounced his primary challenger by 24 points. Similar results held across the country, even in places like Oklahoma and Mississippi, as one after another of SCF's candidates were defeated. The group's president, Ken Cuccinelli, seethed: "The establishment showed us?.?.?.?that they're willing to betray their own voters and tear the GOP apart to hold on to power."

Elections have consequences. And the establishment-dominated 114th Congress shot out of the gates to advance legislation favored by the Chamber of Commerce and other powerful special interests.

McConnell and Boehner overhauled Medicare to boost doctor pay — a top priority of the American Medical Association, which spent $20 million in lobbying last year. For a party that crusades against deficits, the 10-year deal was a major disconnect, racking up $140 billion in red ink.

In a heroic lift on behalf of corporate America, Boehner and McConnell rescued a divisive trade package — greasing the skids for a Pacific Rim free-trade deal expected to impact 40 percent of global GDP. Most infuriating to the Tea Party base, Republican leaders ducked a showdown over Obama's "executive amnesty," instead fully funding the Department of Homeland Security and the myriad contractors in its orbit.

With each snap of the ball, Freedom Caucus members blitzed the speaker. But Boehner stiff-armed his right flank, instead collaborating with pro-business Democrats to move legislation to the president's desk. During the trade deal, Boehner even embraced eight turncoat Democrats who joined with Republican moderates to break a Freedom Caucus filibuster and pass a rule vote.

"There are a lot of folks in our conference who have a very difficult time getting to 'yes' on anything," says Rep. Charlie Dent, a crisply tailored moderate representing Allentown, Pennsylvania. Dent leads a gang of center-right Republicans known as the Tuesday Group that supported Boehner's leadership. As Dent sees it, today's GOP is split between a "governance wing" and a "rejectionist wing." And the governance wing has no choice but to work with Democrats. "On any issue of great consequence around here, we on the Republican side don't have 218 votes for a bathroom break! So we always need a bipartisan coalition."

The House's brief bout of harmony made K Street happy. Marc Lampkin, a Boehner-deputy-turned-lobbyist, told The Hill this summer, "Corporations are a lot more optimistic about whether to invest in Washington." The Chamber of Commerce, too, was pleased. "Our leaders in Washington," said the group's CEO, "proved they could tune out the populists and demagogues."

Through a darker lens, the "populists and demagogues" saw the same state of play in Washington. "The Chamber is winning, the people are losing," Rep. Labrador told Rolling Stone. "They paid a lot of money for those votes."

But at least one (now-former) Freedom Caucus member saw self-destruction in the actions of his compatriots. Rep. Tom McClintock, the lone Californian in the group, resigned in September — writing in an open letter to Jordan that the caucus' intransigence had "thwarted vital conservative policy objectives." By making themselves a roadblock on the right, McClintock wrote, they gave Boehner no option but to tack left, empowering Democrats to shape legislation. The Freedom Caucus, he concluded, had "unwittingly become Nancy Pelosi's tactical ally."

The toxic Republican dynamic in the House has no immediate fix. Boehner's likely replacement, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, is already drawing fire from the right. Radio host Mark Levin blasted him as "Eric Cantor with 10 less IQ points" — a take echoed by Labrador: "Cantor, I thought, was a better leader."

Nor does it change the clash of political imperatives that divides House and Senate Republicans. During the Planned Parenthood standoff, McConnell bristled at the incompetence of House insurgents for demanding an "exercise in futility."

If Tea Partiers look at politics like football, McConnell thinks like a chess player; he sees no purpose in reckless attacks his opponent will easily foil. McConnell is plotting a long game — seeking to preserve GOP control of Congress and gain the presidency. He believes the 2016 election can open a window for the Republicans — like President Obama enjoyed in the first two years of his presidency — when bold GOP initiatives could become realistic, including defunding Planned Parenthood.

But to build to that moment of political power, the GOP must first defend Senate seats in places like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Unlike Freedom Caucus members, these Republicans can't go full Trump on every issue and expect to be re-elected in 2016.

The danger to the rest of us is much closer at hand. The budget measure passed in September is temporary — expiring in December, just as the federal government is forecast to hit the debt ceiling. This raises the specter of a Christmas only a Scrooge could love: with Washington shuttered and the nation defaulting on our debts.

Over the horizon, it's not difficult to imagine how the establishment GOP solves its Freedom Caucus problem — by coming at these obstructionists with guns blazing. The Chamber of Commerce has vowed it will avenge Boehner by targeting uncooperative GOP House incumbents in the 2016 primaries, seeking to repeat its success of pacifying the GOP Senate. The establishment doesn't require total victory; it just needs to flip enough seats to assure the next Republican speaker a lockstep 218-vote majority.

But in the near term, America should brace for chaos — with Republican infighting jeopardizing not only the nation's credit, but funding for our roads and bridges, our veterans and the most vulnerable among us. Boehner was a unique politician: the son of a barback, most at ease at the country club. "He had unique skills bridging irreconcilable groups of Republicans and averting utter disaster," says Ornstein, the congressional scholar. "Nobody else, starting with Kevin McCarthy, has the ability to do it." The Freedom Caucus members have been emboldened by their coup, and anti-establishment presidential candidates will egg them on. This tiny band of radicals — who have built careers on hatred of government — won't be deterred until they've shaken the very foundation of the people's House.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Is Bombing Syria Any Better if Putin Drops the Bombs? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 06 October 2015 13:29

Weissman writes: "'History will perhaps remember, God forbid, that the third world war quietly began on Wednesday the 30th of September 2015,' wrote the left-leaning French magazine L'Obs."

A video grab from footage on the Russian Defense Ministry's official website, purporting to show a Russia's Su-24M bomber dropping bombs during an airstrike in Syria. (photo: Russian Defence Ministry/AFP/Getty Images)
A video grab from footage on the Russian Defense Ministry's official website, purporting to show a Russia's Su-24M bomber dropping bombs during an airstrike in Syria. (photo: Russian Defence Ministry/AFP/Getty Images)


Is Bombing Syria Any Better if Putin Drops the Bombs?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

06 October 15

 

istory will perhaps remember, God forbid, that the third world war quietly began on Wednesday the 30th of September 2015,” wrote the left-leaning French magazine L’Obs.

Claims, counter-claims, and denials abound, but the outline is clear. In the Arabian Gulf off the coast of Oman on or around last Wednesday, the American Navy’s USS Forest Sherman claims to have seized a cargo of arms from a fishing dhow sailing from Iran. The arms were ostensibly intended for Yemen’s Shia rebels, the Houthi, who are fighting Sunni forces led by Saudi Arabia.

Also last Wednesday, Russia began bombing Syria, reportedly hitting Free Syrian Army rebels that the CIA trained and armed. We’ll look at the targeting reports in a moment.

Like the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo that led to World War I, Wednesday’s events could well lead to the ultimate catastrophe, whether by accident or intent. In any case, they dramatize how the passions of the Islamic holy war between Saudi-led Sunni and Iranian-led Shia now intersect with the new Cold War, a nuclear-tinged conflict that pits Putin’s Russia against the United States and its NATO allies.

The questions are obvious. Bombing by the US and its allies has proved bloody, largely ineffective, and often counter-productive against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Why should Russian airstrikes prove any different? Will the Iranians and their allies from Lebanon's Hezbollah provide the missing boots on the ground? Will Chinese aircraft and soldiers enter the fray, as news reports now suggest? Will Putin feel compelled to deploy large number of his own troops? Will all the new bombing slow down or speed up the flow of refugees into Europe? Or, could Putin’s new escalation lead to a rapprochement that enables Russia, the US, and Iran to clean up the inhuman mess they helped create in Syria?

Much of the mess grew out of George W. Bush’s classically imperial conquest of Iraq, one of the worst blunders ever in US foreign policy. Barack Obama then followed up in Syria with his personal brand of hesitant half measures, poorly thought out, ineptly executed, and widely misunderstood by critics and supporters alike.

The initial insurgency against Syrian president Bashir al-Assad in 2011 was part of the Arab Spring, which the Obama administration promoted through the National Endowment for Democracy and the State’s Department’s “Democracy Bureaucracy.” Regime change remained the goal, as it had under Bush and his neo-con advisers. Obama then fanned the flames of Islam’s holy war by having the CIA covertly arm the rebels backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who wanted to overthrow both Assad and his Alawite Shia supporters. Wisely, Obama held back from any major assault on Assad, as a large majority of Americans opposed deploying the needed ground troops. This made regime change impossible, and left the administration with a de facto policy of doing just enough to keep any side from winning.

As the Israeli-American analyst Edward Luttwak explained, “By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.”

“Keep the lid on, but keep the pot boiling” has been a murderous strategy, shaming the Obama administration. But regime change it was not. And now for all of John Kerry’s harsh words against Assad, Washington still does far less than needed to pry the Syrian despot out of office.

Enter Putin, who continues to defend Assad as the country’s only legitimate ruler, enabling the Syrian regime to match and even exceed the Americans in creating the single largest identifiable group of refugees streaming into Europe. But, for all his legalistic rhetoric about national sovereignty, the Russian leader is less than committed to keep Assad in power. As far back as 2012, his UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, proposed a peace plan toformer Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari. As the Finn recently told the Guardian, Churkin’s plan included finding “an elegant way for Assad to step aside.”

Putin’s escalation makes an elegant exit even more likely. Whatever his many other motives for upping the ante, Putin has gone out of his way to reassure the Syrian Alawites that he will protect them whatever happens to Assad, in whom they appear to have lost confidence. He is building two new military facilities near Latakia, in the heart of the Alawite region, giving people there the feeling that Russia will defend them against their Sunni foes. Bombing the Free Syrian Army carries the same message, since the Sunni group holds territory close to Alawite population centers.

So, did the Russian warplanes target these anti-Assad rebels in their opening sortie last Wednesday, as Western sources insist? Or did they target the Islamic States, as Russia sources say. I would not trust either side. They both specialize in strategic communication, psychological warfare, and outright lies. But Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Thursday that the Russians would target both Islamic State and “a list” of other groups fighting Assad, all of whom Moscow and Damascus consider “terrorists.” And Western sources confirmed that the Russians did attack Islamic State on Thursday.

Putin clearly sees the Islamic State militants as a growing threat to Muslim regions in Russia’s southern underbelly. But short of using ground troops, he has no reason to believe that his airstrikes will be any more effective than Obama’s. And even with a victorious ground offensive, the Russians or Iranians would have to stay in Syria forever to keep the Islamic State or other militant jihadis from coming back, just as the Taliban appear to be coming back in Afghanistan.

Outside military force will never defeat militant “fools of God,” especially those who believe they are helping to usher in the apocalypse, as the Islamic State ideologues do. Whether led from Washington, Moscow, or Tehran, imperial interventions will only build support for Islamic State and strengthen their appeal. Defeating them is a problem that the Arabs, Shia and Sunni together, and the Kurds in their homelands, need to solve for themselves. 



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
 
Alabama's New Jim Crow Far From Subtle Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36907"><span class="small">Jesse Jackson, CounterPunch</span></a>   
Tuesday, 06 October 2015 13:27

Jackson writes: "In Alabama, 50 years after Selma, voting rights are once more under assault. Even as Alabama finally took down its confederate flags this year, it has raised new obstacles to voting."

Jesse Jackson. (photo: unknown)
Jesse Jackson. (photo: unknown)


Alabama's New Jim Crow Far From Subtle

By Jesse Jackson, CounterPunch

06 October 15

 

n Alabama, 50 years after Selma, voting rights are once more under assault. Even as Alabama finally took down its confederate flags this year, it has raised new obstacles to voting.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder to gut the Voting Rights Act, supported by the five conservative justices alone, opened the floodgates to legislation in over 21 states erecting new obstacles to make voting more difficult. These have included limiting the days for early voting, eliminating Sunday voting, requiring various forms of ID, shutting down voting sites and more.Alabama — the home of Selma and the Bloody Sunday police riot that spurred the passage of the original Voting Rights Act 50 years ago — is one of the leaders in the new forms of voter suppression. Alabama passed a bill requiring for the first time a photo ID for voting, hitting African-Americans, the poor, the young and the old disproportionately.

Now Alabama is using a budget squeeze to shut down 31 satellite offices that issue driver’s licenses, the most popular form of voter ID. This new Jim Crow isn’t subtle.

Al.com columnist John Archibald reported that eight of the 10 Alabama counties with the highest percentage of nonwhite registered voters saw their driver’s license offices closed. “Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed,” Archibald wrote, “Every one.” First the state demands that you get a photo ID, and then it makes it harder to do so, particularly in areas heavily populated by African-Americans.

Not surprisingly, civil rights activists are asking the Justice Department to intervene. Rep. Terri A. Sewell, who represents Selma and is the only Democratic member of the Alabama congressional delegation, called the restrictions “eerily reminiscent of past, discriminatory practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests that restricted the black vote.”

State officials claim that other ways of obtaining photo IDs are available for voters. But this is Alabama, infamous for its segregationist history, for its rejectionist Gov. George Wallace, for bloody Sunday in Selma, for the murder of four little girls in the bombing of the Birmingham church. Under the original Voting Rights Act, Alabama’s measures would have required preclearance from the Justice Department.

With the bipartisan leadership of Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Pat Leahy, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a bill to resuscitate the Voting Rights Act is now pending in Congress, although it has yet to get a vote. It revives preclearance measures, applying them to states with five violations of federal law to their voting changes over the past 15 years. While the old law applied to nine Southern States and parts of several others, this standard would apply only to Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Yes, Alabama would still be exempt from preclearance, as would other states with an extensive history of voting discrimination such as North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Virginia.

The right to vote is fundamental to any Republic. Voting should be facilitated, not obstructed. We should register citizens automatically. Early voting should be extended and easy. Voting day should be a holiday, so workers have time to cast their votes. American voting rates are scandalously low, largely because we make registration and voting so difficult.

It is particularly outrageous that 50 years after Selma, when the country celebrates the courage of the civil rights marchers, we still witness efforts to suppress the vote, skewed to discriminate against minorities. Alabama’s actions demand a Justice Department investigation. And that demand should be met immediately.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 Next > End >>

Page 2310 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