Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>
Wednesday, 24 April 2019 10:42
Solomon writes: "Let's be blunt: As a supposed friend of American workers, Joe Biden is a phony. And now that he's running for president, Biden's huge task is to hide his phoniness."
Vice President Joe Biden, 2014. (photo: Alex Majoli/Magnum Photos)
Joe Biden: Puffery vs. Reality
By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
24 April 19
et’s be blunt: As a supposed friend of American workers, Joe Biden is a phony. And now that he’s running for president, Biden’s huge task is to hide his phoniness.
From the outset, with dim prospects from small donors, the Biden campaign is depending on big checks from the rich and corporate elites who greatly appreciate his services rendered. “He must rely heavily, at least at first, upon an old-fashioned network of money bundlers – political insiders, former ambassadors and business executives,” The New York Timesreported on Tuesday.
Biden has a media image that exudes down-to-earth caring and advocacy for regular folks. But his actual record is a very different story.
A gavel in Biden’s hand repeatedly proved to be dangerous. In 1991, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, Biden prevented key witnesses from testifying to corroborate Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. In 2002, as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was the Senate’s most crucial supporter of the Iraq invasion.
Meanwhile, for well over four decades – while corporate media preened his image as “Lunch Bucket Joe” fighting for the middle class – Biden continued his assist for strengthening oligarchy as a powerful champion of legalizing corporate plunder on a mind-boggling scale.
Now, Joe Biden has arrived as a presidential candidate to rescue the Democratic Party from Bernie Sanders.
Urgency is in the media air. Last week, The New York Times told readers that “Stop Sanders” Democrats were “agonizing over his momentum.” The story was front-page news. At The Washington Post, a two-sentence headline appeared just above a nice photo of Biden: “Far-Left Policies Will Drive a 2020 Defeat, Centrist Democrats Fear. So They’re Floating Alternatives.”
Biden is the most reliable alternative for corporate America. He has what Sanders completely lacks – vast experience as an elected official serving the interests of credit-card companies, big banks, insurance firms, and other parts of the financial services industry. His alignment with corporate interests has been comprehensive. It was a fulcrum of his entire political career when, in 1993, Senator Biden voted yes while most Democrats in Congress voted against NAFTA.
In recent months, from his pro-corporate vantage point, Biden has been taking potshots at the progressive populism of Bernie Sanders. At a gathering in Alabama last fall, Biden said: “Guys, the wealthy are as patriotic as the poor. I know Bernie doesn’t like me saying that, but they are.” Later, Biden elaborated on the theme when he told an audience at the Brookings Institution, “I don’t think five hundred billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble. The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.”
Overall, in sharp contrast to the longstanding and continuingnegativecoverage of Sanders, mainstream media treatment of Biden often borders on reverential. The affection from so many high-profile political journalists toward Biden emerged yet again a few weeks ago during the uproar about his persistent pattern of intrusively touching women and girls. During one cable news show after another, reporters and pundits were at pains to emphasize his essential decency and fine qualities.
But lately, some independent-minded journalists have been exhuming what “Lunch Bucket Joe” is eager to keep buried. For instance:
Libby Watson, Splinter News: “Joe Biden is telling striking workers he’s their friend while taking money from, and therefore being beholden to, the class of people oppressing them. According to Axios, Biden’s first fundraiser will be with David Cohen, the executive vice president of and principal lobbyist for Comcast. Comcast is one of America’s most hated companies, and for good reason. It represents everything that sucks for the modern consumer-citizen, for whom things like internet or TV access are extremely basic necessities, but who are usually given the option of purchasing it from just one or two companies.” What’s more, Comcast supports such policies as “ending net neutrality and repealing broadband privacy protections.... And Joe Biden is going to kick off his presidential campaign by begging for their money.”
Ryan Cooper, The Week: “As a loyal toady of the large corporations (especially finance, insurance, and credit cards) that put their headquarters in Delaware because its suborned government allows them to evade regulations in other states, Biden voted for repeated rounds of deregulation in multiple areas and helped roll back anti-trust policy – often siding with Republicans in the process. He was a key architect of the infamous 2005 bankruptcy reform bill which made means tests much more strict and near-impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy.”
Paul Waldman, The American Prospect: “Joe Biden, we are told over and over, is the one who can speak to the disaffected white men angry at the loss of their primacy. He's the one who doesn’t like abortion, but is willing to let the ladies have them. He’s the one who tells white people to be nice to immigrants, even as he mirrors their xenophobia (‘You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent,’ he said in 2006). He’s the one who validates their racism and sexism while gently trying to assure them that they're still welcome in the Democratic Party.... It’s not yet clear what policy agenda Biden will propose, though it’s likely to be pretty standard Democratic fare that rejects some of the more ambitious goals other candidates have embraced. But Biden represents something more fundamental: a link to the politics and political style of the past.”
Rebecca Traister, The Cut: “Much of what Democrats blame Republicans for was enabled, quite literally, by Biden: Justices whose confirmation to the Supreme Court he rubber-stamped worked to disembowel affirmative action, collective bargaining rights, reproductive rights, voting rights.... In his years in power, Biden and his party (elected thanks to a nonwhite base enfranchised in the 1960s) built the carceral state that disproportionately imprisons and disenfranchises people of color, as part of what Michelle Alexander has described as the New Jim Crow. With his failure to treat seriously claims of sexual harassment made against powerful men on their way to accruing more power (claims rooted in prohibitions that emerged from the feminist and civil-rights movements of the 1970s), Biden created a precedent that surely made it easier for accused harassers, including Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, to nonetheless ascend. Economic chasms and racial wealth gaps have yawned open, in part thanks to Joe Biden’s defenses of credit card companies, his support of that odious welfare-reform bill, his eagerness to support the repeal of Glass-Steagall.”
One of Biden’s illuminating actions came last year in Michigan when he gave a speech – for a fee of $200,000 including “travel allowance” – that praised the local Republican congressman, Fred Upton, just three weeks before the mid-term election. From the podium, the former vice president lauded Upton as “one of the finest guys I’ve ever worked with.” For good measure, Biden refused to endorse Upton’s Democratic opponent, who went on to lose by less than 5 percent.
Biden likes to present himself as a protector of the elderly. Campaigning for Senator Bill Nelson in Florida last autumn, Biden denounced Republicans for aiming to “cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.” Yet five months earlier, speaking to the Brookings Institution on May 8, Biden spoke favorably of means testing that would go a long way toward damaging political support for Social Security and Medicare and smoothing the way for such cuts.
Indications of being a “moderate” and a “centrist” play well with the Washington press corps and corporate media, but amount to a surefire way to undermine enthusiasm and voter turnout from the base of the Democratic Party. The consequences have been catastrophic, and the danger of the party’s deference to corporate power looms ahead. Much touted by the same kind of insular punditry that insisted Hillary Clinton was an ideal candidate to defeat Donald Trump, the ostensible “electability” of Joe Biden has been refuted by careful analysis of data.
As a former Sanders delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and a current coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie Delegates Network for 2019, I remain convinced that the media meme about choosing between strong progressive commitments and capacity to defeat Trump is a false choice. On the contrary, Biden exemplifies a disastrous approach of jettisoning progressive principles and failing to provide a progressive populist alternative to right-wing populism. That’s the history of 2016. It should not be repeated.
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
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.
There Is No Room in the Democratic Field for Joe Biden
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
Wednesday, 24 April 2019 08:25
Pierce writes: "The Pragmatic Center and The Left are occupied, along with plenty of other lanes. Even the former VP himself doesn't seem to know where to stand."
Joe Biden. (photo: Getty Images)
There Is No Room in the Democratic Field for Joe Biden
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
24 April 19
The Pragmatic Center and The Left are occupied, along with plenty of other lanes. Even the former VP himself doesn't seem to know where to stand.
NN ran the Pol-a-Palooza on Monday night, with back-to-back-x-five town halls with, in order: Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg. All of them stayed pretty much in their lanes, especially Buttigieg, who is by god going to romance those Better Angels until they cry uncle.
As Democrats, this is a habit that we have. We go right to the policy proposals and we expect people to be able to figure out what our values must be from that.
I think it’s important that we not drown people in minutia before we’ve vindicated the values that animate our policies.
I realize that everybody's mileage may vary on this but, to me, this is doublespeak edging toward weaselspeak. How does one vindicate one's values in a political context without enacting policies, and how does one enact policies in a democratic republic without explaining them to the people who elect the people who will vote for those policies? Nevertheless, you'd have to be stupid to think that there isn't a substantial audience for this kind of thing, and it's clear that Buttigieg has found the cause for which he'll ride to Jerusalem.
Warren, of course, took an opposite tack, proving that you can explain the minutiae of policy without drowning people in them. (And her answer on impeachment was unequivocal, which was a relief.) Klobuchar was being sturdy and moderate, especially on impeachment, and has no gift for snappy comebacks. Harris seemed to have an off night generally, but really lit up a question on gun control, saying she'll give Congress 100 days to do something or she's taking out the Executive Order bazooka.
And Sanders somehow drew the short straw on bizarre questions—especially that exceptionally weird one about whether or not Dzokhar Tsarnaev should be allowed to vote from inside SuperMax prior to his eventual execution. Sanders stood by his position—yes, the franchise should be extended to the incarcerated—which is admirable, and which gave CNN the soundbite it was looking for all evening, and, alas, gave 100 GOP oppo bandits a late chocolate Easter bunny.
What was clear about the evening, especially when one considers the candidates who weren't there, is that there just isn't any room for Joe Biden this time around. A huge chunk of the party has moved on from him. There are plenty of people to run as pragmatic moderates; Klobuchar and Buttgieg did so on the stage Monday night. The left is locked up between Sanders and Warren. What does Biden bring besides name recognition, some old-line union support, and boatloads of money from sources that half his party is going to be running against?
Which makes Tuesday's news about Biden's postponing his official campaign launch even more intriguing. From WLS:
According to a writer for the Atlantic , the announcement of Joe Biden’s run for president has been delayed. “Several sources say the Biden announcement, which had been planned for Wednesday by video, has now been pushed back,” tweeted writer Edward-Isaac Dovere. Even though the announcement date is up in the air, donations for the campaign are still being collected. “The guy has been running for President since 1987 and can’t figure the basics out, like where to stand on his first day? This should make everyone very nervous,” a former Biden aide said.
The US-Mexico Border Isn't Protected by Militias, It's Patrolled by Domestic Terrorists
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50648"><span class="small">Raul A. Reyes, NBC News</span></a>
Wednesday, 24 April 2019 08:25
Reyes writes: "It speaks volumes about today's political climate that anti-immigrant domestic terrorists have begun calling themselves border militias, holding unarmed people at gunpoint and feeling so emboldened that they post videos of their activities on social media, including Facebook and YouTube."
Stinger, a member of the United Constitutional Patriots New Mexico Border Ops Team militia is pictured on patrol at the U.S.-Mexico border near Mt. Christo Rey in Sunland Park, New Mexico on March 20, 2019. (photo: Paul Ratje/AFP/Getty Images)
The US-Mexico Border Isn't Protected by Militias, It's Patrolled by Domestic Terrorists
By Raul A. Reyes, NBC News
24 April 19
The United Constitutional Patriots are just one in a long line of anti-immigrant groups who try to terrorize the border areas.
t speaks volumes about today’s political climate that anti-immigrant domestic terrorists have begun calling themselves border militias, holding unarmed people at gunpoint and feeling so emboldened that they post videos of their activities on social media, including Facebook and YouTube.
Luckily, the hubris of at least one group didn't impress law enforcement: On Saturday, the New Mexico attorney general’s office announced that Larry Hopkins, the leader of the United Constitutional Patriots (which had been detaining migrants at gunpoint near the U.S.-Mexico border) had been arrested by the FBI and charged with felony possession of firearms and ammunition
The efforts of groups like the UCP are disturbing on every level and raise serious legal, humanitarian and public safety concerns.
So-called "militia" groups have long been active along the southern border: In the 1970s, for instance, the Ku Klux Klan announced that it was creating its own border patrol to combat illegal immigration. In the 2000s, the Minutemen patrolled the border in Arizona. In 2009, Brisenia Flores was shot and killed in her own home in Arizona by members of a border vigilante group called Minuteman American Defense; she was just nine years-old and an American citizen.
Last year, Newsweek obtained leaked Department of Defense documents warning of the threat of armed, unregulated militia groups operating in between ports of entry along the border. The Department estimated that there were about 200 members of militia groups along the southwest border. And, the rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric and calls to build a wall to stem a supposed "invasion" has indeed been accompanied by a rise in militia activity.
It is ironic that a group with “constitutional” in their name is so unaware — or defiant — of the law and the constitution. Only trained law enforcement officials, like the Border Patrol and ICE, have the authority to detain migrants. But last week, Hopkins' group posted videos purporting to show their members identifying themselves as "Border Patrol" and holding immigrants at gunpoint. One member told Reuters that they had "helped" Border Patrol detain 5,600 migrants in the last two months.
By improperly holding people against their will, whether those people legally crossed the border or not, members of the United Constitutional Patriots have opened themselves to charges of assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping and impersonating law enforcement officers. (Hopkins, notably, was previously arrested in 2006 for impersonating law enforcement and illegal possession of a firearm and thus is presumably well aware his actions were not legal.) The UCP members are also likely trespassing on privately-held or federal land.
More importantly, it is perfectly legal under U.S. law for people to cross the border without papers and apply for asylum and other forms of humanitarian relief. So if anyone is “illegal” in a confrontation with Hopkins' followers, it is the United Constitutional Patriots.
A spokesman for the United Constitutional Patriots told the New York Times, “We’re just here to support the Border Patrol and show the public the reality of the border.” But the Border Patrol doesn’t want their help: On April 19, U.S. Customs and Border Protection tweeted that “CBP does not endorse or condone private citizens or organizations that take enforcement matters into their own hands.” And last month, then-Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said his agency didn’t need the assistance of “civil society groups” to police the border. (McAleenan is now acting Homeland Security Secretary.)
Such groups, then, deserve to be called what they are: Domestic terrorists. They are wannabe- immigration agents who dress up in fatigues and harass migrants with dogs and weapons. They could be considered pathetic if their actions did not hold so much deadly potential.
They are right about only one thing: There is a crisis at our southern border, but it is is a humanitarian crisis created by the Trump administration's failure to come up with an effective plan to process asylum-seekers. There would be far fewer asylum seekers for groups like Hopkins' to harass in the desert if the administration complied with the law about processing them at border checkpoints.
Meanwhile, the current occupant of the White House traffics in the ugliest stereotypes about Latinos and immigrants, using words like “invasion” and “infestation” to describe the border situation he has created. From stoking fears about migrant caravans to declaring a questionable “national emergency,” Trump has sent a clear message that he believes immigrants are a threat to the country and that the border is out of control. His rhetoric encourages groups like the United Constitutional Patriots to trample on the legal and human rights of immigrants.
But armed vigilante activities are unlawful, whether they occur in the border region or any other community. Militia groups like the United Constitutional Patriots only make the border more dangerous — and there is nothing patriotic about making America hate again.
Reich writes: "The question on everyone's mind is whether Trump will be impeached. In other words, will America fire Trump? Well, I have news for you. America has already fired him."
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
America Has Already Fired Trump!
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
23 April 19
he question on everyone’s mind is whether Trump will be impeached. In other words, will America fire Trump?
Well, I have news for you. America has already fired him.
When the public fires a president before election day – as it did with Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover– they don’t send him a letter telling him he’s fired. They just make him irrelevant. Politics happens around him, despite him. He’s not literally gone, but he might as well be.
Departments and agencies are being run by lobbyists and insiders busily carving out loopholes, cutting taxes, and slashing regulations on behalf of the wealthy and big corporations.
His tweets don’t create headlines as before. His rallies are ignored. His lies have become old hat.
Even America’s adversaries just humor him. Kim Jong Unand Xi Jinping give him tidbits to share with the American public, and then do whatever they want.
Energy is now coming from the grassroots – from people all over the country who are determined to reclaim our democracy and create an economy that works for all.
According to polls, most Americans want Medicare-for-All and higher taxes on the wealthy. And they don’t want a wall along the southern border.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Trump is still dangerous, like an old land mine buried in the mud. He could start a nuclear war. And his court picks are a terrifying legacy.
But in an important sense, he’s already gone.
Mr. President: In the words you yourself have often used, “You’re fired.”
FOCUS: To Stop Global Catastrophe, We Must Believe in Humans Again
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=19600"><span class="small">Bill McKibben, Guardian UK</span></a>
Tuesday, 23 April 2019 12:06
McKibben writes: "Because I am concerned about inequality and about the environment, I am usually classed as a progressive, a liberal. But it seems to me that what I care most about is preserving a world that bears some resemblance to the past."
Bill McKibben. (photo: rightlivelihood.org)
To Stop Global Catastrophe, We Must Believe in Humans Again
By Bill McKibben, Guardian UK
23 April 19
We have the technology to prevent climate crisis. But now we need to unleash mass resistance too – because collective action does work
ecause I am concerned about inequality and about the environment, I am usually classed as a progressive, a liberal. But it seems to me that what I care most about is preserving a world that bears some resemblance to the past: a world with some ice at the top and bottom and the odd coral reef in between; a world where people are connected to the past and future (and to one another) instead of turned into obsolete software.
And those seem to me profoundly conservative positions. Meanwhile, oil companies and tech barons strike me as deeply radical, willing to alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere, eager to confer immortality.
There is a native conservatism in human beings that resists such efforts, a visceral sense of what’s right or dangerous, rash or proper. You needn’t understand every nuance of germline engineering or the carbon cycle to understand why monkeying around on this scale might be a bad idea. And indeed, polling suggests that most people instinctively oppose, say, living forever or designing babies, just as they want government action to stabilise the climate.
Luckily, we have two relatively new inventions that could prove decisive to solving global warming before it destroys the planet. One is the solar panel, and the other is the nonviolent movement. Obviously, they are not the same sort of inventions: the solar panel (and its cousins, the wind turbine and the lithium-ion battery) is hardware, while the ability to organise en masse for change is more akin to software. Indeed, even to call nonviolent campaigning a “technology” will strike some as odd. Each is still in its infancy; we deploy them, but fairly blindly, finding out by trial and error their best uses. Both come with inherent limits: neither is as decisive or as immediately powerful as, say, a nuclear weapon or a coal-fired power plant. But both are transformative nonetheless – and, crucially, the power they wield is human in scale.
Before we can best employ these technologies, we need to address the two most insidious ideas deployed in defence of the status quo. The first is that there is no need for mass resistance because each of us should choose for ourselves the future we want. The second is that there is no possibility of resistance because the die is already cast.
Choice is the mantra that unites people of many political persuasions. Conservatives say, “you’re not the boss of me”, when it comes to paying taxes; liberals say it when the topic is marijuana. The easiest, laziest way to dispense with a controversy is to say: “Do what you want; don’t tell me what to do.”
If “let anyone do what they want” is a flawed argument, then “no one can stop them anyway” is an infuriating one. Insisting that some horror is inevitable no matter what you do is the response of those who don’t want to be bothered trying to stop it, and I’ve heard it too often to take it entirely seriously.
I remember, for instance, when investigative reporters proved that Exxon had known all about global warming and had covered up that knowledge. Plenty of people on the professionally jaded left told me, in one form or another, “of course they did”, or “all corporations lie”, or “nothing will ever happen to them anyway”. This kind of knowing cynicism is a gift to the Exxons of the world. Happily, far more people reacted with usefully naive outrage: before too long, people were comparing the oil giants with the tobacco companies, and some of the biggest cities in the US were suing them for damages. We don’t know yet precisely how it will end, only that giving them a pass because of their power makes no sense.
Innovation doesn’t scare me. I think that if we back off the most crazed frontiers of technology, we can still figure out how to keep humans healthy, safe, productive – and human. Not everyone agrees. Some harbour a deep pessimism about human nature which I confess, as an American in the age of Donald Trump, occasionally seems sound.
Of all the arguments for unhindered technological growth, the single saddest (in the sense that it just gives up on human beings) comes from the Oxford don Julian Savulescu. In essence he contends that, left to themselves, democracies can’t solve climate change, “for in order to do so a majority of their voters must support the adoption of substantial restrictions on their excessively consumerist lifestyle, and there is no indication they would be willing to make such sacrifices”. Also, our ingrained suspicion of outsiders keeps us from working together globally. And so, faced with the need to move quickly, we should “morally bio-enhance” our children or, more likely, use genetic engineering, so they will cooperate.
This is roughly akin to “geoengineering the atmosphere” to prevent climate change – some people, having given up on taming the fossil-fuel companies, want to instead pump the atmosphere full of sulphur to block incoming solar radiation. Both cases are based on the premise that we humans won’t rise to the occasion.
I hope Savulescu seriously underestimates the power of both technology and democracy – of the solar panel and of nonviolence. I believe we have the means at hand to solve our problems short of turning our children into saintly robots – which, in any event, wouldn’t do a thing to solve climate change, given that by the time these morally improved youths had grown into positions of power, the damage would long since have been done. And I’m convinced Savulescu is wrong about people’s selfishness presenting the main obstacle to solving climate change: around the world, polling shows that people are not just highly concerned about global warming, but also willing to pay a price to solve it. Americans, for instance, said in 2017 that they were willing to see their energy bills rise 15% and have the money spent on clean energy programmes – that’s about in line with the size of the carbon taxes that national groups have been campaigning for.
The reason we don’t have a solution to climate change has less to do with the greed of the great, unengineered unwashed than with the greed of the almost unbelievably small percentage of people at the top of the energy heap. That is to say, the Koch brothers and the Exxon execs have never been willing to take a 15% slice off their profits, not when they could spend a much smaller share of their winnings corrupting the political debate with rolls of cash. If you wanted to “morally enhance” anyone, that’s where you’d start – if there are Grinches in need of hearts, it’s pretty obvious who should be at the front of the line.
But let’s not win that way. Let’s operate on the assumption that human beings are not grossly defective. That we’re capable of acting together to do remarkable things.
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.