RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Paris Attacks Show Hypocrisy of West's Outrage Print
Thursday, 22 January 2015 10:16

Chomsky writes: "After the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, which killed 12 people including the editor and four other cartoonists, and the murder of four Jews at a kosher supermarket shortly after, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared 'a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.'"

Prof. Noam Chomsky, linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and activist. (photo: Va Shiva)
Prof. Noam Chomsky, linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and activist. (photo: Va Shiva)


Paris Attacks Show Hypocrisy of West's Outrage

By Noam Chomsky, CNN

22 January 15

 

fter the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, which killed 12 people including the editor and four other cartoonists, and the murder of four Jews at a kosher supermarket shortly after, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared "a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity."

Millions of people demonstrated in condemnation of the atrocities, amplified by a chorus of horror under the banner "I am Charlie." There were eloquent pronouncements of outrage, captured well by the head of Israel's Labor Party and the main challenger for the upcoming elections, Isaac Herzog, who declared that "Terrorism is terrorism. There's no two ways about it," and that "All the nations that seek peace and freedom [face] an enormous challenge" from brutal violence.

The crimes also elicited a flood of commentary, inquiring into the roots of these shocking assaults in Islamic culture and exploring ways to counter the murderous wave of Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our values. The New York Times described the assault as a "clash of civilizations," but was corrected by Times columnist Anand Giridharadas, who tweeted that it was "Not & never a war of civilizations or between them. But a war FOR civilization against groups on the other side of that line. #CharlieHebdo."

The scene in Paris was described vividly in the New York Times by veteran Europe correspondent Steven Erlanger: "a day of sirens, helicopters in the air, frantic news bulletins; of police cordons and anxious crowds; of young children led away from schools to safety. It was a day, like the previous two, of blood and horror in and around Paris."

Erlanger also quoted a surviving journalist who said that "Everything crashed. There was no way out. There was smoke everywhere. It was terrible. People were screaming. It was like a nightmare." Another reported a "huge detonation, and everything went completely dark." The scene, Erlanger reported, "was an increasingly familiar one of smashed glass, broken walls, twisted timbers, scorched paint and emotional devastation."

These last quotes, however -- as independent journalist David Peterson reminds us -- are not from January 2015. Rather, they are from a report by Erlanger on April 24 1999, which received far less attention. Erlanger was reporting on the NATO "missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters" that "knocked Radio Television Serbia off the air," killing 16 journalists.

"NATO and American officials defended the attack," Erlanger reported, "as an effort to undermine the regime of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia." Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told a briefing in Washington that "Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic's murder machine as his military is," hence a legitimate target of attack.

There were no demonstrations or cries of outrage, no chants of "We are RTV," no inquiries into the roots of the attack in Christian culture and history. On the contrary, the attack on the press was lauded. The highly regarded U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke, then envoy to Yugoslavia, described the successful attack on RTV as "an enormously important and, I think, positive development," a sentiment echoed by others.

Also ignored in the "war against terrorism" is the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times -- Barack Obama's global assassination campaign targeting people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby. Other unfortunates are also not lacking, such as the 50 civilians reportedly killed in a U.S.-led bombing raid in Syria in December, which was barely reported.

One person was indeed punished in connection with the NATO attack on RTV -- Dragoljub Milanovi?, the general manager of the station, who was sentenced by the European Court of Human Rights to 10 years in prison for failing to evacuate the building, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia considered the NATO attack, concluding that it was not a crime, and although civilian casualties were "unfortunately high, they do not appear to be clearly disproportionate."

The comparison between these cases helps us understand the condemnation of the New York Times by civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams, famous for his forceful defense of freedom of expression. "There are times for self-restraint," Abrams wrote, "but in the immediate wake of the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory, [the Times editors] would have served the cause of free expression best by engaging in it" by publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing Mohammed that elicited the assault.

Abrams is right in describing the Charlie Hebdo attack as "the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory." The reason has to do with the concept "living memory," a category carefully constructed to include Their crimes against us while scrupulously excluding Our crimes against them -- the latter not crimes but noble defense of the highest values, sometimes inadvertently flawed.

This is not the place to inquire into just what was being "defended" when RTV was attacked, but such an inquiry is quite informative (see my A New Generation Draws the Line).

There are many other illustrations of the interesting category "living memory." One is provided by the Marine assault against Fallujah in November 2004, one of the worst crimes of the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq.

The assault opened with occupation of Fallujah General Hospital, a major war crime quite apart from how it was carried out. The crime was reported prominently on the front page of the New York Times, accompanied with a photograph depicting how "Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs." The occupation of the hospital was considered meritorious and justified: it "shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Fallujah General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties."

Evidently, this is no assault on free expression, and does not qualify for entry into "living memory."

There are other questions. One would naturally ask how France upholds freedom of expression and the sacred principles of "fraternity, freedom, solidarity." For example, is it through the Gayssot Law, repeatedly implemented, which effectively grants the state the right to determine Historical Truth and punish deviation from its edicts? By expelling miserable descendants of Holocaust survivors (Roma) to bitter persecution in Eastern Europe? By the deplorable treatment of North African immigrants in the banlieues of Paris where the Charlie Hebdo terrorists became jihadis? When the courageous journal Charlie Hebdo fired the cartoonist Siné on grounds that a comment of his was deemed to have anti-Semitic connotations? Many more questions quickly arise.

Anyone with eyes open will quickly notice other rather striking omissions. Thus, prominent among those who face an "enormous challenge" from brutal violence are Palestinians, once again during Israel's vicious assault on Gaza in the summer of 2014, in which many journalists were murdered, sometimes in well-marked press cars, along with thousands of others, while the Israeli-run outdoor prison was again reduced to rubble on pretexts that collapse instantly on examination.

Also ignored was the assassination of three more journalists in Latin America in December, bringing the number for the year to 31. There have been more than a dozen journalists killed in Honduras alone since the military coup of 2009 that was effectively recognized by the U.S. (but few others), probably according post-coup Honduras the per capita championship for murder of journalists. But again, not an assault on freedom of press within living memory.

It is not difficult to elaborate. These few examples illustrate a very general principle that is observed with impressive dedication and consistency: The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes -- and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.

Contrary to the eloquent pronouncements, it is not the case that "Terrorism is terrorism. There's no two ways about it." There definitely are two ways about it: theirs versus ours. And not just terrorism.

There are many other events that call for no inquiry into western culture and history -- for example, the worst single terrorist atrocity in Europe in recent years, in July 2011, when Anders Breivik, a Christian ultra-Zionist extremist and Islamophobe, slaughtered 77 people, mostly teenagers.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Obama Addresses Extremist Group Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Wednesday, 21 January 2015 16:07

Borowitz writes: "President Obama is courting controversy with his decision to address a group that has become dominated in recent years by extremists."

US Congress. (photo: Reuters)
US Congress. (photo: Reuters)


Obama Addresses Extremist Group

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

21 January 15

 

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."

resident Obama is courting controversy with his decision to address a group that has become dominated in recent years by extremists.

Some have questioned the appropriateness of the President speaking to such an extremist group, especially because in the past it has issued threats against the United States government.

As recently as 2013, for example, the extremists threatened to shut down the entire federal government if their demands were not met.

On Tuesday afternoon, the White House defended the President’s decision to speak to the extremists, pointing out that the Administration had also initiated dialogues with Iran and North Korea.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
In Hollywood, Black Lives Don't Matter Print
Wednesday, 21 January 2015 15:55

Osterweil writes: "Although every year people critique the racist and sexist implications of the Oscars selections, this year the story crossed over into the mainstream. It's hard not to credit the #BlackLivesMatter movement with the media's increased attention to racial justice issues."

Still from Director Ava DuVernay's film about Martin Luther King.  (video still: Ava DuVernay)
Still from Director Ava DuVernay's film about Martin Luther King. (video still: Ava DuVernay)


In Hollywood, Black Lives Don't Matter

By Willie Osterweil, Al Jazeera America

21 January 15

 

ne of the beautiful things about having a social justice movement in the streets is that it’s not so easy for the powers that be to get away with their repressive conduct. In the wake of the Oscars’ outrageous snub of Ava DuVernay’s “Selma” though nominated for best picture, it was passed over in almost all other categories, including best director, best cinematography, best actor (for David Oyelowo, who plays Martin Luther King Jr.) and best supporting actress (for Carmen Ejogo, who plays Coretta Scott King) — pieces have sprung up across the media condemning the Oscars’ racist, sexist snubbing and the all-white slate of 20 nominees in the acting categories.

Thanks to activist networks built across social media, significant facts about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ demographics — 93 percent white, 76 percent male and 86 percent over the age of 50 — are being spread widely. A hilarious hashtag, #OscarsSoWhite, trended in the United States, and, as is increasingly the case, became a story in its own right. Although every year people critique the racist and sexist implications of the Oscars selections, this year the story crossed over into the mainstream. It’s hard not to credit the #BlackLivesMatter movement with the media’s increased attention to racial justice issues.

But the “Selma” snub seems particularly harsh and telling because of how clearly “Selma” fits the stereotype of an Academy Award–winning film. It’s a period piece and a biopic, it’s about a beloved political figure that tips its hat to radicalism while ultimately celebrating accommodation, it was universally critically acclaimed, and it was released in December, going wide (in January) to a respectable if not blockbuster 2,000 screens. It is a finely crafted film of middlebrow entertainment that can make white people feel good about racial progress. In other words, a shoo-in for accolades.

What went wrong? Perhaps it’s that — unlike Oscar-beloved “The Help,” “12 Years a Slave” and “Django Unchained” — it didn’t feature a heroic white do-gooder. Or maybe it’s that it insulted that great white liberal hero, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose representation in the film as an antagonist to the movement has become controversial. (To be fair, Johnson’s relationship with King was much less confrontational than the film depicts, but in terms of the greater truth the film represents, presidential historians argue that Johnson was deeply involved in the repression of the civil rights movement.) Or maybe it’s about the racial politics of the film: “Django” and “The Help” feature much more stereotypical black roles, and “12 Years a Slave” was written by a racial conservative, while “Selma” has a more nuanced and progressive racial perspective and characterization.

Or maybe it’s about issues behind the camera. The snubbing of the film’s impeccable directing may reflect multiple forms of oppression: In the entire history of the best director award, Kathryn Bigelow’s 2009 Oscar for “The Hurt Locker” is the only time a woman has ever won. Out of the 433 total best director nominations, four have gone to women, and three have gone to black men. A black woman has never been nominated. Also, it’s not hard to imagine academy voters saying to themselves that they already featured a race movie last year, so why should they again this year? Does it seem unlikely, in light of how producer Scott Rudin and film executive Amy Pascal joked about whether President Barack Obama preferred “12 Years a Slave,” “Django Unchained” or “The Butler” (revealed in last November’s hack of emails from Sony Pictures) that such a reductive vision of black movies permeates Hollywood’s elite? It certainly seems to permeate the films they produce. Spike Lee suggested something similarly cynical, arguing that it’s just a cyclical thing: Every 10 years the academy celebrates a film about black people and then goes back to its regularly scheduled white supremacist nominating.

It’s probably some combination of these factors, along with more industry-internal political questions. As Doreen St. Felix pointed out on Twitter, Steven Spielberg owns the rights to an upcoming MLK biopic, and “Selma was snubbed bc The Oscars / Steven Spielberg Complex wants Spielberg to be remembered for making *the* MLK movie.” Whatever the factors in the snub, it affords an important moment to recognize the role of Hollywood in general and the Oscars in particular in reproducing the patriarchal and white supremacist state of things.

In an increasingly globalized film market, in which more and more films are being designed for export, the Oscars are a particularly insular and domestic affair (with all non-English-language cinematic production reduced to a single award). As such, they offer a glimpse into the political attitudes of a particular and particularly American moneyed elite: The Academy Awards may be understood as the political expression of the film industry.

The Oscars are a massive kingmaker. Not only do they mean an extra $20 million, on average, in box office for films nominated for best picture, but they also dramatically increase the wages and career prospects of individual winners and nominees. They produce a massive amount of media coverage and discussion and are one of ABC’s few reliable ratings successes of the year.

Academy voters therefore have immense power in distributing money across the industry, determining who succeeds and deeming certain messages important and representative. The voters are almost all white and male; consequently, the filmmakers who best satisfy the viewpoint of old white men are more likely to succeed. And on the basis of the demographics, these voters are much more likely to be the producers, studio heads or past stars of the industry than currently engaged cinema artists. The films the Oscars celebrate thus reflect the viewpoint of the moneyed interests of the industry. As a result, DuVernay’s snub might even be bad for her career.

The political significance of the snub, however, goes well beyond Hollywood. In the face of the biggest anti-racist social movement since the decades depicted in “Selma,” the academy’s snubbing of DuVernay and its nomination of exclusively white actors is more than just the usual Oscar shenanigans. As the furor over the nominations shows, it is also a political gesture. It represents an open rejection of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, a big middle finger to black people in America and the rest of the world.

At the 2013 Academy Awards ceremony, first lady Michelle Obama’s appeared, flanked by military members, to announce the best picture award to the anti-Iran propaganda fantasy “Argo.” The scene revealed an industry openly making a commitment to being an arm of the state. This year the film industry joins the state in repressing and rejecting the racial justice movement against the police, in acting as an enemy of progress, even when the stakes of doing the right thing (properly respecting a good, nonrevolutionary film like “Selma”) are quite low. Hollywood has revealed itself, once again, to be on the wrong side of justice. It’s up to the movement to prove it equally on the wrong side of history.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Trickle-Down Was Nothing More Than the Politics of Helping the Rich and Powerful Get Richer and More Powerful Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7122"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 21 January 2015 12:28

Warren writes: "I've spent most of my career studying what's happening to America's middle class, and I know that these four widely-cited statistics give an important snapshot of the success of the overall economy. But the overall picture doesn't tell us much about what's happening at ground level to tens of millions of Americans. Despite these cheery numbers, America's middle class is in deep trouble."

Senator Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Getty Images)
Senator Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Getty Images)


Trickle-Down Was Nothing More Than the Politics of Helping the Rich and Powerful Get Richer and More Powerful

By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

21 January 15

 

oday, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke at the AFL-CIO National Summit on Raising Wages. The text of Senator Warren's remarks as prepared for delivery follows, and a PDF copy of her remarks is available here:

Good morning, and thank you MaryBe for the introduction, and for your work with the North Carolina AFL-CIO. Your efforts make a real difference for our families.

I want to start by thanking Rich Trumka and Damon Silvers for your leadership on economic issues, for your good counsel, and, for a long time now, your friendship. I also want to give special thanks to my good friends from the Massachusetts AFL-CIO who are here today, Steve Tolman and Lou Mandarini.

I love being with my labor friends, and I'm especially glad to join you today for the AFL's first-ever National Summit on Wages. You follow in the best tradition of the American labor movement for more than a century-always fighting for working people, both union and non-union. Today you've spotlighted an economic issue that is central to understanding what's happening to people all over this country.

I recently read an article in Politico called "Everything is Awesome." The article detailed the good news about the economy: 5% GDP growth in the third quarter of 2014, unemployment under 6%, a new all-time high for the Dow, low inflation.(i)

Despite the headline, the author recognized that not everything is awesome, but his point has been repeated several times: On many different statistical measures, the economy has improved and is continuing to improve. I think the President and his team deserve credit for the steps they've taken to get us here. In particular, job growth is a big deal, and we celebrate it.

I've spent most of my career studying what's happening to America's middle class, and I know that these four widely-cited statistics give an important snapshot of the success of the overall economy. But the overall picture doesn't tell us much about what's happening at ground level to tens of millions of Americans. Despite these cheery numbers, America's middle class is in deep trouble.

Think about it this way: The stock market is soaring, and that's great if you have a pension or money in a mutual fund. But if you and your husband or wife are both working full time, with kids in school, and you are among the half or so of all Americans who don't have any money in stocks,(ii) how does a booming stock market help you?

Corporate profits(iii) and GDP are up. But if you work at Walmart, and you are paid so little that you still need food stamps to put groceries on the table, what does more money in stockholders' pockets and an uptick in GDP do for you?

Unemployment numbers are dropping. But if you've got a part-time job and still can't find full-time work -- or if you've just given up because you can't find a good job to replace the one you had -- you are counted as part of that drop in unemployment,(iv) but how much is your economic situation improving?

Inflation rates are still low. But if you are young and starting out life with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt locked into high interest rates by Congress, unable to find a good job or save to buy a house, how are you benefiting from low inflation?

A lot of broad national economic statistics say our economy is getting better, and it is true that the economy overall is recovering from the terrible crash of 2008. But there have been deep structural changes in this economy, changes that have gone on for more than thirty years, changes that have cut out hard-working, middle class families from sharing in this overall growth.

It wasn't always this way.

Coming out of the Great Depression, America built a middle class unlike anything seen on earth. From the 1930s to the late 1970s, as GDP went up, wages went up pretty much across the board. In fact, 90% of all workers-everyone outside the top 10%-got about 70% of all the new income growth.(v) Sure, the richest 10% gobbled up more than their share-they got 30%. But overall, as the economic pie got bigger, pretty much everyone was getting a little more. In other words, as our country got richer, our families got richer. And as our families got richer, our country got richer. That was how this country built a great middle class.

But then things changed.

By 1980, wages had flattened out, while expenses kept going up. The squeeze was terrible. In the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much, adjusted for inflation, on mortgages as they had a generation earlier. They spent more on health insurance, and more to send their kids to college. Mom and dad both went to work, but that meant new expenses like childcare, higher taxes, and the costs of a second car. All over the country, people tightened their belts where they could, but it still hasn't been enough to save them. Families have gone deep into debt to pay for college, to cover serious medical problems, or just to stay afloat a while longer.(vi) And today's young adults may be the first generation in American history to end up, as a group, with less than their parents.(vii)

Remember how up until 1980, 90% of all people-middle class, working people, poor people-got about 70% of all the new income that was created in the economy and the top 10% took the rest? Since 1980, guess how much of the growth in income the 90% got? Nothing. None. Zero. In fact, it's worse than that. The average family not in the top 10% makes less money than a generation ago.(viii) So who got the increase in income over the last 32 years? 100% of it went to the top ten percent. All of the new money earned in this economy over the past generation-all that growth in the GDP-went to the top.(ix) All of it.

That is a huge structural change. When I look at the data here - and this includes years of research I conducted myself - I see evidence everywhere about the pounding that working people are taking. Instead of building an economy for all Americans, for the past generation this country has grown an economy that works for some Americans. For tens of millions of working families who are the backbone of this country, this economy isn't working. These families are working harder than ever, but they can't get ahead. Opportunity is slipping away. Many feel like the game is rigged against them - and they are right. The game is rigged against them.

Since the 1980s, too many of the people running this country have followed one form or another of supply side - or trickle down - economic theory. Many in Washington still support it. When all the varnish is removed, trickle-down just means helping the biggest corporations and the richest people in this country, and claiming that those big corporations and rich people could be counted to create an economy that would work for everyone else.

Trickle-down was popular with big corporations and their lobbyists, but it never really made much sense. George Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics.(x) He was right, and let's call it out for what it is: Trickle-down was nothing more than the politics of helping the rich-and-powerful get richer and more powerful, and it cut the legs out from under America's middle class.

Trickle-down policies are pretty simple. First, fire the cops-not the cops on Main Street, but the cops on Wall Street. Pretty much the whole Republican Party - and, if we're going to be honest, too many Democrats - talked about the evils of "big government" and called for deregulation. It sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do-turning them loose to rig the markets and reduce competition, to outsource more jobs, to load up on more risks and hide behind taxpayer guarantees, to sell more mortgages and credit cards that cheated people. In short, to do whatever juiced short term profits even if it came at the expense of working families.

Trickle down was also about cutting taxes for those at the top. Cut them when times are good, cut them when times are bad. And when that meant there was less money for road repairs, less money for medical research, and less money for schools and that our government would need to squeeze kids on student loans, then so be it. And look at the results: The top 10% got ALL the growth in income over the past 30 years-ALL of it-and the economy stopped working for everyone else.

The trickle-down experiment that began in the Reagan years failed America's middle class. Sure, the rich are doing great. Giant corporations are doing great. Lobbyists are doing great. But we need an economy where everyone else who works hard gets a shot at doing great!

The world has changed beneath the feet of America's working families. Powerful forces like globalization and technology are creating seismic shifts that are disrupting our economy, altering employment patterns, and putting new stresses on old structures. Those changes could create new opportunities-or they could sweep away the last vestiges of economic security for 90% of American workers. Those changes demand new and different economic policies from our federal government. But too many politicians have looked the other way. Instead of running government to expand opportunity for 90% of Americans and to shore up security in an increasingly uncertain world, instead of re-thinking economic policy to deal with tough new realities, for more than 30 years, Washington has far too often advanced policies that hammer America's middle class even harder.

Look at the choices Washington has made, the choices that have left America's middle class in a deep hole:

  • the choice to leash up the financial cops,
  • the choice in a recession to bail out the biggest banks with no strings attached while families suffered,
  • the choice to starve our schools and burden our kids with billions of dollars of student loan debt while cutting taxes for billionaires,
  • the choice to spend your tax dollars to subsidize Big Oil instead of putting that money into rebuilding our roads and bridges and power grids,
  • the choice to look the other way when employers quit paying overtime, reclassified workers as independent contractors and just plain old stole people's wages,
  • the choice to sign trade pacts and tax deals that let subsidized manufacturers around the globe sell here in America while good American jobs get shipped overseas.

For more than thirty years, too many politicians in Washington have made deliberate choices that favored those with money and power. And the consequence is that instead of an economy that works well for everyone, America now has an economy that works well for about 10% of the people.

It wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be this way. We can make new choices - different choices - choices that put working people first, choices that aim toward a better future for our children, choices that reflect our deepest values as Americans.

One way to make change is to talk honestly and directly about work, about how we value the work that people do every day. We need to talk about what we believe:

  • We believe that no one should work full time and still live in poverty - and that means raising the minimum wage.
  • We believe workers have a right to come together, to bargain together and to rebuild America's middle class.
  • We believe in enforcing labor laws, so that workers get overtime pay and pensions that are fully funded.
  • We believe in equal pay for equal work.
  • We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.

We also need a hard conversation about how we create jobs here in America. We need to talk about how to build a future. So let's say what we believe:

  • We believe in making investments - in roads and bridges and power grids, in education, in research - investments that create good jobs in the short run and help us build new opportunities over the long run.
  • And we believe in paying for them-not with magical accounting scams that pretend to cut taxes and raise revenue, but with real, honest-to-goodness changes that make sure that we pay-and corporations pay-a fair share to build a future for all of us.
  • We believe in trade policies and tax codes that will strengthen our economy, raise our living standards, and create American jobs - and we will never give up on those three words: Made in America.

And one more point. If we're ever going to un-rig the system, then we need to make some important political changes. And here's where we start:

  • We know that democracy doesn't work when congressmen and regulators bow down to Wall Street's political power - and that means it's time to break up the Wall Street banks and remind politicians that they don't work for the big banks, they work for US!

Changes like this aren't easy. But we know they are possible. We know they are possible because we have seen David beat Goliath before. We have seen lobbyists lose. We've seen it all through our history. We saw it when we created the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when we passed health care reform. We saw it when President Obama took important steps to try and reform our immigration system through executive order just weeks ago. Change is difficult, but it is possible.

This is personal for me. When I was 12, my big brothers were all off in the military. My mother was 50 years old, a stay at home mom. My daddy had a heart attack, and it turned our little family upside down. The bills piled up. We lost the family station wagon, and we nearly lost our home. I remember the day my mother, scared to death and crying the whole time, pulled her best dress out of the closet, put on her high heels and walked to the Sears to get a minimum wage job. Unlike today, a minimum wage job back then paid enough to support a family of three. That minimum wage job saved our home-and saved our family.

My daddy ended up as a maintenance man, and my mom kept working at Sears. I made it through a commuter college that cost $50 a semester and I ended up in the United States Senate. Sure, I worked hard, but I grew up in an America that invested in kids like me, an America that built opportunities for kids to compete in a changing world, an America where a janitor's kid could become a United States Senator. I believe in that America.

I believe in an America that builds opportunities. An America that ensures that all hardworking men and women earn good wages. An America that once again grows a strong, vibrant middle class.

I believe in that America, and I will fight for that America! And if we fight-side-by-side-I know we will build that America again.



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
 
FOCUS | French Government's Response to Paris Shooting Echoes U.S. Response to 9/11 Print
Wednesday, 21 January 2015 11:25

Excerpt: "The French government's response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre was uncannily similar to the U.S. government's response to 9/11. This is unfortunate, given the fact that the U.S. response to 9/11 dramatically increased the prevalence of terrorism, which U.S. intelligence agencies anticipated."

French president Hollande on the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. (photo: Anne Christine Poujoulat/AP)
French president Hollande on the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. (photo: Anne Christine Poujoulat/AP)


French Government's Response to Paris Shooting Echoes U.S. Response to 9/11

By Ken Klippenstein and Paul Gottinger, ReaderSupported News

21 January 15

 

he French government’s response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre was uncannily similar to the U.S. government’s response to 9/11. This is unfortunate, given the fact that the U.S. response to 9/11 dramatically increased the prevalence of terrorism, which U.S. intelligence agencies anticipated. For instance, prior to the Iraq War, Bush’s own CIA director, George Tenet, warned that invading Iraq would cause it to be “much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions” against the U.S.

Tenet was correct: experts find that “the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks.”

After the Paris shooting, the French parliament quickly voted to extend airstrikes on ISIS – with 488 voting in the affirmative and just one member voting against it. The sole lawmaker to vote against the measure cautioned that airstrikes could invite more extremist violence, essentially the same as George Tenet’s contention. This warning is well founded, since U.S. airstrikes have led to “soaring” recruitment for ISIS, as the Israeli press reported in September.

The French lawmaker’s lone stance was reminiscent of U.S. senator Russ Feingold’s solitary vote against the Patriot Act, accompanied by his prescient warning about how the act would allow the government to “compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone.” Following the Paris murders, there has been discussion in France about creating its own version of the Patriot Act, which could weaken already poor protections against domestic spying.

Further parallels exist. Perhaps taking a cue from George W. Bush’s theatrics, the French president made a speech aboard the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier to hundreds of French service members. In the speech, he announced that the carrier was headed to the Persian Gulf to assist in the coalition air strikes against ISIS in Iraq.

Arguing for France’s expanded participation in airstrikes against ISIS, the leader of the Socialist Party in France’s National Assembly said, “defeating the jihadist armies in their own soil cuts off the supply of terrorism on our home soil.” These words call to mind Bush’s attempt to justify his invasion of Iraq: “It’s better to fight them there than here.”

In practice, however, “fighting them there” has brought terror here, to the West. For example, Sharif Kouashi, one of the Paris shooters, seems to have been radicalized, at least in part, by the U.S. war in Iraq. It was reportedly images of the Iraq war, and especially the torture at Abu Ghraib, that motivated Mr. Kouashi to join an organization in France calling on young Muslims to fight the U.S. in Iraq.

Perhaps the most eerie moment of déjà vu was when the French National Assembly spontaneously broke out into the French National Anthem. This echoes the U.S. Congress singing God Bless America after 9/11, a spectacle that epitomized the nationalistic fervor that would give rise to the ruinous invasion of Iraq. The invasion would result in the advent of al-Qaeda in Iraq, an offshoot of which is ISIS – the very group to which one of the shooters reportedly pledged allegiance.

Paul Gottinger is a freelance journalist based in Madison, WI. He can be reached on Twitter @paulgottinger or email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Ken Klippenstein is a staff journalist at Reader Supported News. He can be reached on Twitter @kenklippenstein or email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it



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
 
<< Start < Prev 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 Next > End >>

Page 2583 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