|
They Can't Outlaw the Revolution |
|
|
Monday, 19 May 2014 08:31 |
|
Hedges writes: "Cecily McMillan, the Occupy activist who on Monday morning will appear before a criminal court in New York City to be sentenced to up to seven years on a charge of assaulting a police officer, sat in a plastic chair wearing a baggy, oversized gray jumpsuit, cheap brown plastic sandals and horn-rim glasses."
Cecily McMillan. (photo: Lucy Parks)

They Can't Outlaw the Revolution
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig
19 May 14
ecily McMillan, the Occupy activist who on Monday morning will appear before a criminal court in New York City to be sentenced to up to seven years on a charge of assaulting a police officer, sat in a plastic chair wearing a baggy, oversized gray jumpsuit, cheap brown plastic sandals and horn-rim glasses. Other women, also dressed in prison-issued gray jumpsuits, sat nearby in the narrow, concrete-walled visitation room clutching their children, tears streaming down their faces. The children, bewildered, had their arms wrapped tightly around their mothers’ necks. It looked like the disaster scene it was.
“It’s all out in the open here,” said the 25-year-old student, who was to have graduated May 22 with a master’s degree from The New School of Social Research in New York City. “The cruelty of power can’t hide like it does on the outside. You get America, everything America has become, especially for poor people of color in prison. My lawyers think I will get two years. But two years is nothing compared to what these women, who never went to trial, never had the possibility of a trial with adequate legal representation, face. There are women in my dorm who, because they have such a poor command of English, do not even understand their charges. I spent a lot of time trying to explain the charges to them.”
McMillan says Grantley Bovell, who was in plainclothes and did not identify himself as a police officer, grabbed her from behind during a March 17, 2012, gathering of several hundred Occupy activists in Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park. In a video of the incident she appears to have instinctively elbowed him in the face, but she says she has no memory of what happened. Video and photographs—mostly not permitted by the trial judge to be shown in the courtroom—buttressed her version of events. There is no dispute that she was severely beaten by police and taken from the park to a hospital where she was handcuffed to a bed. On May 5 she was found guilty after a three-week trial of a felony assault in the second degree. She can receive anything from probation to seven years in prison.
READ MORE

|
|
Marine Le Pen Targets Muslims, Seeks Jewish Support, and Loves Vladimir Putin |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 18 May 2014 15:05 |
|
Weissman writes: "Marine Le Pen has rebranded France’s Front National (FN) and is fast becoming the face of Europe’s growing right-wing nationalism. But how much does the new right-wing darling still take from Adolph Hitler’s National Socialists, which gave the FN much of its initial inspiration?"
President of French far-right party Front national (FN) Marine Le Pen. (photo: AFP/Getty Images)

Marine Le Pen Targets Muslims, Seeks Jewish Support, and Loves Vladimir Putin
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
18 May 14
arine Le Pen has rebranded France’s Front National (FN) and is fast becoming the face of Europe’s growing right-wing nationalism. But how much does the new right-wing darling still take from Adolph Hitler’s National Socialists, which gave the FN much of its initial inspiration?
When Marine’s father – Jean-Marie Le Pen – ran the FN, his opponents called him “Super Facho,” or “Super Fascist,” while many journalists, including this one, regularly described his group as “the neo-Nazi Front National.” He certainly admired Adolph Hitler. From the early 1960s, Jean Marie ran a record company that produced historic speeches and songs across the political spectrum. One album was “The Third Reich: Voices and Songs of the German Revolution,” which included “Vive Hitler” and “The Hymn of the Nazi Party.” On the record jacket, Le Pen characterized Hitler and the National Socialists in their rise to power as “a powerful mass movement, altogether popular and democratic, that triumphed through elections.”
With this in mind, Jean-Marie created the Front National in 1972, bringing together self-proclaimed Fascists, Vichy collaborators, well-known war criminals, and more traditional right-wing Catholics. This was a nationalistic amalgam, not an avowedly Fascist or Nazi party. A former paratrooper and intelligence officer whose unit brutally tortured and killed “Arab terrorists” in Algeria, Le Pen cast himself primarily as a French patriot, not an Aryan supremacist. But many around him, especially in his security detail, remained hardline German-style Nazis, while he himself rarely missed an opportunity to bash the Führer’s chosen scapegoats.
Shamelessly provocative, he dismissed the Holocaust as “a mere detail in the history of the Second World War.” He made puns about the Nazi gas ovens. He accused former president Jacques Chirac of being “in the pay of Jewish organizations.” Never a one-trick pony, in his 2002 presidential campaign against Chirac, Jean-Marie directed most of his venom at Muslims, whom he accused of taking French jobs, threatening French culture, and polluting the national identity. “Tomorrow, if you don’t watch out,” he warned, “they will take your home, eat your food and sleep with your wife, your daughter, or your son.”
Marine, his youngest daughter, cuts a different figure, which is winning her more support than her father ever received. The latest poll predicts that the Front National will lead the pack in the May 25th elections for the European Parliament, where she has allied with other far-right anti-immigrant parties to “battle the monster of Brussels” and block any further European integration.
The good news is that Marine’s predicted share of the vote has slipped from over 30% to only 24%, while a poll last week showed that two-thirds of the French find her a demagogue and 60% still think she’s a racist. That’s reassuring, but I find it kind of scary that nearly a quarter of the people among whom my wife and I live say they will vote for the Front National.
However the vote turns out, a large element in Marine’s success has been the pig-headed policies of the European Union, from creating the Euro to enforcing painful, anti-growth austerity and neo-liberal economics with its belief in some mythic “free market.” Blame, as well, the pathetic failure of the French left to offer any serious alternative. But give the lady her due, as did the American Free Press, the latest racist rag of the Liberty Lobby’s Willis Carto, whom readers may recall as an outspoken admirer of Hitler, global promoter of Holocaust denial, and long-time fan of the elder Le Pen.
“Ms. Le Pen has learned to walk the fine line of right-wing politics,” wrote the AFP. “She has focused on illegal immigration, high unemployment, exit from the Eurozone and other nationalist issues while toning down language that might be perceived as ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semitic.’”
Or, to cite the AFP’s tagline, “National Front finds being ‘anti-Muslim’ better for business than being ‘anti-Semitic.’”
Like many European aristocrats with their long history of despising Jews, the proudly middle-class Marine has learned to accept an inescapable truth. Hitler gave anti-Semitism a bad name. She now tries to sound positively pro-Jewish and Israeli, which traditional racists blame on her live-in lover Louis Aliot, an FN vice president who speaks proudly of his Algerian Jewish grandfather and regularly visits Israel. But the scapegoat shift goes beyond Marine’s personal life. Most of the leading far-right nationalist groups in Western Europe find it “better for business” to bash Muslims than Jews. And, shamefully, they are actively encouraged to do so by right-wing Israelis and anti-Muslim activists, Christian as well as Jewish, in Europe and the United States.
Fine-tuning her new brand of bashing, Ms. Le Pen shows great finesse, a trait few outsiders ever saw in her father. She is “not waging war against Islam,” she insists. She is only fighting against “the Islamisation of French society.” The term has lots of wiggle room, but she gives herself away. Just look at how she defines the threat and rushes in like an avenging Joan of Arc to defend her beloved France.
Still vice president of her father’s Front National in 2010, she loudly condemned weekly Muslim prayers for blocking streets and squares in French cities, including the 18th arrondisement of Paris, the area on the right bank of the Seine around Montmartre. Marine could have compared the traffic congestion to a large Catholic funeral cortege or religious procession, but she likened it to an occupation of French territory. That scored two birds with one stone. She bashed Muslim worshippers. And she cleverly called to mind the German occupation during World War II.
Jean-Marie’s daughter was signaling a new gambit in the old hate-filled game. Where her father went out of his way to characterize the Nazi occupation of France as “not especially inhumane,” Marine feels no need to refight the ideological battles of the 1930s and 40s. She presents herself as dramatically post-Nazi. But, at the same time, she follows her father and his Führer in building a nationalist movement by scapegoating unpopular “outsiders.”
To cite another example from 2010, the state-owned fast food chain Quick announced that it would offer only halal meat at eight to fourteen of its outlets. The chain wanted to attract Muslim customers. Marine flew into a self-righteous rage. The government of then-president Nicholas Sarkozy was supporting a “forced Islamisation of France,” she declared. Sadly, several French socialists and center-right conservatives jumped on the same anti-Muslim bandwagon.
On the basis of a television report two years later, Marine – now FN’s president – struck even deeper. All the meat distributed in the Ile de France, the region around Paris, was butchered to meet halal standards, she claimed. “The consumer unwittingly eats meat from religious slaughter,” which she saw as a violation of the French constitutional principle of secularism. Government and industry leaders called her claim “totally absurd,” but she had succeeded once again in singling out Muslims for attack while presenting herself as simply defending French values.
She similarly supported Swiss voters for banning construction of new minarets and approving the deportation of criminal foreigners. She blames immigrants for taking jobs away from French workers, without any evidence that the two groups compete for the same jobs. And, without ever mentioning race, she never misses an opportunity to attack Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira, a black woman from French Guiana. Where Jean-Marie was thuggish and overbearing, Marine is sly and underhanded.
One other clue to Marine’s thinking is her steadfast support for Vladimir Putin, which started well before the current crisis in Ukraine. “He is attached to the sovereignty of his people,” she explained in a recent interview with Kurier, the Austrian daily. “He is aware that we defend common values. These are the values of European civilization” and of our “Christian heritage.”
Warmly received in April by the Russian Duma, the parliament, Marine declared that Putin was “a pure democrat, but with an authoritarian style.” The question is obvious. Were she ever to become president of France, would she follow in Putin’s “democratic” footsteps? Would she jail her political opponents? Would she close down independent media? Would she persecute gays? Would she break treaty commitments and threaten war on her neighbors? I hope that we will never have to find out.
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.

|
|
|
The Times Scandal Is an Embarrassment to Journalism |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 18 May 2014 15:05 |
|
Pierce writes: "The sudden defenestration of Jill Abramson is an ongoing embarrassment to the profession of journalism. Worse, it's given every wingnut with Internet access a permanent stiffie."
Jill Abramson. (photo: Kena Betancur/Reuters)

The Times Scandal Is an Embarrassment to Journalism
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
18 May 14
nce, in the pages of the magazine that rents me the building for this shebeen, I said that we should all be grateful for The New York Times because it did one thing better than anyone else did -- it could be The New York Times. Not so much any more.
The sudden defenestration of Jill Abramson is an ongoing embarrassment to the profession of journalism. Worse, it's given every wingnut with Internet access a permanent stiffie, and it's given Dylan Byers of Tiger Beat On The Potomac a chance to brag about his perspicacity while, behind him, Arthur Sulzberger drinks a glass of water. It's hard to know which is the worst of the two outcomes.
(And let us pause for a moment of silence for the repose of the soul of the career of Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy, who was last seen trying to walk back comments to Ken Auletta that, if true, would leave the Times open to a discrimination lawsuit that would have Pinch's great-great-grandchildren answering motions.)
I speak as one who took a paycheck from Mother Times for nine years at what was then its Boston-based subsidiary. There is no group of people on earth more deserving of an ensemble Liquid Plum'r enema than those people in the upper echelons of the New York Times Company. By and large, they are nasty, backstabbing careerists who would sell their white-haired grannies to Somali pirates for one more small step up the corporate ladder. When they are not being timid, they are being arrogant. (I watched them pretty much demolish the morale of a newsroom full of brilliant journalists at the Globe, as well as squashing the newspaper's individual identity. New editor Brian McGrory, and new owner John Henry, are bringing it back, thank god.) They have as much to do with journalism as Charlie Manson does with thoracic surgery. And they're calling the shots here.
The only piece worth reading on the whole sorry mess is the one that Michelle Goldberg wrote for The Nation. (Scott at LGM beat me to it this morning, damn him.) She gets into the curious tale of Times CEO Mark Thompson, who came to the newspaper from the BBC, where he was in charge when the Jimmy Savile sex scandal detonated.
But in a stroke of misfortune now common to Arthur Sulzberger Jr.'s tenure as publisher, Thompson has found himself the subject of inquiry in a massive scandal involving an alleged serial pedophile, the now-deceased BBC-TV star Jimmy Savile. Thompson, a onetime news editor, was head of the network when a BBC documentary investigating Savile's predatory behavior toward teenagers-reportedly well known in BBC circles-was killed in favor of a celebratory retrospective. After denying any knowledge of the episode to Sulzberger, Thompson admitted that he had learned about the existence of a report on Savile at a cocktail party, but never knew its specific focus. This despite the seven different stories about the documentary in the British press, including a Daily Mail piece headlined "BBC Axes Exposé Into Jimmy Savile Teen Sex Allegations."
It turns out that Abramson tasked a reporter to do a long, informed piece on the scandal, which ran after Thompson had taken the job, but before he actually had started work. I'm sure that went down very well.
This was a major story about a powerful executive and a sexual abuse coverup, and Abramson was proving her editorial independence by covering it. ‘[T]rust in the BBC has plummeted because of a scandal set off in part by the network's decision to halt a reporting project on decades-old accusations of child sexual abuse against Jimmy Savile, the network's longtime host of children's and pop music shows," wrote Matthew Purdy in a resulting piece. "Controversy over the canceled investigation was already brewing [the previous March]. It fully erupted in early October, just after he left and began preparing for his new job as president and chief executive of The New York Times Company." The suggestion Abramson should have ignored this story because it embarrassed a powerful Times hire says something troubling about the paper's priorities.
There's more, including the effort by some of the younger Sulzberger's to jack around with advertising, and the company' perpetually bungling efforts to get a handle on this whole Intertoobz thang. Jill Abramson got the back of the hand, and there is pure sexism marbled throughout this awful business. To ignore it is to be blind, or to be Dylan Byers.

|
|
How Thomas Piketty and Elizabeth Warren Demolished the Conventional Wisdom on Debt |
|
|
Sunday, 18 May 2014 15:03 |
|
McElwee writes: "According to the prevailing story, debt is caused by lavish and irresponsible spending by poor and middle-class families. But like much 'conventional wisdom,' an increasing amount of evidence belies this point. In fact, the decline of saving and the rise of debt was an almost inevitable consequence of families trying to scrape by in the face of rising inequality."
Elizabeth Warren, Thomas Piketty (photo: Reuters/Joshua Roberts/Charles Platiau)

How Thomas Piketty and Elizabeth Warren Demolished the Conventional Wisdom on Debt
By Sean McElwee, Salon
18 May 14
Those who fall into debt are shamed for spending irresponsibly. But the truth of the matter is much more alarming.
n a 2006 “Saturday Night Live” sketch, Chris Parnell sums up the conventional wisdom about credit card debt:
“Did you know millions of Americans live with debt they can not control? That’s why I’ve developed this unique new program for managing your debt. It’s called, Don’t Buy Stuff You Can’t Afford.”
According to the prevailing story, debt is caused by lavish and irresponsible spending by poor and middle-class families. But like much “conventional wisdom,” an increasing amount of evidence belies this point. In fact, the decline of saving and the rise of debt was an almost inevitable consequence of families trying to scrape by in the face of rising inequality. This is the corollary of French economist Thomas Piketty’s now-famous observation: While capital is increasingly concentrated at the top, it turns out that debt is becoming concentrated at the bottom.
In the same “SNL” bit, Amy Poehler says, “There’s a whole section in here about buying expensive things using money you save.” This supposedly common-sense observation is mirrored elsewhere. The American Institute of CPAs runs an advertising campaign urging people to “Feed the Pig.” One such ad depicts a responsible couple studiously saving for a house, while another eats lobster, receives massages and then complains about “never having enough to put away.” Underlying both the real commercial and the satirical one is the idea that those who aren’t saving could do so, but are instead spending the money. But the evidence for this story is weak.
A more compelling story is that inequality has made it harder for households at the middle and bottom to save. In fact, the decline in savings has coincide with a rise in income inequality (see chart). There is evidence that these trends are connected.

American households falling in the bottom third of income growth from 1999 to 2007 accounted for a full half of the decline in the overall saving rate over the same period, according to the IMF. Meanwhile, a 2012 Demos study finds that “40 percent of households used credit cards to pay for basic living expenses such as rent or mortgage bills, groceries, utilities, or insurance, in the past year because they did not have enough money in their checking or savings account.” Another 2012 study finds that “regions or periods with higher inequality are characterized not only by a more unequal distribution of saving rates but also by lower saving rates for most of the income distribution.”
One of the myths of the right has been that if the rich have more money, they’ll save and invest more as a result, thereby stimulating the economy. That is, more inequality will lead to more national saving. In fact, the data shows that inequality just concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. It also points to the important possibility that the increase in income inequality is what drove the savings rate down to begin with, by also increasing disparities in wealth.
Wealth serves as a buffer for an income shock, like losing a job or a medical emergency; it also constitutes a family’s retirement income and the means for funding children’s education. However, the rise in income inequality has been coupled with a rise in wealth inequality, meaning that wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few. Recently, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have shown the increase of wealth inequality in the United States (source).

This rising wealth inequality means that American households don’t have anything to fall back on in the case of a bout of unemployment or a health crisis. (One study finds that 62 percent of bankruptcies are medical-related.)
In a recent study, Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at Demos, sought to test whether those with credit card debt were the profligates portrayed by popular culture. She used a national survey of 1,997 households to create two groups indistinguishable in terms of income, race, age, marital status and rate of homeownership. The only difference? One group had credit card debt, the other group didn’t. Traub finds that the households without debt had more assets, and fell back on them when dealing with unexpected expenses. She finds “little evidence” that “households with credit card debt are less responsible in their spending habits than households that do not have accumulated debt.” Instead, she finds that unemployment, children, lack of education, lack of health insurance and negative home equity correlate strongly with high levels of debt.
In their famous book on the subject, “The Two-Income Trap,” Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi argue that slowing income growth, not overspending, is what’s driving families into debt. In an essay on Boston Review they write that,
There is no evidence of any ‘epidemic’ of overspending—certainly nothing that could explain a 255 percent increase in the foreclosure rate, a 430 percent increase in the bankruptcy rolls, and a 570 percent increase in credit-card debt.
The Warrens point to the increasing cost of education and housing. A 2000 study performed in Fresno, California, found that the most important determinant of neighborhood housing prices was school quality. The strongest evidence that the Warrens cite is that between 1984 and 2001 housing prices for those with one or more children increased at three times the rate of those without children. As families have tried to provide for the education for their children, they have increasingly been squeezed by high housing costs.
The final factor driving debt is unscrupulous practices by banking institutions.The CARD Act is saving Americans $12.6 billion a year by cutting back dodgy fees and other shady practices. But payday lenders can still prey on the poor. Traub finds that households with higher levels of credit card debt were more likely to have received financing from payday lenders. We need policies to give poor and middle-class workers more income and wealth. Increasing the minimum wage is a simple start. Incentivizing worker ownership and profit-sharing would also benefit workers. The government could give citizens a small basic income each year and it could also institute a “baby bond” policy, which would foster wealth building. On the other side, it needs to bust up concentrated and idle wealth by taxing it.
As Piketty notes in his interview with Matthew Yglesias, “My point is to increase wealth mobility and to increase access to wealth.” He aims to “reduce taxation of wealth for most people, but to increase it for those who already have a lot of wealth.” By spreading wealth to the middle class and poor, we could decrease the reliance on the “plastic safety net,” and create a strong and sustainable middle class.

|
|