BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
27 December 2025
YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE!!!!!
13 December 2025
VERSE AND VOICE FROM SOJOURNERS 12DEZ25
|
03 November 2015
America's Views Align Surprisingly Well With Those of "Socialist" Bernie Sanders & This Is Bernie Sanders' Plan to Beat Hillary Clinton 19MAI&26JUN15
SEN BERNIE SANDERS I VT has a lot in common with the American people, and has a lot to offer them to. He is a candidate dedicated to improving the lives of the 99% without fearing the reaction of the 1%. Throw off your fear of the word "Socialist", check out these two stories from earlier this year from +Mother Jones and check out Bernie on the issues at Bernie 2016
and remember, Democracy isn't a spectator sport, and if the 99% vote the 1% won't matter!
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist, is an extremely long shot to defeat
Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. Does
that mean his views on key political issues are too radical for
America's voters? Not necessarily. Here's how his policy positions
actually fare in the polls:
socialism
Sanders: Describes himself as a democratic socialist.
His fellow Americans: While only 31 percent of Americans react positively to the word "socialism," just 50 percent view "capitalism" in favorable terms, according to a recent Pew survey. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, nearly half had a positive view of "socialism," while only 47 percent viewed "capitalism" favorably.
income Taxes
Sanders: Famously filibustered the 2010 extension of Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans.
His fellow Americans: In a February poll, 68 percent of likely voters said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes.
estate taxes
Sanders: Introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act last year. If passed, it would raise top estate tax rates and expand the tax to include estates worth more than $3.5 million. (It currently only applies to those worth more than $5.4 million, which covers only 0.2 percent of American estates.)
His fellow Americans: Results vary, but Kevin Drum notes that the estate tax (conservatives call it the "death tax") is generally unpopular.
Offshore tax havens
Sanders: Introduced legislation that would crack down on offshore tax havens by requiring American companies to pay the top corporate tax rate on profits held abroad.
His fellow Americans: Eighty-five percent of small business owners favor closing overseas tax loopholes entirely, while 68 percent of Americans believe "we should close tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore."
Campaign finance reform
Sanders: Advocates a constitutional amendment that would effectively prevent corporations from making political donations. Supports public funding of elections.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans believe that corporations should have at least some limited right to make political donations. Even so, in a 2013 Gallup poll, half of the respondents said they would personally vote for banning all political donations from individuals and private groups and shifting to a government-funded campaign finance system. Only 44 percent would oppose such a law.
Climate change
Sanders: Cosponsored the 2013 Climate Protection Act, which would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-four percent of Americans strongly or somewhat favor regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and cars, and requiring utilities to generate more power from low-carbon sources. However, only 34 percent of Americans support a carbon tax with a $500 rebate.
Health Care
Sanders: Advocates for a single-payer health care system.
His fellow Americans: A January 2015 poll found that just over 50 percent of likely voters support single-payer.
regulating wall street
Sanders: The big banks "are too powerful to be reformed," Sanders says on his website. "They must be broken up."
His fellow Americans: A recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute found that 58 percent of likely voters support "breaking up big banks like Citigroup."
Education
Sanders: Introduced legislation this month to make public college tuition free in the United States.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of likely voters support President Obama's proposal to offer qualifying students two free years of community college. No recent polls have tested support for offering free tuition at four-year colleges and universities.
trade
Sanders: Opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership and similar trade deals.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-two percent of voters oppose fast-track authority for the TPP trade deal, but fewer Americans oppose the agreement itself. A 2014 Pew poll put support for the TPP among Americans at 55 percent.
Pay equity for women
Sanders: Supports a federal law mandating equal pay for equal work.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans agree that women face pay discrimination, but only about one-third favor addressing the problem via legislation.
Wages
Sanders: Supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour "over the next few years."
His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.
Unions
Sanders: Supports legislation allowing workers to form a union by signing pledge cards.
His fellow Americans: A Gallup poll conducted in 2009, when card check legislation was being debated in Congress, found that 53 percent of Americans "favor a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers."
Social Services
Sanders: "Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs," Sanders writes on his website, "we should be expanding these programs."
His fellow Americans: Some polls have found that majorities of voters want to expand Social Security. A poll conducted last year showed that even voters in red states want to expand Medicaid.
Thumbs-Up icon by Nick Holroyd/The Noun Project
![]()
![]()
It's
fortunate for Hillary Clinton that Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent
socialist from Vermont who is challenging her for the Democratic
presidential nomination, despises and eschews negative advertising.
That's because the political consulting firm that Sanders has retained
to advise his campaign has a well-developed expertise in devising attack
ads. Earlier this year, this outfit, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, won
a Pollie award from the American Association of Political Consultants
for creating the best Democratic congressional ad of 2014. The spot
slammed Dave Trott, a Republican running for a congressional seat in
Michigan, for making millions of dollars by foreclosing on residents of
his state, and it focused on the harrowing eviction of a 101-year-old
Detroit woman. Trott survived this assault and handily won the seat in
the Republican district, but the Washington Post called the commercial "one of the most brutal attack ads you'll ever see."
The Sanders campaign has no plans to hurl these kinds of ads at Clinton. As Tad Devine, the veteran political operative who leads this firm and a longtime adviser to Sanders, notes, mudslinging is not part of the campaign strategy that Sanders and his advisers have crafted. There won't even be one speck of dust directly tossed at Clinton. But, Devine tells me, implicit negative messages aimed at Clinton will certainly be "embedded" in Sanders' advertising and social media messaging.
![]()
![]()
and remember, Democracy isn't a spectator sport, and if the 99% vote the 1% won't matter!
So what does that make us?
| Tue May 19, 2015 5:15 AM EDT
socialism 
Sanders: Describes himself as a democratic socialist.His fellow Americans: While only 31 percent of Americans react positively to the word "socialism," just 50 percent view "capitalism" in favorable terms, according to a recent Pew survey. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, nearly half had a positive view of "socialism," while only 47 percent viewed "capitalism" favorably.
income Taxes
Sanders: Famously filibustered the 2010 extension of Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans.His fellow Americans: In a February poll, 68 percent of likely voters said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes.
estate taxes
Sanders: Introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act last year. If passed, it would raise top estate tax rates and expand the tax to include estates worth more than $3.5 million. (It currently only applies to those worth more than $5.4 million, which covers only 0.2 percent of American estates.)
His fellow Americans: Results vary, but Kevin Drum notes that the estate tax (conservatives call it the "death tax") is generally unpopular.
Offshore tax havens
Sanders: Introduced legislation that would crack down on offshore tax havens by requiring American companies to pay the top corporate tax rate on profits held abroad.
His fellow Americans: Eighty-five percent of small business owners favor closing overseas tax loopholes entirely, while 68 percent of Americans believe "we should close tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore."
Campaign finance reform
Sanders: Advocates a constitutional amendment that would effectively prevent corporations from making political donations. Supports public funding of elections.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans believe that corporations should have at least some limited right to make political donations. Even so, in a 2013 Gallup poll, half of the respondents said they would personally vote for banning all political donations from individuals and private groups and shifting to a government-funded campaign finance system. Only 44 percent would oppose such a law.
Climate change
Sanders: Cosponsored the 2013 Climate Protection Act, which would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-four percent of Americans strongly or somewhat favor regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and cars, and requiring utilities to generate more power from low-carbon sources. However, only 34 percent of Americans support a carbon tax with a $500 rebate.
Health Care
Sanders: Advocates for a single-payer health care system.
His fellow Americans: A January 2015 poll found that just over 50 percent of likely voters support single-payer.
regulating wall street
Sanders: The big banks "are too powerful to be reformed," Sanders says on his website. "They must be broken up."
His fellow Americans: A recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute found that 58 percent of likely voters support "breaking up big banks like Citigroup."
Education
Sanders: Introduced legislation this month to make public college tuition free in the United States.His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of likely voters support President Obama's proposal to offer qualifying students two free years of community college. No recent polls have tested support for offering free tuition at four-year colleges and universities.
trade
Sanders: Opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership and similar trade deals.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-two percent of voters oppose fast-track authority for the TPP trade deal, but fewer Americans oppose the agreement itself. A 2014 Pew poll put support for the TPP among Americans at 55 percent.
Pay equity for women
Sanders: Supports a federal law mandating equal pay for equal work.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans agree that women face pay discrimination, but only about one-third favor addressing the problem via legislation.
Wages
Sanders: Supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour "over the next few years."
His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.
Unions
Sanders: Supports legislation allowing workers to form a union by signing pledge cards.
His fellow Americans: A Gallup poll conducted in 2009, when card check legislation was being debated in Congress, found that 53 percent of Americans "favor a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers."
Social Services
Sanders: "Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs," Sanders writes on his website, "we should be expanding these programs."
His fellow Americans: Some polls have found that majorities of voters want to expand Social Security. A poll conducted last year showed that even voters in red states want to expand Medicaid.
Thumbs-Up icon by Nick Holroyd/The Noun Project
And without any attack ads.
| Fri Jun. 26, 2015 5:00 AM EDT
The Sanders campaign has no plans to hurl these kinds of ads at Clinton. As Tad Devine, the veteran political operative who leads this firm and a longtime adviser to Sanders, notes, mudslinging is not part of the campaign strategy that Sanders and his advisers have crafted. There won't even be one speck of dust directly tossed at Clinton. But, Devine tells me, implicit negative messages aimed at Clinton will certainly be "embedded" in Sanders' advertising and social media messaging.
Sanders
does have an overall plan on how to beat Clinton. As Devine explains,
it goes something like this: Raise enough money to devote significant
resources to building a full operation and maintaining a media presence
in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as Nevada and
South Carolina. At the same time, develop a basic foundation for
campaign organizations in other states, so if Sanders fares well in the
initial contests, these preliminary outfits can quickly be built out.
Devine and other Sanders advisers estimate they will need to raise
$40-$50 million by the Iowa caucuses to be in such a position, and they
claim Sanders is on track to hit that mark, mainly with thousands and
thousands of low-dollar contributions. (Sanders has drawn crowds of thousands
at recent campaign events.) "I don't know if we can outright beat her
in Iowa and New Hampshire," Devine says, "but we have a real shot at it
in both places."
If Sanders does score well in the early states, Devine insists, his campaign will have a delegate-accumulation strategy reminiscent of the one Barack Obama's 2008 campaign employed to focus as much on snagging delegates as winning caucuses and primaries. "Even if Clinton beats us in some states by 20 points, we can split the delegates with smart focusing," Devine says. And then Sanders will be in a position to make the case to the Democratic establishment that he can assemble an electorate in the general election that is favorable to Democrats (as Obama did in 2008). "We don't know yet what it will look like," Devine remarks. "We haven't done the strategic modeling yet. I've been trying to persuade Bernie we should do that." Instead, he says, Sanders at this point would rather concentrate on promoting his message: Inequality is killing the middle class, climate change must be addressed, big-money politics must be reformed, and new progressive policy ideas, such as free college tuition and expanded Social Security benefits, must be advanced. (Devine also gave Sanders a PowerPoint presentation on how the campaign can use Big Data methods: "He was impressed, but we're not sure we can scale up to that. We won't have $1 billion.")
And what about Clinton? How will Sanders take her on?
Sanders recently boasted that he has "never run a negative ad," noting that he "hates and detests these 30-second negative ads." Devine says this is part of Sanders' DNA. "You need to know Bernie's history with negative ads to get this," Devine says. In 1988, when Sanders was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he ran for an open congressional seat as an independent and lost a close race to Republican Peter Smith. Two years later, Sanders was back to challenge Smith. In that 1990 race, Smith aired tough ads assailing Sanders, and Sanders' aides advised him to hit back. Instead, Sanders bought airtime for a five-minute spot in which he talked straight to the camera and decried the attack ads. (It didn't hurt Sanders that the National Rifle Association was slamming Smith for having voted for a ban on semi-automatic weapons.) Sanders ended up winning that race by 16 points. "This was his formative experience," says Devine. "Negative ads have to be denounced and jiu-jitsued."
Ten years later, Sanders ran for the Senate, with Devine still advising him. His Republican opponent was a millionaire businessman named Rich Tarrant who dumped about $7 million into the race in a state where, Devine says, no candidate had ever spent more than $2 million on a campaign. "It was a vicious campaign against Bernie," Devine recalls. "He ran ads that accused Bernie of supporting child molesters and terrorists. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid were telling Bernie, 'You must respond.'" Sanders replied with an ad Devine had cut, in which Sanders noted he was being unfairly attacked and asked voters to visit his website to get the truth. Subsequent commercials by Sanders attempted to refute the stream of attack ads from Tarrant. The Sanders campaign also pushed an ad in which country singer Willie Nelson endorsed Sanders and cited his work for family farmers. Sanders beat Tarrant by more than a 2-1 margin.
So Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack. And part of his shtick is that he doesn't do conventional politics. So, Devine notes, he will not directly criticize or poke at Clinton. For sure, no personal attacks or cheap shots. "That won't help him," Devine says. "He rejects the status quo of politics." Sanders won't even do a straight-up contrast ad—as in, Bernie Sanders believes X about subject Y, but Hillary Clinton believes Z. "If we do that, we're done," Devine says. "If we do a classic comparative ad, it's over. We'll have to be smarter."
And Team Sanders does have what it considers to be a smarter way: implying a contrast. In previous campaigns, Devine says, "We have constantly embedded contrast in everything we do." One example: During the 2006 Senate race, Tarrant's residence became a political issue because he had claimed a Florida mansion as his home for tax purposes. Sanders ran a biographical ad in which he declared he worked in Washington and lived in Burlington—an indirect jab at Tarrant. In the campaign against Clinton, Devine notes, "There will be a lot of implicit negative. But it won't look negative. It won't feel negative."
That's how Sanders recently handled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. He opposes the measure as a sop to corporate America and billionaires. Asked about Clinton's view—she has referred positively to this trade deal in the past but more recently has avoided stating a firm position—Sanders didn't proclaim that she's in bed with the 1 percent; he called on her to take a clear stance. "It's not a question of watching this," he said. "You're going to have determine which side are you on." Devine points out that "this is not negative, but contrasting. When you offer voters a contrast on the issues, they don't take that as a negative." He adds that Sanders is "very good at this."
Contrast without attacking—that's the mantra. "As someone making the ads, it will be a difficult challenge," Devine says. "We have to present the differences in the ads without him coming across as part of the political system." Devine fears that if Sanders crosses that line, the Clinton campaign will fire back hard: "They have all the tonnage. We're dead."
Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack.
And when—or if—that happens, Devine figures, Sanders will have about a
million contributors already on his side, and this group will
enthusiastically kick in more money to replenish Sanders' coffers and
fund the continuation of Bernie-mentum. "I worked for Walter Mondale in
1984," Devine recalls, "but I saw what Gary Hart did." Hart, a former
senator who went up against Mondale in a bid for the Democratic
presidential nomination, placed a surprising second in Iowa and won New
Hampshire. "Things then moved fast. Some polls moved 50 points in seven
days," Devine says. (Mondale, though, did end up squelching the Hart
insurgency by exploiting the Democratic establishment in key states.)If Sanders does score well in the early states, Devine insists, his campaign will have a delegate-accumulation strategy reminiscent of the one Barack Obama's 2008 campaign employed to focus as much on snagging delegates as winning caucuses and primaries. "Even if Clinton beats us in some states by 20 points, we can split the delegates with smart focusing," Devine says. And then Sanders will be in a position to make the case to the Democratic establishment that he can assemble an electorate in the general election that is favorable to Democrats (as Obama did in 2008). "We don't know yet what it will look like," Devine remarks. "We haven't done the strategic modeling yet. I've been trying to persuade Bernie we should do that." Instead, he says, Sanders at this point would rather concentrate on promoting his message: Inequality is killing the middle class, climate change must be addressed, big-money politics must be reformed, and new progressive policy ideas, such as free college tuition and expanded Social Security benefits, must be advanced. (Devine also gave Sanders a PowerPoint presentation on how the campaign can use Big Data methods: "He was impressed, but we're not sure we can scale up to that. We won't have $1 billion.")
And what about Clinton? How will Sanders take her on?
Sanders recently boasted that he has "never run a negative ad," noting that he "hates and detests these 30-second negative ads." Devine says this is part of Sanders' DNA. "You need to know Bernie's history with negative ads to get this," Devine says. In 1988, when Sanders was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he ran for an open congressional seat as an independent and lost a close race to Republican Peter Smith. Two years later, Sanders was back to challenge Smith. In that 1990 race, Smith aired tough ads assailing Sanders, and Sanders' aides advised him to hit back. Instead, Sanders bought airtime for a five-minute spot in which he talked straight to the camera and decried the attack ads. (It didn't hurt Sanders that the National Rifle Association was slamming Smith for having voted for a ban on semi-automatic weapons.) Sanders ended up winning that race by 16 points. "This was his formative experience," says Devine. "Negative ads have to be denounced and jiu-jitsued."
"We have to present the differences in the
ads without him coming across as part of the political system," says Tad
Devine, Sanders' longtime strategist and ad man.
During his 1994 re-election race, Sanders had a close call. He won by
only three points. He responded by doing what he swore he would never
do: He hired a Washington consultant, Devine. But he told Devine he
would stick to his no-negative-ads stance. In the next election, Sanders
aired only positive spots and won by 22 points.Ten years later, Sanders ran for the Senate, with Devine still advising him. His Republican opponent was a millionaire businessman named Rich Tarrant who dumped about $7 million into the race in a state where, Devine says, no candidate had ever spent more than $2 million on a campaign. "It was a vicious campaign against Bernie," Devine recalls. "He ran ads that accused Bernie of supporting child molesters and terrorists. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid were telling Bernie, 'You must respond.'" Sanders replied with an ad Devine had cut, in which Sanders noted he was being unfairly attacked and asked voters to visit his website to get the truth. Subsequent commercials by Sanders attempted to refute the stream of attack ads from Tarrant. The Sanders campaign also pushed an ad in which country singer Willie Nelson endorsed Sanders and cited his work for family farmers. Sanders beat Tarrant by more than a 2-1 margin.
So Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack. And part of his shtick is that he doesn't do conventional politics. So, Devine notes, he will not directly criticize or poke at Clinton. For sure, no personal attacks or cheap shots. "That won't help him," Devine says. "He rejects the status quo of politics." Sanders won't even do a straight-up contrast ad—as in, Bernie Sanders believes X about subject Y, but Hillary Clinton believes Z. "If we do that, we're done," Devine says. "If we do a classic comparative ad, it's over. We'll have to be smarter."
And Team Sanders does have what it considers to be a smarter way: implying a contrast. In previous campaigns, Devine says, "We have constantly embedded contrast in everything we do." One example: During the 2006 Senate race, Tarrant's residence became a political issue because he had claimed a Florida mansion as his home for tax purposes. Sanders ran a biographical ad in which he declared he worked in Washington and lived in Burlington—an indirect jab at Tarrant. In the campaign against Clinton, Devine notes, "There will be a lot of implicit negative. But it won't look negative. It won't feel negative."
That's how Sanders recently handled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. He opposes the measure as a sop to corporate America and billionaires. Asked about Clinton's view—she has referred positively to this trade deal in the past but more recently has avoided stating a firm position—Sanders didn't proclaim that she's in bed with the 1 percent; he called on her to take a clear stance. "It's not a question of watching this," he said. "You're going to have determine which side are you on." Devine points out that "this is not negative, but contrasting. When you offer voters a contrast on the issues, they don't take that as a negative." He adds that Sanders is "very good at this."
Contrast without attacking—that's the mantra. "As someone making the ads, it will be a difficult challenge," Devine says. "We have to present the differences in the ads without him coming across as part of the political system." Devine fears that if Sanders crosses that line, the Clinton campaign will fire back hard: "They have all the tonnage. We're dead."
04 December 2013
A Progressive Pope is Driving the Wingnuts Batty & Mormon Bishop Posing As Homeless Man Rebuffed by Congregation 28&29NOV13
I am Christian but not Catholic, but I have to say I love this Pope! Here is a man of God not afraid to preach the Good News to everyone, and to admonish the shortcomings of all of us in a spirit of love and compassion. I really do admire him for living his faith, for being a Pope for all the people of the Church. I hope God gives Pope Francis and long and vibrant reign, I think all will benefit if He does. The second story is about the Mormon Bishop who visited his church as a homeless person, and the reaction of his parishioners. God continue to bless you Pope Francis & Bishop Musselman!
Vyan
A bishop in a Mormon church outside Salt Lake City has shined a light on the hypocrisy and selfishness of members of his church by dressing as a homeless man and gauging their reactions to him.
David Musselman had a makeup artist transform his face and donned an
unkempt wig, fake beard, and glasses. He then entered the church last
Sunday and approached churchgoers to see what they would do. He found
many of them did not practice what he preached:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/29/1259046/-Mormon-Bishop-Posing-As-Homeless-Man-Rebuffed-by-Congregation?detail=email
Vyan
As Pope Francis comes more and more out of the Progressive Closet he
begins to gain more and more pushback from the Rightwing who have long
claimed that their Unrepentant Greed was Godly.
Unfortunately it isn't, and the Pope has been most clear on this.
She didn't apologize for TrooperGate. She didn't apologize for "Refudiate". She didn't apologize for quitting in the middle of her Term as Governor of Alaska. She didn't apologize for defending Dr. Laura's N-Word use with "Don't Retreat, Relaod! She didn't apologize for her BLOOD LIBEL accusations.
But she apologized to the Pope. I think something unique and different is going on here.
Unfortunately it isn't, and the Pope has been most clear on this.
“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems,” the pope said in the 224-page document that essentially serves as his official platform.And the response has been truly amazing. For example Palin's overreaction to the Pope's statements on Twitter actually made her do something she seems to never done before. (Except for one other time to John McCain for possibly, maybe, making him LOSE!) Apologize.
She didn't apologize for TrooperGate. She didn't apologize for "Refudiate". She didn't apologize for quitting in the middle of her Term as Governor of Alaska. She didn't apologize for defending Dr. Laura's N-Word use with "Don't Retreat, Relaod! She didn't apologize for her BLOOD LIBEL accusations.
But she apologized to the Pope. I think something unique and different is going on here.
The Pope's comments apparently got deeply under the skin of Fox Business Host Stuart Varney.
http://www.rawstory.com/...
See how he tries to rewrite and redefine the Pope's words for him.
Heads Start to Explode.
And what better head is there to do a Scanners than the Big Fat Head of Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.rawstory.com/...
As described by the Guardian.
Certainly this is someting to consider as we all prepare to sit down and break bread with our Wingnut Relatives this Thanksgiving. Yes, Progressive Values actually are Godly Values, they are following in the footsteps of he who showed us the way, progressivism is following in the truth path of Jesus of Nazareth toward charity and forgiveness. Republicans, aren't on that path.
Pope Francis is telling the truth, and the Right just can't stop themselves from listening, even if they don't want to.
Vyan
http://www.rawstory.com/...
“Capitalism, in my opinion, is a liberator,” he said. “The free choice of millions of people is the essence of freedom. In my opinion, society benefits most when people are free to pursue their own self-interest. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. When individuals are free, we collectively are better off in every way, financially and spiritually.”It doesn't seem to matter to Varney that the Pope didn't criticize "People's Freedom or Self-Interest" - he criticized The Markets. He criticized the manipulation of those markets using financial speculation. It's not an accident that Varney gets this wrong, because he's a knave. A lapdog of the Markets. His job is to make sure that his True Religion - Unfeterred Greed - is never questioned, never criticized and if it is that persons veracity and character has to be Destroyed. It just becomes a little difficult when that person - Is the Holy Pontiff.
See how he tries to rewrite and redefine the Pope's words for him.
“I go to church to save my soul,” Varney said. “It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”A political system? He criticized a Political System? No actually, he didn't. He criticized a Financial System, by putting that system into a Moral Context. A context in which it is sorely, severely lacking. Politics is about how people make choices in who their Political Leaders will be. In this case Varney is confusing Politics with Finances, and not hardly by accident. For years we've been hearing from the Right-wing how the U.S. is a "Christian Nation". How we should and must let our Christian Value guide how we vote, and how we govern. That such considerations are what drives the anti-Choice movement, and the Prayer-In-Schools movement and the Creationist/Anti-Science movement - yet when the Head of the Largest Christian Organization in the World says that our financial systems should have a moral component.
Heads Start to Explode.
And what better head is there to do a Scanners than the Big Fat Head of Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.rawstory.com/...
On his Wednesday radio show, Rush Limbaugh admitted being “befuddled” by the harsh words about “unfettered capitalism” released this week by Pope Francis.The Pope is speaking "Pure Marxism"? Somebody has "gotten to him"? Written it "For Him"? Why, because a Holy Man can't consider that Capitalism can be dangerous? Certainly he couldn't actually Mean what he says, let alone Know what it Means. He just has to be incompetent or lying, because if he's not -- well, that's too much even for Limbaugh to consider. All he's saying is that the Markets should be Regulated so that their tendency to cause massive financial harm is blunted, by things such as Glass-Steagal or to a lesser sense Dodd-Frank - but the bottom line is that the Pope, just as he was with his criticism of the obsession with anti-Gay and anti-Choice efforts - is SPOT ON Economically.
...
But the new pronouncement, the pope’s latest Evangelii Gadium, or Joy of the Gospel, was a surprisingly frontal attack on capitalism, with Francis calling it a form of tyranny.
That didn’t sit well with Limbaugh. “Somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him,” Rush said. “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope.
As described by the Guardian.
The pope’s screed on “the economy of exclusion and inequality” will disappoint those who considers themselves free-market capitalists, but they would do well to listen to the message. Francis gives form to the emotion and injustice of post-financial-crisis outrage in a way that has been rare since Occupy Wall Street disbanded. There has been a growing chorus of financial insiders – from the late Merrill Lynch executive Herb Allison to organizations like Better Markets – it’s time for a change in how we approach capitalism. It’s not about discarding capitalism, or hating money or profit; it’s about pursuing profits ethically, and rejecting the premise that exploitation is at the center of profit. When 53% of financial executives say they can’t get ahead without some cheating, even though they want to work for ethical organizations, there’s a real problem.This Pope has begun to let the truth about the Worship of Money out of the bag. Yes, it is Idolatry, and it does need to be reined in. That is of course the last thing the Right-wing wants, because it would grant legitimacy of many progressive efforts to reduce income inequality and to improve the lot of the working class and the middle-class. This is not what the Conservative-Right cares about. They claim to, but they don't really, and the more Pope Francis talks about it - the more it makes them squirm.
Certainly this is someting to consider as we all prepare to sit down and break bread with our Wingnut Relatives this Thanksgiving. Yes, Progressive Values actually are Godly Values, they are following in the footsteps of he who showed us the way, progressivism is following in the truth path of Jesus of Nazareth toward charity and forgiveness. Republicans, aren't on that path.
Pope Francis is telling the truth, and the Right just can't stop themselves from listening, even if they don't want to.
Vyan
Originally posted to Vyan on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 02:26 PM PST.
Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement and Street Prophets .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/28/1258966/-A-Progressive-Pope-is-Driving-the-Wingnuts-Batty
Mormon Bishop Posing As Homeless Man Rebuffed by Congregation
Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.
Proverbs 28:27
"Many actually went out of their way to purposefully ignore me, and they wouldn't even make eye contact. I'd approach them and say, 'Happy Thanksgiving.' Many of them I wouldn't ask for any food or any kind of money, and their inability to even acknowledge me being there was very surprising."Most of Musselman's church members ignored him, although five of them actually asked him to leave.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/29/1259046/-Mormon-Bishop-Posing-As-Homeless-Man-Rebuffed-by-Congregation?detail=email
17 August 2013
Chomsky: The U.S. Behaves Nothing Like a Democracy, But You'll Never Hear About It in Our 'Free Press' 15AUG13
FASCINATING, an open your eyes speech from Noam Chomsky on the myth of democracy in America. It is disturbing, but considering the current state of our domestic and foreign affairs and the abject disappointment the Obama presidency and administration is and has been, it is also a honest speech. Read it with an open mind, and if interested check out my earlier post The Most Serious Threat to Freedom And Democracy in The U.S.& VIDEOS Chris Hedges: Urban Poverty in America Made Me Question Everything10AUG&16JUL13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-most-serious-threat-to-freedom-and.html
August 15, 2013 |
The following is a transcript of a recent speech delivered Noam Chomsky in Bonn, Germany, at DW Global Media Forum, Bonn, Germany. You can read more speeches by Chomsky here.
I'd like to comment on topics that I think should regularly be on the front pages but are not - and in many crucial cases are scarcely mentioned at all or are presented in ways that seem to me deceptive because they're framed almost reflexively in terms of doctrines of the powerful.
In these comments I'll focus primarily on the United States for several reasons: One, it's the most important country in terms of its power and influence. Second, it's the most advanced - not in its inherent character, but in the sense that because of its power, other societies tend to move in that direction. The third reason is just that I know it better. But I think what I say generalizes much more widely - at least to my knowledge, obviously there are some variations. So I'll be concerned then with tendencies in American society and what they portend for the world, given American power.
American power is diminishing, as it has been in fact since its peak in 1945, but it's still incomparable. And it's dangerous. Obama's remarkable global terror campaign and the limited, pathetic reaction to it in the West is one shocking example. And it is a campaign of international terrorism - by far the most extreme in the world. Those who harbor any doubts on that should read the report issued by Stanford University and New York University, and actually I'll return to even more serious examples than international terrorism.
According to received doctrine, we live in capitalist democracies, which are the best possible system, despite some flaws. There's been an interesting debate over the years about the relation between capitalism and democracy, for example, are they even compatible? I won't be pursuing this because I'd like to discuss a different system - what we could call the "really existing capitalist democracy", RECD for short, pronounced "wrecked" by accident. To begin with, how does RECD compare with democracy? Well that depends on what we mean by "democracy". There are several versions of this. One, there is a kind of received version. It's soaring rhetoric of the Obama variety, patriotic speeches, what children are taught in school, and so on. In the U.S. version, it's government "of, by and for the people". And it's quite easy to compare that with RECD.
In the United States, one of the main topics of academic political science is the study of attitudes and policy and their correlation. The study of attitudes is reasonably easy in the United States: heavily-polled society, pretty serious and accurate polls, and policy you can see, and you can compare them. And the results are interesting. In the work that's essentially the gold standard in the field, it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population - the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale - they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They're effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it's plutocracy.
Inquiries of this kind turn out to be dangerous stuff because they can tell people too much about the nature of the society in which they live. So fortunately, Congress has banned funding for them, so we won't have to worry about them in the future.
These characteristics of RECD show up all the time. So the major domestic issue in the United States for the public is jobs. Polls show that very clearly. For the very wealthy and the financial institutions, the major issue is the deficit. Well, what about policy? There's now a sequester in the United States, a sharp cutback in funds. Is that because of jobs or is it because of the deficit? Well, the deficit.
Europe, incidentally, is much worse - so outlandish that even The Wall Street Journal has been appalled by the disappearance of democracy in Europe. ...[I]t had an article [this year] which concluded that "the French, the Spanish, the Irish, the Dutch, Portuguese, Greeks, Slovenians, Slovakians and Cypriots have to varying degrees voted against the currency bloc's economic model since the crisis began three years ago. Yet economic policies have changed little in response to one electoral defeat after another. The left has replaced the right; the right has ousted the left. Even the center-right trounced Communists (in Cyprus) - but the economic policies have essentially remained the same: governments will continue to cut spending and raise taxes." It doesn't matter what people think and "national governments must follow macro-economic directives set by the European Commission". Elections are close to meaningless, very much as in Third World countries that are ruled by the international financial institutions. That's what Europe has chosen to become. It doesn't have to.
Returning to the United States, where the situation is not quite that bad, there's the same disparity between public opinion and policy on a very wide range of issues. Take for example the issue of minimum wage. The one view is that the minimum wage ought to be indexed to the cost of living and high enough to prevent falling below the poverty line. Eighty percent of the public support that and forty percent of the wealthy. What's the minimum wage? Going down, way below these levels. It's the same with laws that facilitate union activity: strongly supported by the public; opposed by the very wealthy - disappearing. The same is true on national healthcare. The U.S., as you may know, has a health system which is an international scandal, it has twice the per capita costs of other OECD countries and relatively poor outcomes. The only privatized, pretty much unregulated system. The public doesn't like it. They've been calling for national healthcare, public options, for years, but the financial institutions think it's fine, so it stays: stasis. In fact, if the United States had a healthcare system like comparable countries there wouldn't be any deficit. The famous deficit would be erased, which doesn't matter that much anyway.
One of the most interesting cases has to do with taxes. For 35 years there have been polls on 'what do you think taxes ought to be?' Large majorities have held that the corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes. They've steadily been going down through this period.
On and on, the policy throughout is almost the opposite of public opinion, which is a typical property of RECD.
In the past, the United States has sometimes, kind of sardonically, been described as a one-party state: the business party with two factions called Democrats and Republicans. That's no longer true. It's still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction. The faction is moderate Republicans, who are now called Democrats. There are virtually no moderate Republicans in what's called the Republican Party and virtually no liberal Democrats in what's called the Democratic [sic] Party. It's basically a party of what would be moderate Republicans and similarly, Richard Nixon would be way at the left of the political spectrum today. Eisenhower would be in outer space.
There is still something called the Republican Party, but it long ago abandoned any pretence of being a normal parliamentary party. It's in lock-step service to the very rich and the corporate sector and has a catechism that everyone has to chant in unison, kind of like the old Communist Party. The distinguished conservative commentator, one of the most respected - Norman Ornstein - describes today's Republican Party as, in his words, "a radical insurgency - ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, dismissive of its political opposition" - a serious danger to the society, as he points out.
In short, Really Existing Capitalist Democracy is very remote from the soaring rhetoric about democracy. But there is another version of democracy. Actually it's the standard doctrine of progressive, contemporary democratic theory. So I'll give some illustrative quotes from leading figures - incidentally not figures on the right. These are all good Woodrow Wilson-FDR-Kennedy liberals, mainstream ones in fact. So according to this version of democracy, "the public are ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. They have to be put in their place. Decisions must be in the hands of an intelligent minority of responsible men, who have to be protected from the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd". The herd has a function, as it's called. They're supposed to lend their weight every few years, to a choice among the responsible men. But apart from that, their function is to be "spectators, not participants in action" - and it's for their own good. Because as the founder of liberal political science pointed out, we should not succumb to “democratic dogmatisms about people being the best judges of their own interest". They're not. We're the best judges, so it would be irresponsible to let them make choices just as it would be irresponsible to let a three-year-old run into the street. Attitudes and opinions therefore have to be controlled for the benefit of those you are controlling. It's necessary to "regiment their minds". It's necessary also to discipline the institutions responsible for the "indoctrination of the young." All quotes, incidentally. And if we can do this, we might be able to get back to the good old days when “Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers." This is all from icons of the liberal establishment, the leading progressive democratic theorists. Some of you may recognize some of the quotes.
The roots of these attitudes go back quite far. They go back to the first stirrings of modern democracy. The first were in England in the 17th Century. As you know, later in the United States. And they persist in fundamental ways. The first democratic revolution was England in the 1640s. There was a civil war between king and parliament. But the gentry, the people who called themselves "the men of best quality", were appalled by the rising popular forces that were beginning to appear on the public arena. They didn't want to support either king or parliament. Quote their pamphlets, they didn't want to be ruled by "knights and gentlemen, who do but oppress us, but we want to be governed by countrymen like ourselves, who know the people's sores". That's a pretty terrifying sight. Now the rabble has been a pretty terrifying sight ever since. Actually it was long before. It remained so a century after the British democratic revolution. The founders of the American republic had pretty much the same view about the rabble. So they determined that "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. Those who have sympathy for property owners and their rights", and of course for slave owners at the time. In general, men who understand that a fundamental task of government is “to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority". Those are quotes from James Madison, the main framer - this was in the Constitutional Convention, which is much more revealing than the Federalist Papers which people read. The Federalist Papers were basically a propaganda effort to try to get the public to go along with the system. But the debates in the Constitutional Convention are much more revealing. And in fact the constitutional system was created on that basis. I don't have time to go through it, but it basically adhered to the principle which was enunciated simply by John Jay, the president of the Continental Congress, then first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and as he put it, "those who own the country ought to govern it". That's the primary doctrine of RECD to the present.
There've been many popular struggles since - and they've won many victories. The masters, however, do not relent. The more freedom is won, the more intense are the efforts to redirect the society to a proper course. And the 20th Century progressive democratic theory that I've just sampled is not very different from the RECD that has been achieved, apart from the question of: Which responsible men should rule? Should it be bankers or intellectual elites? Or for that matter should it be the Central Committee in a different version of similar doctrines?
Well, another important feature of RECD is that the public must be kept in the dark about what is happening to them. The "herd" must remain "bewildered". The reasons were explained lucidly by the professor of the science of government at Harvard - that's the official name - another respected liberal figure, Samuel Huntington. As he pointed out, "power remains strong when it remains in the dark. Exposed to sunlight, it begins to evaporate". Bradley Manning is facing a life in prison for failure to comprehend this scientific principle. Now Edward Snowden as well. And it works pretty well. If you take a look at polls, it reveals how well it works. So for example, recent polls pretty consistently reveal that Republicans are preferred to Democrats on most issues and crucially on the issues in which the public opposes the policies of the Republicans and favors the policies of the Democrats. One striking example of this is that majorities say that they favor the Republicans on tax policy, while the same majorities oppose those policies. This runs across the board. This is even true of the far right, the Tea Party types. This goes along with an astonishing level of contempt for government. Favorable opinions about Congress are literally in the single digits. The rest of the government as well. It's all declining sharply.
Results such as these, which are pretty consistent, illustrate demoralization of the public of a kind that's unusual, although there are examples - the late Weimar Republic comes to mind. The tasks of ensuring that the rabble keep to their function as bewildered spectators, takes many forms. The simplest form is simply to restrict entry into the political system. Iran just had an election, as you know. And it was rightly criticized on the grounds that even to participate, you had to be vetted by the guardian council of clerics. In the United States, you don't have to be vetted by clerics, but rather you have to be vetted by concentrations of private capital. Unless you pass their filter, you don't enter the political system - with very rare exceptions.
There are many mechanisms, too familiar to review, but that's not safe enough either. There are major institutions that are specifically dedicated to undermining authentic democracy. One of them is called the public relations industry. A huge industry, it was in fact developed on the principle that it's necessary to regiment the minds of men, much as an army regiments its soldiers - I was actually quoting from one of its leading figures before.
The role of the PR industry in elections is explicitly to undermine the school-child version of democracy. What you learn in school is that democracies are based on informed voters making rational decisions. All you have to do is take a look at an electoral campaign run by the PR industry and see that the purpose is to create uninformed voters who will make irrational decisions. For the PR industry that's a very easy transition from their primary function. Their primary function is commercial advertising. Commercial advertising is designed to undermine markets. If you took an economics course you learned that markets are based on informed consumers making rational choices. If you turn on the TV set, you see that ads are designed to create irrational, uninformed consumers making irrational choices. The whole purpose is to undermine markets in the technical sense.
They're well aware of it, incidentally. So for example, after Obama's election in 2008, a couple of months later the advertising industry had its annual conference. Every year they award a prize for the best marketing campaign of the year. That year they awarded it to Obama. He beat out Apple computer, did an even better job of deluding the public - or his PR agents did. If you want to hear some of it, turn on the television today and listen to the soaring rhetoric at the G-8 Summit in Belfast. It's standard.
There was interesting commentary on this in the business press, primarily The London Financial Times, which had a long article, interviewing executives about what they thought about the election. And they were quite euphoric about this. They said this gives them a new model for how to delude the public. The Obama model could replace the Reagan model, which worked pretty well for a while.
Turning to the economy, the core of the economy today is financial institutions. They've vastly expanded since the 1970s, along with a parallel development - accelerated shift of production abroad. There have also been critical changes in the character of financial institutions.
If you go back to the 1960s, banks were banks. If you had some money, you put it in the bank to lend it to somebody to buy a house or start a business, or whatever. Now that's a very marginal aspect of financial institutions today. They're mostly devoted to intricate, exotic manipulations with markets. And they're huge. In the United States, financial institutions, big banks mostly, had 40% of corporate profit in 2007. That was on the eve of the financial crisis, for which they were largely responsible. After the crisis, a number of professional economists - Nobel laureate Robert Solow, Harvard's Benjamin Friedman - wrote articles in which they pointed out that economists haven't done much study of the impact of the financial institutions on the economy. Which is kind of remarkable, considering its scale. But after the crisis they took a look and they both concluded that probably the impact of the financial institutions on the economy is negative. Actually there are some who are much more outspoken than that. The most respected financial correspondent in the English-speaking world is Martin Wolf of the Financial Times. He writes that the "out-of-control financial sector is eating out the modern market economy from the inside, just as the larva of the spider wasp eats out the host in which it has been laid". By "the market economy" he means the productive economy.
There's a recent issue of the main business weekly, Bloomberg Business Week, which reported a study of the IMF that found that the largest banks make no profit. What they earn, according to the IMF analysis, traces to the government insurance policy, the so-called too-big-to-fail policy. There is a widely publicized bailout, but that's the least of it. There's a whole series of other devices by which the government insurance policy aids the big banks: cheap credit and many other things. And according to the IMF at least, that's the totality of their profit. The editors of the journal say this is crucial to understanding why the big banks present such a threat to the global economy - and to the people of the country, of course.
After the crash, there was the first serious attention by professional economists to what's called systemic risk. They knew it existed but it wasn't much a topic of investigation. 'Systemic risk' means the risk that if a transaction fails, the whole system may collapse. That's what's called an externality in economic theory. It's a footnote. And it’s one of the fundamental flaws of market systems, a well-known, inherent flaw, is externalities. Every transaction has impacts on others which just aren't taken into account in a market transaction. Systemic risk is a big one. And there are much more serious illustrations than that. I'll come back to it.
What about the productive economy under RECD? Here there's a mantra too. The mantra is based on entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice in a free market. There are agreements established called free-trade agreements, which are based on the mantra. That's all mythology.
The reality is that there is massive state intervention in the productive economy and the free-trade agreements are anything but free-trade agreements. That should be obvious. Just to take one example: The information technology (IT) revolution, which is driving the economy, that was based on decades of work in effectively the state sector - hard, costly, creative work substantially in the state sector, no consumer choice at all, there was entrepreneurial initiative but it was largely limited to getting government grants or bailouts or procurement. Except by some economists, that's underestimated but a very significant factor in corporate profit. If you can't sell something, hand it over the government. They'll buy it.
After a long period - decades in fact - of hard, creative work, the primary research and development, the results are handed over to private enterprise for commercialization and profit. That's Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and so on. It's not quite that simple of course. But that’s a core part of the picture. The system goes way back to the origins of industrial economies, but it's dramatically true since WWII that this ought to be the core of the study of the productive economy.
Another central aspect of RECD is concentration of capital. In just the past 20 years in the United States, the share of profits of the two hundred largest enterprises has very sharply risen, probably the impact of the Internet, it seems. These tendencies towards oligopoly also undermine the mantra, of course. Interesting topics but I won't pursue them any further.
Instead, I'd like to turn to another question. What are the prospects for the future under RECD? There's an answer. They're pretty grim. It's no secret that there are a number of dark shadows that hover over every topic that we discuss and there are two that are particularly ominous, so I'll keep to those, though there are others. One is environmental catastrophe. The other is nuclear war. Both of which of course threaten the prospects for decent survival and not in the remote future.
I won't say very much about the first, environmental catastrophe. That should be obvious. Certainly the scale of the danger should be obvious to anyone with eyes open, anyone who is literate, particularly those who read scientific journals. Every issue of a technical journal virtually has more dire warnings than the last one.
There are various reactions to this around the world. There are some who seek to act decisively to prevent possible catastrophe. At the other extreme, major efforts are underway to accelerate the danger. Leading the effort to intensify the likely disaster is the richest and most powerful country in world history, with incomparable advantages and the most prominent example of RECD - the one that others are striving towards.
Leading the efforts to preserve conditions in which our immediate descendants might have a decent life, are the so-called "primitive" societies: First Nations in Canada, Aboriginal societies in Australia, tribal societies and others like them. The countries that have large and influential indigenous populations are well in the lead in the effort to "defend the Earth". That's their phrase. The countries that have driven indigenous populations to extinction or extreme marginalization are racing forward enthusiastically towards destruction. This is one of the major features of contemporary history. One of those things that ought to be on front pages. So take Ecuador, which has a large indigenous population. It's seeking aid from the rich countries to allow it to keep its substantial hydrocarbon reserves underground, which is where they ought to be. Now meanwhile, the U.S. and Canada are enthusiastically seeking to burn every drop of fossil fuel, including the most dangerous kind - Canadian tar sands - and to do so as quickly and fully as possible - without a side glance on what the world might look like after this extravagant commitment to self-destruction. Actually, every issue of the daily papers suffices to illustrate this lunacy. And lunacy is the right word for it. It's exactly the opposite of what rationality would demand, unless it's the skewed rationality of RECD.
Well, there have been massive corporate campaigns to implant and safeguard the lunacy. But despite them, there's still a real problem in American society. The public is still too committed to scientific rationality. One of the many divergences between policy and opinion is that the American public is close to the global norm in concern about the environment and calling for actions to prevent the catastrophe and that's a pretty high level. Meanwhile, bipartisan policy is dedicated to 'bringing it on', in a phrase that George W. Bush made famous in the case of Iraq. Fortunately, the corporate sector is riding to the rescue to deal with this problem. There is a corporate funded organization - the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It designs legislation for states. No need to comment on what kind of legislation. They've got a lot of clout and money behind them. So the programs tend to get instituted. Right now they're instituting a new program to try to overcome the excessive rationality of the public. It's a program of instruction for K-12 (kindergarten to 12th grade in schools). Its publicity says that the idea is to improve critical faculties - I'd certainly be in favor of that - by balanced teaching. 'Balanced teaching' means that if a sixth grade class learned something about what's happening to the climate, they have to be presented with material on climate change denial so that they have balanced teaching and can develop their critical faculties. Maybe that'll help overcome the failure of massive corporate propaganda campaigns to make the population ignorant and irrational enough to safeguard short-term profit for the rich. It’s pointedly the goal and several states have already accepted it.
Well, it's worth remembering, without pursuing it that these are deep-seated institutional properties of RECD. They're not easy to uproot. All of this is apart from the institutional necessity to maximize short-term profit while ignoring an externality that's vastly more serious even than systemic risk. For systemic risk, the market failure - the culprits - can run to the powerful nanny state that they foster with cap in hand and they'll be bailed out, as we've just observed again and will in the future. In the case of destruction of the environment, the conditions for decent existence, there's no guardian angel around - nobody to run to with cap in hand. For that reason alone, the prospects for decent survival under RECD are quite dim.
Let's turn to the other shadow: nuclear war. It's a threat that's been with us for 70 years. It still is. In some ways it's growing. One of the reasons for it is that under RECD, the rights and needs of the general population are a minor matter. That extends to security. There is another prevailing mantra, particularly in the academic professions, claiming that governments seek to protect national security. Anyone who has studied international relations theory has heard that. That's mostly mythology. The governments seek to extend power and domination and to benefit their primary domestic constituencies - in the U.S., primarily the corporate sector. The consequence is that security does not have a high priority. We see that all the time. Right now in fact. Take say Obama's operation to murder Osama Bin Laden, prime suspect for the 9/11 attack. Obama made an important speech on national security last May 23rd. It was widely covered. There was one crucial paragraph in the speech that was ignored in the coverage. Obama hailed the operation, took pride in it - an operation which incidentally is another step at dismantling the foundations of Anglo-American law, back to the Magna Carta, namely the presumption of innocence. But that's by now so familiar, it's not even necessary to talk about it. But there's more to it. Obama did hail the operation but he added to it that it "cannot be the norm". The reason is that "the risks were immense". The Navy SEALswho carried out the murder might have been embroiled in an extended firefight, but even though by luck that didn't happen, "the cost to our relationship with Pakistan - and the backlash of the Pakistani public over the encroachment on their territory", the aggression in other words, "was so severe that we're just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership".
It's more than that. Let's add a couple of details. The SEALswere under orders to fight their way out if they were apprehended. They would not have been left to their fate if they had been, in Obama's words, been "embroiled in an extended firefight". The full force of the U.S. military would have been employed to extricate them. Pakistan has a powerful military. It's well-trained, highly protective of state sovereignty. Of course, it has nuclear weapons. And leading Pakistani specialists on nuclear policy and issues are quite concerned by the exposure of the nuclear weapons system to jihadi elements. It could have escalated to a nuclear war. And in fact it came pretty close. While the SEALswere still inside the Bin Laden compound, the Pakistani chief of staff, General Kayani, was informed of the invasion and he ordered his staff in his words to "confront any unidentified aircraft". He assumed it was probably coming from India. Meanwhile in Kabul, General David Petraeus, head of the Central Command, ordered "U.S. warplanes to respond if Pakistanis scrambled their fighter jets". It was that close. Going back to Obama, "by luck" it didn't happen. But the risk was faced without noticeable concern, without even reporting in fact.
There's a lot more to say about that operation and its immense cost to Pakistan, but instead of that let's look more closely at the concern for security more generally. Beginning with security from terror, and then turning to the much more important question of security from instant destruction by nuclear weapons.
As I mentioned, Obama's now conducting the world's greatest international terrorist campaign - the drones and special forces campaign. It's also a terror-generating campaign. The common understanding at the highest level [is] that these actions generate potential terrorists. I'll quote General Stanley McChrystal, Petraeus' predecessor. He says that "for every innocent person you kill", and there are plenty of them, "you create ten new enemies".
Take the marathon bombing in Boston a couple of months ago, that you all read about. You probably didn't read about the fact that two days after the marathon bombing there was a drone bombing in Yemen. Usually we don't happen to hear much about drone bombings. They just go on - just straight terror operations which the media aren't interested in because we don't care about international terrorism as long as the victims are somebody else. But this one we happened to know about by accident. There was a young man from the village that was attacked who was in the United States and he happened to testify before Congress. He testified about it. He said that for several years, the jihadi elements in Yemen had been trying to turn the village against Americans, get them to hate Americans. But the villagers didn't accept it because the only thing they knew about the United States was what he told them. And he liked the United States. So he was telling them it was a great place. So the jihadi efforts didn't work. Then he said one drone attack has turned the entire village into people who hate America and want to destroy it. They killed a man who everybody knew and they could have easily apprehended if they'd wanted. But in our international terror campaigns we don't worry about that and we don't worry about security.
One of the striking examples was the invasion of Iraq. U.S. and British intelligence agencies informed their governments that the invasion of Iraq was likely to lead to an increase in terrorism. They didn't care. In fact, it did. Terrorism increased by a factor of seven the first year after the Iraqi invasion, according to government statistics. Right now the government is defending the massive surveillance operation. That's on the front pages. The defense is on grounds that we have to do it to apprehend terrorists.
If there were a free press - an authentic free press - the headlines would be ridiculing this claim on the grounds that policy is designed in such a way that it amplifies the terrorist risk. But you can't find that, which is one of innumerable indications of how far we are from anything that might be called a free press.
Let's turn to the more serious problem: instant destruction by nuclear weapons. That's never been a high concern for state authorities. There are many striking examples. Actually, we know a lot about it because the United States is an unusually free and open society and there's plenty of internal documents that are released. So we can find out about it if we like.
Let's go back to 1950. In 1950, U.S. security was just overwhelming. There'd never been anything like it in human history. There was one potential danger: ICBMs with hydrogen bomb warheads. They didn't exist, but they were going to exist sooner or later. The Russians knew that they were way behind in military technology. They offered the U.S. a treaty to ban the development of ICBMs with hydrogen bomb warheads. That would have been a terrific contribution to U.S. security. There is one major history of nuclear weapons policy written by McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor for Kennedy and Johnson. In his study he has a couple of casual sentences on this. He said that he was unable to find even a staff paper discussing this. Here's a possibility to save the country from total disaster and there wasn't even a paper discussing it. No one cared. Forget it, we'll go on to the important things.
A couple of years later, in 1952, Stalin made a public offer, which was pretty remarkable, to permit unification of Germany with internationally supervised free elections, in which the Communists would certainly lose, on one condition - that Germany be demilitarized. That's hardly a minor issue for the Russians. Germany alone had practically destroyed them several times in the century. Germany militarized and part of a hostile Western alliance is a major threat. That was the offer.
The offer was public. It also of course would have led to an end to the official reason for NATO. It was dismissed with ridicule. Couldn't be true. There were a few people who took it seriously - James Warburg, a respected international commentator, but he was just dismissed with ridicule. Today, scholars are looking back at it, especially with the Russian archives opening up. And they're discovering that in fact it was apparently serious. But nobody could pay attention to it because it didn't accord with policy imperatives - vast production of threat of war.
Let's go on a couple of years to the late '50s, when Khrushchev took over. He realized that Russia was way behind economically and that it could not compete with the United States in military technology and hope to carry out economic development, which he was hoping to do. So he offered a sharp mutual cutback in offensive weapons. The Eisenhower administration kind of dismissed it. The Kennedy administration listened. They considered the possibility and they rejected it. Khrushchev went on to introduce a sharp unilateral reduction of offensive weapons. The Kennedy administration observed that and decided to expand offensive military capacity - not just reject it, but expand it. It was already way ahead.
That was one reason why Khrushchev placed missiles in Cuba in 1962 to try to redress the balance slightly. That led to what historian Arthur Schlesinger - Kennedy's advisor - called "the most dangerous moment in world history” - the Cuban missile crisis. Actually there was another reason for it: the Kennedy administration was carrying out a major terrorist operation against Cuba. Massive terrorism. It's the kind of terrorism that the West doesn't care about because somebody else is the victim. So it didn't get reported, but it was large-scale. Furthermore, the terror operation - it was called Operation Mongoose - had a plan. It was to culminate in an American invasion in October 1962. The Russians and the Cubans may not have known all the details, but it's likely that they knew this much. That was another reason for placing defensive missiles in Cuba.
Then came very tense weeks as you know. They culminated on October 26th. At that time, B-52s armed with nuclear weapons were ready to attack Moscow. The military instructions permitted crews to launch nuclear war without central control. It was decentralized command. Kennedy himself was leaning towards military action to eliminate the missiles from Cuba. His own, subjective estimate of the probability of nuclear war was between a third and a half. That would essentially have wiped out the Northern Hemisphere, according to President Eisenhower.
At that point, on October 26th, the letter came from Khrushchev to Kennedy offering to end the crisis. How? By withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba in return for withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey. Kennedy in fact didn't even know there were missiles in Turkey. But he was informed of that by his advisors. One of the reasons he didn't know is that they were obsolete and they were being withdrawn anyway. They were being replaced with far more lethal invulnerable Polaris submarines. So that was the offer: the Russians withdraw missiles from Cuba; the U.S. publicly withdraw obsolete missiles that it's already withdrawing from Turkey, which of course are a much greater threat to Russia than the missiles were in Cuba.
Kennedy refused. That's probably the most horrendous decision in human history, in my opinion. He was taking a huge risk of destroying the world in order to establish a principle: the principle is that we have the right to threaten anyone with destruction anyway we like, but it's a unilateral right. And no one may threaten us, even to try to deter a planned invasion. Much worse than this is the lesson that has been taken away - that Kennedy is praised for his cool courage under pressure. That's the standard version today.
The threats continued. Ten years later, Henry Kissinger called a nuclear alert. 1973. The purpose was to warn the Russians not to intervene in the Israel-Arab conflict. What had happened was that Russia and the United States had agreed to institute a ceasefire. But Kissinger had privately informed Israel that they didn't have to pay any attention to it; they could keep going. Kissinger didn't want the Russians to interfere so he called a nuclear alert.
Going on ten years, Ronald Reagan's in office. His administration decided to probe Russian defenses by simulating air and naval attacks - air attacks into Russia and naval attacks on its border. Naturally this caused considerable alarm in Russia, which unlike the United States is quite vulnerable and had repeatedly been invaded and virtually destroyed. That led to a major war scare in 1983. We have newly released archives that tell us how dangerous it was - much more dangerous than historians had assumed. There's a current CIA study that just came out. It's entitled "The War Scare Was for Real". It was close to nuclear war. It concludes that U.S. intelligence underestimated the threat of a Russian preventative strike, nuclear strike, fearing that the U.S. was attacking them. The most recent issue of The Journal of Strategic Studies - one of the main journals - writes that this almost became a prelude to a preventative nuclear strike. And it continues. I won't go through details, but the Bin Laden assassination is a recent one.
There are now three new threats. I'll try to be brief, but let me mention three cases that are on the front pages right now. North Korea, Iran, China. They're worth looking at. North Korea has been issuing wild, dangerous threats. That's attributed to the lunacy of their leaders. It could be argued that it's the most dangerous, craziest government in the world, and the worst government. It's probably true. But if we want to reduce the threats instead of march blindly in unison, there are a few things to consider. One of them is that the current crisis began with U.S.-South Korean war games, which included for the first time ever a simulation of a preemptive attack in an all-out war scenario against North Korea. Part of these exercises were simulated nuclear bombings on the borders of North Korea. That brings up some memories for the North Korean leadership. For example, they can remember that 60 years ago there was a superpower that virtually leveled the entire country and when there was nothing left to bomb, the United States turned to bombing dams. Some of you may recall that you could get the death penalty for that at Nuremberg. It's a war crime. Even if Western intellectuals and the media choose to ignore the documents, the North Korean leadership can read public documents, the official Air Force reports of the time, which are worth reading. I encourage you to read them. They exulted over the glorious sight of massive floods "that scooped clear 27 miles of valley below", devastated 75% of the controlled water supply for North Korea's rice production, sent the commissars scurrying to the press and radio centers to blare to the world the most severe, hate-filled harangues to come from the Communist propaganda mill in the three years of warfare. To the communists, the smashing of the dams meant primarily the destruction of their chief sustenance: rice. Westerners can little conceive the awesome meaning which the loss of this staple food commodity has for Asians: starvation and slow death. Hence the show of rage, the flare of violent tempers and the threats of reprisals when bombs fell on five irrigation dams. Mostly quotes. Like other potential targets, the crazed North Korean leaders can also read high-level documents which are public, declassified, which outline U.S. strategic doctrine. One of the most important is a study by Clinton's strategic command, STRATCOM. It's about the role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era. Its central conclusions are: U.S. must retain the right of first strike, even against non-nuclear states; furthermore, nuclear weapons must always be available, at the ready, because they "cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict". They frighten adversaries. So they're constantly being used, just as if you're using a gun, going into a store pointing a gun at the store owner. You don't fire it, but you're using the gun. STRATCOM goes on to say planners should not be too rational in determining what the opponent values the most. All of it has to be targeted. “It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. That the United States may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona that we project.” It's beneficial for our strategic posture "if some elements appear to be potentially out-of-control". That's not Richard Nixon or George W. Bush; it's Bill Clinton.
Again, Western intellectuals and media choose not to look, but potential targets don't have that luxury. There's also a recent history that the North Korean leaders know quite well. I'm not going to review it because of lack of time. But it's very revealing. I'll just quote mainstream U.S. scholarship. North Korea has been playing tit for tat - reciprocating whenever Washington cooperates, retaliating whenever Washington reneges. Undoubtedly it's a horrible place. But the record does suggest directions that would reduce the threat of war if that were the intention, certainly not military maneuvers and simulated nuclear bombing.
Let me turn to the "gravest threat to world peace" - those are Obama's words, dutifully repeated in the press: Iran's nuclear program. It raises a couple of questions: Who thinks it's the gravest threat? What is the threat? How can you deal with it, whatever it is?
'Who thinks it's a threat?' is easy to answer. It's a Western obsession. The U.S. and its allies say it's the gravest threat and not the rest of the world, not the non-aligned countries, not the Arab states. The Arab populations don't like Iran but they don't regard it as much of a threat. They regard the U.S. as the threat. In Iraq and Egypt, for example, the U.S. is regarded as the major threat they face. It's not hard to understand why.
What is the threat? We know the answer from the highest level: the U.S. intelligence and the Pentagon provide estimates to Congress every year. You can read them. The Global Security Analysis - they of course review this. And they say the main threat of a Iranian nuclear program - if they're developing weapons, they don't know. But they say if they're developing weapons, they would be part of their deterrent strategy. The U.S. can't accept that. A state that claims the right to use force and violence anywhere and whenever it wants, cannot accept a deterrent. So they're a threat. That's the threat.
So how do you deal with the threat, whatever it is? Actually, there are ways. I'm short of time so I won't go through details but there's one very striking one: We've just passed an opportunity last December. There was to be an international conference under the auspices of the non-proliferation treaty, UN auspices, in Helsinki to deal with moves to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. That has overwhelming international support - non-aligned countries; it's been led by the Arab states, Egypt particularly, for decades. Overwhelming support. If it could be carried forward it would certainly mitigate the threat. It might eliminate it. Everyone was waiting to see whether Iran would agree to attend.
In early November, Iran agreed to attend. A couple of days later, Obama canceled the conference. No conference. The European Parliament passed a resolution calling for it to continue. The Arab states said they were going to proceed anyway, but it can't be done. So we have to live with the gravest threat to world peace. And we possibly have to march on to war which in fact is being predicted.
The population could do something about it if they knew anything about it. But here, the free press enters. In the United States there has literally not been a single word about this anywhere near the mainstream. You can tell me about Europe.
The last potential confrontation is China. It's an interesting one, but time is short so I won't go on.
The last comment I'd like to make goes in a somewhat different direction. I mentioned the Magna Carta. That's the foundations of modern law. We will soon be commemorating the 800th anniversary. We won't be celebrating it - more likely interring what little is left of its bones after the flesh has been picked off by Bush and Obama and their colleagues in Europe. And Europe is involved clearly.
But there is another part of Magna Carta which has been forgotten. It had two components. The one is the Charter of Liberties which is being dismantled. The other was called the Charter of the Forests. That called for protection of the commons from the depredations of authority. This is England of course. The commons were the traditional source of sustenance, of food and fuel and welfare as well. They were nurtured and sustained for centuries by traditional societies collectively. They have been steadily dismantled under the capitalist principle that everything has to be privately owned, which brought with it the perverse doctrine of - what is called the tragedy of the commons - a doctrine which holds that collective possessions will be despoiled so therefore everything has to be privately owned. The merest glance at the world shows that the opposite is true. It's privatization that is destroying the commons. That's why the indigenous populations of the world are in the lead in trying to save Magna Carta from final destruction by its inheritors. And they're joined by others. Take say the demonstrators in Gezi Park in trying to block the bulldozers in Taksim Square. They're trying to save the last part of the commons in Istanbul from the wrecking ball of commercial destruction. This is a kind of a microcosm of the general defense of the commons. It's one part of a global uprising against the violent neo-liberal assault on the population of the world. Europe is suffering severely from it right now. The uprisings have registered some major successes. The most dramatic are Latin America. In this millennium it has largely freed itself from the lethal grip of Western domination for the first time in 500 years. Other things are happening too. The general picture is pretty grim, I think. But there are shafts of light. As always through history, there are two trajectories. One leads towards oppression and destruction. The other leads towards freedom and justice. And as always - to adapt Martin Luther King's famous phrase - there are ways to bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice and freedom - and by now even towards survival.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)