Pope Francis Calls Out Greedheads and Power Mongers At UN - Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Pope Francis called out world leaders at the UN yesterday  morning, calling for an end to the "selfish and boundless thirst for power ...fueling poverty, inequality and destruction of the environment". He nailed it but one had to wonder how many of these leaders were really paying attention or merely pretending to, in an act of formal respect.

He added that: "The unfettered pursuit of money rules and leads to the misuse of natural resources and the exclusion of the weak. . Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's decisions, and greed for money presides over the entire socio-economic system, the service of the common good is left behind."

The Pope particularly referenced the "financial agencies and the groups or mechanisms specifically created to deal with economic crises" a potent reference to the IMF, the World Bank and others, In case people may have forgotten, all of these agencies are dedicated to the Neoliberal imperative whose prime directive is to remove security for people worldwide. As Francis noted:

"And these agencies should not subject countries to oppressive lending systems. Far from promoting progress, these subject people to greater poverty, inequality and dependence."

Thus, the agencies' yen to cut pensions in Greece as well as social supports, and to privatize pensions in Barbados and to push for currency devaluation in many other less developed nations (such as already been done in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad).

The Pope, let's make no mistake, hit one of the prime targets (along with religious fanaticism) for what's wrong with this world.

Francis also referred to "World War III" going on right now,  yet most of us are somnolent, or better, comatose under the haze of Neoliberal puppet media propaganda - especially economic. The barrage on the nightly news has been so effective, that the poorly informed are left with their mouths agape  while those of us who know a thing or two are left to battle newly minted Zombies and attempt to get their brains liberated from the dross.

And, of course, like the Pope we are often attacked for our stance and arguing for a saner world where inequality and financial manipulation are finally wiped out. No surprise there, or that the Neoliberal media - which tolerates no efforts at others competing - viciously attacks Jeremy Corbin in the UK and Sen. Bernie Sanders in the U.S. for their efforts to upend the imperative.

No surprise then that like the brainwashed denizens of Oceania - in the scene where the Über villain Emmanuel Goldstein is depicted on the giant theater screen - the stooges of the Neoliberal state likewise go nuts clamoring for blood and action. Hence, the jubilation of the Tea Party nuts after Boehner resigned, so they believe they can now tear into Obama's legislation even more.   Having lost the ability to critically and logically think, thanks to the bastardized vocabulary of Neolib Newspeak, the brains of these pawns have now been colonized by "Big Brother" to his own ends. Those of us who inveigh against it are the new "Emmanuel Goldsteins".

The people of Oceania were no longer authentic beings in their own right but mere extensions of Big Brother and his will to power, to keep grinding their bodies and state resources up in a never-ending war to attain global domination. So it is with the "Neoliberal Frankenstein" and how it now seeks to grind nation after nation into more fodder for its misbegotten global ends. Ends which elevate and reify a global elite but which denigrate everyone else - offering only "gigs" for jobs. This is exactly what Francis condemned.

In a slashing salon.com piece last year Patrick Smith correctly asserted  that "Neoliberalism is our Frankenstein" and also noted:  "it is profoundly undemocratic, never mind that the English and American variants of democracy are the mulch from which it arises." He also added:  "It is also unrelentingly absolutist because it is intimately related to the myth of America’s providential exception, neoliberalism can tolerate no alternative".  His definition (formal) starts out:

"Neoliberalism denotes the revival since the 1970s, plus or minus, of English liberalism as expounded by Locke in the 17th century and numerous others in the 18th—Adam Smith and his “invisible hand,” most famously. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian, are notable among 19th century apostles."

But then went into a lengthy discourse comparing early and 18th century forms of  liberalism to the neo-mutant. Let's just cut to the chase here and give Smith's core definition:

"Classical liberalism in its 'neo'  phase denotes not thought but belief, ideological conviction. It is the ideology of radical deregulation, radical corporatization, radical privatization—prisons? water? kindergartens? human health?—maximal profit without regard to consequences, and the radical devaluation of any serious consciousness of the communities in which all individuals are suspended."

I would add to this columnist Jay Bookman's insight from a 1998 Baltimore Sun piece ('The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad'):

“The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative."

And there is Henry Giroux's insight on Neoliberalism:

"As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations. "

Thus we see where the yen to cut social insurance arises, and why profit and enormous wealth is amplified for the richest, and  also how  the wealthier nations  especially benefit by placing desperate or unstable ones in regimes of adversely structured debt. This is exactly why the West's Neolibs are determined to make Ukraine part of the Neoliberal imperative and orbit. And also why they've arrogantly refused thus far to cooperate with Putin and Russia (as well as Assad)  to rein in the radical jihadi rebels and ISIS vermin seeking to wreck the rest of that forlorn country and send its remaining 11.5 million into permanent refugee flight.

 It follows from this that the true liberal must inveigh against this mission and that means siding with Russia and Putin (who will be giving a '60 Minutes' interview Sunday that I advise everyone to watch for a great example of a rational man). "Siding" at least to the extent that we agree the Ukraine outcome ends essentially in a draw - translated to mean neither in the West's orbit or Russia's but a separate buffer state. (This was advocated by Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson two years ago.)

It further means that we agree Syria be returned to stability and a stable government - even if we may not like that government. Tough shit! In our history we have tolerated tyrants before - think of Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti, or Manuel Noriega in Panama, or Fulgencio Batista in Cuba - and we can do so now if it means lessening the refugee chaos and migrant crisis.

But this may be difficult given as Smith writes:

"I was astonished many times as a correspondent to see how readily foreign leaders and their finance ministries drank the Anglo-American Kool-Aid. Here I single out Continental Europe as especially disappointing. A long social-democratic tradition notwithstanding, almost all European leaders—and every last technocrat in Brussels—went down like sticks of butter when neoliberals at State, Treasury and in the think tanks launched the post-Berlin Wall campaign."

Thus, the Europeans have now become puppets of the U.S. which let's face it, is the primary force bearer - the 'cop of the world' - enjoined to enforce Neolib standards. Hence, the threat to send lethal weapons to the Ukrainians - just as they have kept arming the jihadis in Syria seeking to overthrow Assad. But which any sober realist will assure you can never happen - and also never lead to an alternative rebel governance. For more on this please do read the FT article below (sign up for the free limited access if you have to!):

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96bf7e48-6041-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mSz73FXD

Again, what it's about is the Neoliberal imperative,  to convert nations into dependent debt slavery states and their citizens into slaves for the Neoliberals.  How accomplished? Well, via the draconian conditions required by the World Bank and the IMF: the privatization of numerous state-held assets, including airports, rails and even pensions. Also,  divestment of the most profitable of these first.  Leaving the governments impecunious, essentially beggars beholden to the Neoliberal empire.

If you consider yourself to have any skin at all in this ongoing war, you need to back Vladimir Putin and Russia as bulwarks against Neoliberal advance. If not, then you are part of the problem not the solution and if the whole world turns into a slave state for the richest, you must share the blame for the "boundless thirst for power and money" that the Pope vehemently condemned.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/64016/the-pope-says-greed-is-not-good

And:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f7cd3f4c-6472-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3mtG3qQGY

  

DOH! The Pope Was NOT Speaking As A "Leftist" - But As A HUMAN!

Pope Francis arrives at the House to address congress yesterday morning.

"We on this continent do not fear foreigners because we were once foreigners too." - Pope Francis in his address to congress.

Leave it to the Neoliberal -leaning NY Times to come away with exactly the wrong message in its reporting of Pope Francis' address to congress, painting it as "tilting to the left". The author wrote:

He called for the mightiest nation in history on Thursday to break out of its cycle of polarization and paralysis to finally use its power to heal the “open wounds” of a planet torn by hatred, greed, poverty and pollution.

Taking a rostrum never before occupied by the bishop of Rome, the pontiff issued a vigorous call to action on issues largely favored by liberals, including a powerful defense of immigration, an endorsement of environmental legislation, a blistering condemnation of the arms trade and a plea to abolish the death penalty.

But the Pope's whole point was for the nation to escape polarized political perceptions, whereupon the NY Times columnist injects them! He portrays the Pope's positions as "one largely favored by liberals". Ok, let's get it straight - all those positions really fell under his invitation to adhere to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Is that a "liberal" line? Of course not! The Pope's whole emphasis reinforced that it was a HUMAN line of approach!

If the conservatives are not with the rest of us on those positions then the question to ask is: Why aren't they?  It means they are the outliers or aberrations of humanity. What's wrong with their brains, or perhaps, what's wrong with acceptance of the Golden Rule? (Ok, mayhap most conservos really go by "Do to others before they do to you!" Which would be in line with all the anti-human, hostility meme the Pope inveighed against.)  This is the thinking that promotes me-firstism, exceptionalism, wars, greed and inequality - as well as xenophobia and barring newcomers to one's land because they are somehow untrustworthy or  inferior..

Fortunately, not all conservatives have their heads up their behinds. For example. Wall Street Journal columnist William A. Galston ('The Refugees Test Obama's Moral Leadership', Sept. 23, p. A11) concedes the refugee crisis is a moral issue as well as a leadership  test. He puts the two together under "moral leadership".  In his article he compares Hungary's leader Viktor Orban to those fascists forming the Arrow Cross Party in WWII. He also adds: "America cannot stand by. Sins of commission during George W. Bush's presidency contributed to this crisis".  And "We cannot say this is Europe's problem alone. Nor can we make a token contribution and walk away."

He goes on to note that a group of national security, international humanitarian and human rights appointees from both Democratic and Republican administrations have urged Obama to support the admission of "at least 100,000 Syrian refugees on an expedited basis" and further argues "This should be the floor of the U.S. effort not the ceiling". 

Most notably, Mr. Galston wants Obama to bring the matter up at the upcoming conference for world leaders at the UN next week. He pins it as a sign of moral leadership for the President - in contrast to the knuckle dragging, anti-humans that want to "bar the doors to ragheads" - some of whom even now are mocking the deaths of 717 Muslims near Mecca.

What does Mr. Galston know that xenophobic conservatives don't? Or does he have a higher IQ? Or perhaps, and this is my bet, he has a more developed moral conscience and is fully able to apply the Golden Rule (which he does noting in the article his own Jewish background on the eve of Yom Kippur.)

While the Pope didn't explicitly tell the congress how many Syrians and other Middle East refugees to take (maybe for fear too many Reepo heads would explode) he did leave no doubt it's a lot - citing the Golden Rule and also the fact this is nation built from immigrants. OK, they may not have been Middle Eastern in origin but they were immigrants and the Pope's message bade us to not pick "sides" and exalt one form of immigrant over the other, say by calling the new wave "ragheads". Indeed, his message was explicitly NOT to pass judgment on fellow humans of whatever origin given we are all in this together on one world. We either learn to live together or we perish together, it's that simple.

"Ragheads" itself is a disgusting, dehumanizing epithet  as bad as "gooks", which only appeals to the basest nativist instincts and which definitely is not consonant with the Golden Rule. It is more at home with nativist paranoia, hate and Islamophobia.

The Rule also applies to our treatment of those enmeshed in poverty at home. Thus,  Francis beseeched a nation that generates a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth to not let money drive its decisions at the expense of humanity. “Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one, the greatest common good,”

Also words for the Business Elites:  "While business is a noble vocation it must be an essential part of its service to the common good.” Uh, that's common good, not personal good.

Speaking of which, let's recall that the Golden Rule is not Christian in origin. It is, in fact, the fundamental tenet of Hammurabi’s Code  which recognizes a communitarian moral order. In effect, the Rule's authors believed if people rigorously followed this tenet there'd be little or no greed, theft, or even war. Why would a person want some hellish end for another that he doesn't want for himself?

The Pope's message was to get back to that wholly HUMAN frame of reference and exclude the artificial one based on personal aggrandizement, personal priority, material consumption and grabbing more than you need.

In like manner,  the Rule applies to immigration, and accepting the "stranger" from other lands yearning to breathe free. It says in effect, "If you were in the typical Syrian refugee's position, what would you want for yourself, for others?" Well, you'd want a safe, secure place such as you are seeking.

Those who refer to potential Syrian immigration as a "Trojan horse" are also operating under severe negative ideation and fear, which as the Pope noted yesterday  - will limit one's ability to reach out. It hampers one's generosity, reducing it to a survivalist meme that will countenance nothing for strangers who one dismisses as less than human. It is in reality an inducement to the Brutal Rule: Do to others before they can do to you..

But look, if this Rule dominated our history we'd never have become the nation we are today. NO way!. We'd be just like the nations from which the refugees are fleeing. Fear and hostility would rule and we'd not have become a union that transcended its individual, separate parts.

Those who want to ditch the "ragheads" or prevent allowing them to find refuge here, need to bear that in mind.

See also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pope-francis-to-address-divided-congress-in-washington-on-thursday/2015/09/23/971b0a9e-6260-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Kathleen Parker Tries To Turn Bernie Sanders Into the "Boogeyman"

In her most recent column, center-Right bloviator Kathleen Parker wrote:

"Sanders is a socialist running on a platform that should send shivers up the spines of most Americans"

She then went on to reference "the anti-establishment candidate's big crowds" and avers Sanders' platform to redistribute wealth "makes Obama look like a robber baron". But look, no sensible person ever believed Obama to be anything but a Neoliberal. His positions and policies  certainly don't pass the smell test for being a real socialist - democratic or other.

Thus she blows it trying to turn Bernie into the boogeyman, especially because most Americans, while they may react like arachnophobes at the word "socialist",  actually line up favorably with most of Bernie's proposals. Don't believe me? Let's consider the following:

Health Care For All:

 

Sanders is critical of Obama's Affordable Care Act, arguing that it doesn’t go far enough and calling for a “Medicare-for-all” single-payer healthcare plan, similar to programs in most developed democratic nations.As he puts it:

“We are the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people as a right and yet we end up spending much more than they do. So I do believe that we have to move toward a Medicare for all, single-payer system,”

The idea is extremely popular among Democrats, with nearly 80 percent in support according to a January 2015 poll by the Progressive Change Institute. The poll also found that a majority of Americans overall supported a Medicare-for-all insurance option.

Taxing The Rich:

 

Sanders called the “massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent” in America “obscene” and has called for a return to a much higher marginal tax rate. “If you have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top tenth of 1 percent, you’ve got to transfer that back” Sanders told CNBC.
 

Sixty-four percent of Americans say they are bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations aren’t paying what’s fair in federal taxes, and 61 percent say the same about some wealthy people, according to a recent Pew poll. Meanwhile, 67 percent of Americans recently told Gallup they were dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S.

Tuition-Free College :
 

Sanders has proposed the College for All Act, a plan to provide free education at public colleges funded by a small tax on Wall Street transactions. Sixty-three percent of respondents supported a similar proposal from President Obama earlier this year, including 47 percent of Republicans.

Sanders' position is also backed up by a recent Gallup poll that found, the burden of college tuition is crushing for many American households. Seventy-three percent of parents of children younger than 18 said they are either “very worried” or “moderately worried” about how to fund college for their children. That is more than the 70 percent of lower-income Americans who worry about having enough money to pay for medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident

Campaign Finance Reform:

Sanders is running forcefully against money in politics and his campaign has shunned super PAC support funded by undisclosed billionaires.

According to polls, Americans are most in sync with Sen. Sanders on this issue. A New York Times poll released this month found that “Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, agree that money has too much influence on elections, the wealthy have more influence on elections, and candidates who win office promote policies that help their donors.”
 

Eighty-four percent of respondents said money has too great an influence on political campaigns.

Sixty-six percent agreed that the wealthy have the most influence. And seventy-seven percent want to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns.

Clearly Kathleen Parker either ignores key opinion polls on what Americans favor, or she is determined to scare the bejeezus out of people using the "socialist" scare word the way parents of old used to invoke the "boogeyman"

Claire McCaskill: "Bernie Sanders Is Too Extreme" - She's Another Neolib Traitor Dem

Claire McCaskil's brain dead,  dopey face after being called out by Mark Halperin when she asserted Bernie Sanders is "too extreme for Americans."  Maybe for pro-corporate Democrats like Claire McCaskill who prefer to see a stronger Corporatocracy!

I had Sen. Claire McCaskill pegged correctly as a Neoliberal, corporate Democrat when I wrote in an April 30, 2011 post:

"Another traitor Dem is none other than Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri (much like one of her predecessors, Sen. Carnahan in 2001 - who voted for the original deficit creating Bush tax cuts) who now wants to join up with Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee in a pie-eyed, cock-eyed, half-baked scheme to "save $7.6 trillion over 10 years." How? By capping federal spending at 20.6 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. That’s down from 24.3 percent now. And that's despite an expected increase in population of more than 15%. What the hell is she drinking?"

Of course, such capping would have meant mainly the poor - on programs like Medicaid and food stamps-  would suffer,  along with seniors on Medicare and Social Security. Meanwhile - as history has shown, MCCaskill has had no problem protecting the original Bush tax cuts, and protecting defense spending.

I write this because this morning it would have been no surprise for many when on 'Morning Joe', she slimed Bernie Sanders and the giant, energized crowds he was getting - insisting his platform was "too extreme" and he wasn't being subjected by the media to the same standard as Hillary. Including being tagged as a "socialist".

Maybe Claire has lost the ability to read, or perhaps she's got one blind eye, but I've seen at least ten articles or columns in the past month on Sanders' socialism - mainly written by right wing media imps like George Will. But this "unequal" treatment narrative fits in with McCaskill's shtick of protecting and exalting a pro-corporate, Wall Street -backed candidate.

She did concede that Bernie Sanders "has a message that is touching people's frustrations" and that she "totally gets that" - but "so does Hillary Clinton".   Of course, but in all the examples Claire gave it was only after her being pushed to the left once Bernie entered the race and began climbing in the polls (in one NH poll coming within pts. of Hillary). So she's being too clever by half and disingenuous.

The fact Claire wouldn't admit on air is that Hillary is being backed by Wall Street money and tons of it shows her dishonesty. But then as a pro-corporate Dem there'd be no reason for her to broach this on national TV.

Mark Halperin then challenged McCaskill to name three ways that Bernie Sanders' political message and platform was too extreme. After babbling for a bit, and then trying to dodge it ("why don't you name them?") she finally barfed up the following:

- "He would like to see  Medicare for all in this country and let everyone have a government insurance policy. "

Oh yeah, terrible! Horrible! Fuckin' awful! Imagine, each citizen being covered by a program already embraced by seniors which has the lowest administration fees compared to private insurance. And.  having it as opposed to a program (Obamacare) which allows the insurance companies to all take their cuts, jack up premiums whenever they want and forces people to pay into it even if they can't afford it.

And she's also dead wrong when she claimed "I don't think Americans want government to have every insurance policy" - because they DO - in poll after poll - when the alternative is only private medical insurance or some hybrid like Obamacare.  But again, what do you expect from a corporate Dem?

She went on:

- "He would like to see expansion of entitlement (Social Security)"

Again, god forbid seniors get expanded Social Security though I already showed there are ample justifications for it, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-social-security-expansion-bill.html

She added in connection with this, "he is not worried about debt at all" which is false. Because on multiple occasions Bernie has made it clear the social benefits he wants expanded can be paid for by decreasing the out of control military spending which already exceeds the total of the next 22 nations combined. 

- "Somebody who I think is frankly against trade"

Again, wrong! Bernie is not against trade, but rather against unbalanced trade agreements (with almost all  benefits to Wall Street & corporations) and  concealed trade pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership  (TPP) which also enable corporate- multinational hegemony over national democratic decisions. I touched on many of the negative aspects here:


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/so-how-bad-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html

Readers who want to see more can check these links:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/62790/killing-a-nation-with-euphemisms-tpp-eats-medicare-edition


http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership

Make no mistake McCaskill has merely disclosed her true colors, as anti-Middle class, and pro-Wall Street. What do we know about the TPP? We know, according to Public Citizen,  that the TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.

We also  know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards. (An excellent reason for Claire to be against  Bernie's "Medicare for All".)

We also  know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street.

All this is even more germane now that traitor, poseur Dems like McCaskill have voted for the fast track on TPP which now only the most valiant and ferocious opposition can upend. (Here are the D-senators who voted for Fast Track: http://1.usa.gov/1GtAdTH )

At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble or "coalition" brought together every four years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market, they are barely discernible from the Repugs. Two sides of one corporate party coin  - except that the Ds use lube before they fuck you over.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/62810/the-difference-between-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph


And:


http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/bernie_sanders_cornel_west_the_radical_alliance_that_could_change_everything/

Naming the 28 Democrat Punks Who Voted for the TPP Fast Track on Friday

 "Aaaargh! That bastard Copernicus is exposing our allies in the House!"

Okay, it's 'show time',  people. The next big vote on TPP is likely today and we have to know the names of the 28 Demo punks who already voted with the Repukes on it.  These traitors voted to pass fast-track trade promotion authority, which preapproves the still-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and future so-called “trade” agreements. These poltroons voted to send jobs and factories out of the country, to allow non-U.S. corporations (and foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations) to sue our government if we try to pass laws that might interfere with their profits. (And those are just some of the things we know are in TPP from leaks.)

Okay, look, there is always the small chance of redemption, so we will hope that arrives today when the rubber likely hits the road with a new TPP vote .  Here are the names of  the Dem miscreants. Pay attention to see whether any are your reps.:

Brad Ashford (Neb.-2nd District)

 Ami Bera (Calif.-7th District)

 Don Beyer (Va.-8th District)

 Earl Blumenauer (Ore.-3rd District)

 Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.-1st District)

 Gerry Connolly (Va.-11th District)

 Jim Cooper (Tenn.-5th District)

 Jim Costa (Calif.-16th District)

 Henry Cuellar (Texas-28th District)

 Susan Davis (Calif.-53rd District)

 John Delaney (Md.-6th District)

 Suzan DelBene (Wash.-1st District)

 Sam Farr (Calif.-20th District)

 Jim Himes (Conn.-4th District)

 Ruben Hinojosa (Texas-15th District)

 Eddie B. Johnson (Texas-30th District)

 Derek Kilmer (Wash.-6th District)

 Ron Kind (Wis.-3rd District)

 Rick Larsen (Wash.-2nd District)

 Gregory Meeks (N.Y.-5th District)

 Beto O’Rourke (Texas-16th District)

 Scott Peters (Calif.-52nd District)

 Jared Polis (Colo.-2nd District)

 Mike Quigley (Ill.-5th District)

 Kathleen Rice (N.Y.-4th District)

 Kurt Schrader (Ore.-5th District)

 Terri Sewell (Ala.-7th District)

 Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.-23rd District)

If ANY one of these people represent you in Congress, use clicktocallcongress.org to contact them. Tell them to vote the right way- against TPP - or their stay in the House won't be very long because they will be primaried next time around!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/62678/fast-track-derails-democracy

Excerpt:

"The unholy trio of Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (who has vowed to keep any of Obama’s nominees from being confirmed), Speaker of the House John Boehner (who has thwarted just about every Democratic legislative proposal of the past several years), and President Obama (a Democrat, in case you are having trouble remembering) are as one in a desperate effort to rescue their Frankenstein-like creation.

Their only hope is to bribe, browbeat or brainwash enough House members to change their minds. It could happen....

The issue before us is not “free trade,” which, like any policy, has its pluses and minuses. The issue is that a multilateral trade agreement should not be negotiated in secret, but in the open by our State and Commerce departments, with input from all organizations concerned, including those representing workers and environmentalists.

Then there should come a draft document for all to see, to be laid before the people’s representatives in Congress assembled. If and when a majority of them ratifies the agreement, it can go to the president for signature. This is how democracy should work....

This whole affair is outrageous. After 226 years of constitutional government, is this where we’ve finally arrived?

So what can we do against so monstrous a lie? First, call this deal out for what it is — an abomination. Then let the tsunami of popular outrage roll. Tell Congress and the White House what you think. But hurry! Time’s running out, and Obama, McConnell, Boehner and the lobbyists are working overtime to get the locomotive back on the fast-track."

Liberals Need To Hold The Line On TPP Vote - Don't Let Obama & Reepos Prevail

Hmmmmm.... If we can just catch the liberals sleeping next Tuesday maybe we can push this bill through!

The news today that the liberal -progressive faction of the House held strain - under Nancy Pelosi's guidance- and torpedoed a key element of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) fast track trade bill, has to warm the cockles of every true citizen's heart. And despite Obama's high pressure personal pitches in trying to wrangle congressional votes, he fell short  - he and his Repuke allies, at least for now. But, as they say, it's not over til it's over and by some "legislative acrobatics" (to use Rachel Maddow's parlance) Johnno Boehner managed to keep this sick dog on the respirator enough to live another day - next week  - for a re-vote.

It goes without saying all the real dems and allies must hold the line on this and not give an inch. Obama will likely turn on the fake charm and smile again to gain leverage on this TPP abomination but this we can't allow. People need to get hold of their congress critters over the weekend and remind them - as 'Democracy Now' has -  that if they cast a vote for this perfidy they will be left to "rot" next year and be "primaried by a real Democrat" as opposed to being elected as a DINO, Neoliberal traitor.

To remind readers, what happened today is that the worker assistance provision ("Trade Adjustment Assistance") was voted down- which meant the fast track legislation couldn't go forward. This worker assistance provision emerged out of the Senate bill when it was realized that if American workers' jobs were lost (as they likely will be by the millions) they will need specialized re-training to get back in the game.

Normally such a provision would be a no-brainer to vote on but in this case two strikes stood against it: 1) it had to be paid for and the Republicans originally designated cuts to Medicare providers to pay for it - but Dems let them know this was not on, so the 'pay for' part was left for later, and 2) passage of the provision would represent an "enabler" to a bill that is awful on its face with many elements that are hostile to not only workers but the environment, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/so-how-bad-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html

Thus, killing the whole TPP trumped passing any given provision, since if that happened the damned thing would be fast-tracked for Obama to sign and expedite. The last thing any true, red-blooded American  - especially worker - wants.

So, despite Obama's rancid insults to the House Dems - including advising them to "vote straight" - they ignored him, as did House Minority Leader Pelosi.  Well, they ignored him at least on the worker assistance provision vote. The other main TPP vote passed by 219-211. (But I suspect at least twenty rat's ass Dems hid behind that vote knowing in advance the worker assistance part was doomed, to appease their dear Prez.)

But as I said, this isn't over...not yet. Boehner and the House Republican majority plan to resurrect it again next week, and we need to keep the pressure on congress critters not to relent. If this turkey passes, as one blogger observed on smirkingchimp, it will mean a "blood bath" next year for the Democrats. This we do not want no matter what Obama believes about his "legacy".

Find another legacy cornerstone, Mr. Prez!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/62622/slam-the-door-on-fast-track

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/62623/supporting-nafta-was-the-kiss-of-death-for-democrats-why-dems-should-think-twice-about-voting-for-tpp

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/62621/congress-to-vote-on-fast-track-friday-wall-street-or-main-street

Are Neolib Democrats Real Democrats? NO!

"Hehehehehe..heeheehee. Hey, you may not like my money grubbin' ways and support of the wealthy, but I'm a Democrat too! Hehehehehehehe..."


Yes, I have to 'fess up, I hate the bastards! All the soft in the spine, money grubbing, pro-bribery poltroons who make up the "centrist" branch of the Democratic Party - or what I call Demo-rats. As a recent salon.com article put it:

"The argument for centrism within the Democratic party is a distraction, but also a tactic. After all, what does centrism really mean in Washington? It means corporatism. It means the neoliberal alliance between Wall Street and D.C. that we have seen wreak havoc over the past 30 years"

Couldn't have put it better, given I hate the Neoliberal idiom and  false market worship which paves the way for Wall Street  Democrats to even exist. Ensconced in their gated communities or high end condos, stuffing themselves on wine and brie, they care not a whit about the 85 percent of citizens on the lower end of the income scale.

Worse, they are now seeking to sink the reputations of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. An example of the Wall Street mutation of the Dems is the “centrist” think tank, “Third Way,” founded by a coterie of former Clinton staffers. This organization has aggressively gone after Elizabeth Warren and the liberal movement, saying in a Wall Street Journal editorial:

“If you talk to leading progressives these days, you’ll be sure to hear this message: The Democratic Party should embrace the economic populism of New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Such economic populism, they argue, should be the guiding star for Democrats heading into 2016. Nothing would be more disastrous for Democrats.”

In other words, Third Way is an enclave for DINO traitors to the genuine Democratic cause and brand. The 'Third Way' is actually a craven fourth column which seeks to upend the social justice actions, legislation put into place by FDR, and instead extol Neoliberalism.  Perhaps no better synopsis of Neoliberalism has been written than by Henry Giroux (Protesting Youth in an Age of Neoliberal Savagery' )

"As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux 2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes “the deregulation of finance, privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws” (Yates 2013).

As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations.

As a mode of governance, it produces identities, subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.

Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one’s individual needs and self-interests.

Matters of mutual caring, respect, and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations. As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear, and the increasing use of state violence."

How any Democrat with red blood coursing through his veins could support such a bastardized system is beyond me. But perhaps this is because I am a product of the 50s and 60s and always embraced the true liberalism manifested by FDR and JFK which the current mutation of Wall Street Dems despise. (These "Dems", as another indicator, were also behind the Chained CPI cuts to Social Security when Obama - another Neolib- first proposed it via his "deficit commission").  I also have not changed my political stripes one iota over a generation. I have not changed one metaphorical millimeter moving to the center, or to the right.

Why not? Because principles valid to liberalism - which the Democratic Party should be about in counterpoint to the Repukes' pro -business, wealth agenda- do not change over time. What was unacceptable in the 1940s, or 1950s, 1960s (e.g. kids going hungry, seniors without social insurance dying in ditches, kids working in factories, people lacking access to health care) must also be unacceptable in the 2000s, or even 3000s.

As Conor Lynch puts it (ibid.), pegging why the corporatists and their lackeys are so terrified of Sanders and Warren:

The fact is, Wall Street is afraid of modern liberalism, and is working hard to kill it from within with the same arguments that were made in the eighties and nineties. The only difference is, today, we know just how bad neoliberalism has been for the majority of people, and how good it has been for folks on Wall Street.

The financial crisis and the current inequality we face discredits the neoliberal ideology of the past thirty years.


SO make no mistake that Elizabeth Warren and the rising liberal movement (which even Karl Rove in yesterday's WSJ noted claims 31% of Americans, up from 25% five years ago)   have created a real fear within the Republican party and Wall Street. Certain right wing pundits thus hysterically paint Warren as nothing less than a radical socialist, aiming to overthrow the capitalist system. This is irrational fear. Fear that the new liberal movement is not just a fad, and that the future is moving leftward. (It is, and each year that inequality continues, pushes the marker further left)

Those Democrats who are aware what side their 'bread is buttered on' know well enough not to support the Neoliberal imperative any longer. Already, six House Dems vying for Senate seats in the 2016 elections have rejected the Trans Pacific Partnership - the cornerstone of current Neoliberal market manipulation. They have stated openly that their constituents have made it very clear to them that they want no part of this egregious, Anti-American deal.

It would be well for other Dems, especially the nominal ones, DINOS and Neolibs, to perhaps let that sink through their heads lest they vote on the TPP "fast track" passage in the near future.

Sen. Chuck Schumer Proves He's a Dem Neoliberal Rat On The TPP Issue

Hmmmmm......if enough Democrats can  just help us to sneak this by the People all will be well!"

Two years ago, in a post pertaining to Russia's giving Constitutional hero Edward Snowden asylum, I identified the traitorous rats inveighing against it, including assorted Democrats. I noted:

"Neolib Weasel Chuck Schumer,  barking that "Russia has stabbed us in the back and each day Snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist of the knife!",  you'd think that nation was harboring a war criminal like Cheney or Bush, or a serial killer or genocidal madman, not a man who simply exposed the over reaching and trashing of the Constitution done by his own gov't.  Not a man who is a genuine patriot in every sense of the word, as opposed to a disgusting reprobate tool."

I've never waivered from the conviction Schumer was a pompous Neoliberal worm in the guise of a center -left Democrat. And his most recent traitorous antics on the Trans- Pacific Partnership confirm it. The giveaway was highlighted in the Washington Post's headline:

Schumer at Center of Democrats’ Trade Drama

Therein we learn:

The likely outcome is the separate measures will pass out of the Senate, but the currency-related measure faces a rough road in the House and at the White House.Pro-trade Democrats, though, will be able to say they voted to get tough on trade even as they voted for a six-year fast-track trade bill.

In other words, Chuckie engineered a split  bill to try to deflect left Demos' ire and attention.  In essence, a separate bill for  the currency restrictions will pass, but can be vetoed separately from Fast Track. This translates in a win for TPP Fast Track, i.e. no enforceable currency restrictions. Second, passing a separate currency bill allows pro-TPP Democrats to brag about how they "tried" their best to oppose the liberal onslaught - thereby grabbing a handy fig leaf.

The WaPo account goes on leaving no doubt the architect was Chuck Schumer:

"Senate Democrats’ epic trade revolt against President Barack Obama’s fast-track bill — and the furious efforts to salvage it — had one senator at the center of it all: Charles E. Schumer.
The New York Democrat, who has become the heir apparent to Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, found himself in an awkward position, to say the least.

A provision he authored to get tough on countries that manipulate their currencies was threatening to bring down the White House’s entire trade agenda; its absence on the Senate floor was why Democrats filibustered Obama’s fast-track trade package Tuesday. By the end of the day Wednesday, the crisis — what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest kept calling a “procedural snafu” — had been averted, with Schumer helping to seal the deal.

Although the New Yorker has opposed the trade bills — he voted against fast track in committee — as the caucus’ future leader, he has to balance the anti-trade sentiment among the vast majority of Democratic senators with his loyalty to the White House and the desires of a sizable number of pro-trade Democrats, such as Sen. Patty Murray of Washington. In short, it’s a sign of the kind of leader Schumer will be."

So we get one Neolib weasel to replace another (Reid).  And let's not overlook another rat in the making, Patty Murray - who didn't do duck squat back in Nov.-Dec. 2013 to halt a bill allowing $9b cuts in food stamps in order for the military to prevail in a sequester deal.  As one percipient blogger on smirkingchimp.com has observed:

Notice "progressive" Patty Murray's role in this. As a member of Democratic leadership, she seems to have had to choose between "following the neo-liberal leader" — in this case, Barack Obama on TPP — and standing with all other progressives in the "Democratic coalition," including every labor union. Murray is choosing to play ball with Senate leadership against progressives. Watch her carefully going forward. This looks a lot like the victory of careerism over principle.

All of which is enough to make a diehard liberal  - who hasn't changed his political position in 52 years - vomit.  But hell, we could as well expose the other pro-TPP Neoliberal Demo-RATS while we're at it, along with their phone numbers so interested readers can unload on 'em and blister their sorry asses:

Michael Bennet (D-CO) — 202-224-5852

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) —202-224-3441

Ben Cardin (D-MD) —202-224-4524

Tom Carper (D-DE) — 202-224-2441

Chris Coons (D-DE) — 202-224-5042

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) —202-224-3841

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) —202-224-2043

Tim Kaine (D-VA) —202-224-4024

Claire McCaskill (D-MO) —202-224-6154

Patty Murray (D-WA) —202-224-2621

Bill Nelson (D-FL) — 202-224-5274

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) — 202-224-2841

Mark Warner (D-VA) —202-224-2023

Ron Wyden (D-OR) —202-224-5244

I also add Cory Booker (D-NJ) — who declined to vote on the first filibuster, but is nevertheless a weasel poltroon trying to find cover.

We cannot allow these Demo-RATS to find such cover, not on this issue. It's too big and the consequences too parlous if it goes through. Including the fact the repukes have attached a new amendment to the fast track that cuts Medicare by $700 million.  This is serious given the core  problem is that it breaks the promise  that no laws will change before any vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership or any other fast-tracked agreement. Thus there continues a disturbing trend, identified by Paul Krugman, about not being able to trust the White House’s categorical denials about the consequences of their trade agenda. 

Another noisome aspect not given sufficient attention in the corporate media is Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz's point that any legal authority would be transferred from the sovereign courts of the United States to multinational corporations if this "deal" comes to pass. Do Americans really and truly want to be serfs in a global Neoliberal fiefdom? I would hope not!

Even if the Senate manages to pass this execrable bill - with the help of Demo-Rat  Neolib traitors, we must make sure it meets its end in the House even if a coalition must be formed with Tea Partiers.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/62297/the-incredible-arrogance-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-crowd

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/19/another_trans_pacific_partnership_lie_exposed_how_medicare_is_getting_stiffed_in_obamas_massive_trade_deal/



http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/62286/the-trojan-horse-president

Frackers Continue To Run Amuck - Despoiling Soil, Air and Water

A frack rig goes up in Montana - ready to despoil more air, soil and water.

Where does it end? The relentless, unregulated fracking I mean, which continues to despoil the landscape of the nation,  rapidly converting it to a de facto moonscape.  But don't take my word. A recent NDRC investigation into the oil and gas industry has identified ExxonMobil and Shell as the two top fracking violators in Colorado, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.  These companies have been placed on the 'most wanted' list and charged by state environmental groups and authorities with violations and crimes that include: illegal dumping and spills, illegal pollution of air, and contamination of drinking water - as well as failure to conduct safety tests.

The full report on the nefarious acts, released in March by NDRC and the FracTracker Alliance, shines a harsh spotlight on a renegade industry shrouded in secrecy as it not only corrupts the locations its frack wells bore into, but distant ones through which its assorted 'bomb' trains pass - any one of which could explode at any time. See e,g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-train-explosion-another-reason.html

But is anyone paying attention? Don't count on the Neoliberal gov't which is ok with the industry being shrouded in secrecy and the difficulty of gaining any access to fracking operations. So long as the proles are kept in the dark they don't have to worry or fret about the pitchforks and protests. To give an idea of the extent of the secrecy - and btw, if these operations are so great as the pro-frack ads proclaim, why the need?- the public records on violations are available in only 3 of the 36 states where fracking occurs.

According to Amy Mall, an NDRC senior policy activist:

"You'd want to know if the company or companies operating in your backyard is a responsible corporate citizen or a serial violator. But as it stands now, it's nearly impossible to uncover a company's track record"

This isn't just blowing smoke as the Union of Concerned Scientists has also made clear. The public's need to know is more urgent than ever as a growing body of evidence points to the serious and far reaching health effects of fracking.  Leave out for the moment just the 4 million gallons on average it takes to frack one well - a disaster in dry states like Colorado. Many of the chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and they contaminate water resources when leaked or spilled. A report in a Denver Post investigation in May of last year found:

State data also show that 12.3 percent of the past 1,000 spills (since June 24, 2012) already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanups.


Thanks to a trio of diligent Democrats: Henry Waxman of California, Diana DeGette of Colorado, and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, we now know the extent of the pollution of our precious watersheds thanks to the hydro-fracking industry. We know, for example, the oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005- 09.

According to the report, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010-11, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Which was rendered toothless for fracking by lobbyists) Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were:

Benzene: a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer

- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.

- Methylene chloride, which may cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, central nervous system disorders and COPD.


 As we know from Devra Davis' landmark book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, the first two of these toxic chemicals have well known correlations to brain carcinomas and chordomas. The other two, to liver, breast and prostate cancers.

Apart from this, it has been found that the gas allowed to escape from frack wells can also leak into the ground into nearby water wells - presenting a different hazard because it is highly flammable. This was demonstrated by Josh Fox in his excellent documentary exposing the fracker criminals, 'Gasland':
 
Water catching on fire from methane having diffused into it.

While such documented flaming water from the tap has prompted numbskulls to get cheap jollies, the facts are a bit different. According to Food & Water Watch there are dozens of cases of methane leaks near drill sites that have caused houses and wells to explode.

Then there is the air pollution. According to NDRC senior scientist Miriam Rotkin-Ellman:

"The risks are not limited to what's in our drinking water. Oil and gas operations are also poisoning the air we breath."

A new analysis by NDRC pinpoints five major health threats from fracking-related air pollution, including: respiratory difficulty, nervous system impacts (brain blackouts, memory loss), blood disorders, birth defects, and cancer.

At least one state has acted on this information on behalf of its citizens. This occurred last December when Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York banned fracking in the state because of the lack of scientific evidence that it can be done safely. In doing this, Governor Cuomo broke from the Neoliberal imperative by invoking the precautionary principle.  To refresh reader memories, this entails placing the onus on the maker of the product or those performing the process to prove their product or process is safe. It is not the job of the consumer or citizens to prove they are unsafe, yet Neoliberal business has adopted this specious plank as noted by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in  Toxic Sludge Is Good For You.

Think of it! By negating the precautionary principle the Neoliberal market is able to dump all manner of crap on unwary citizens and disarming them so that they can't fight back. "You have to prove to us there is cancer risk!" they shout. Turning the principle on its head.

But unless the rest of us fight for that principle we may all end up in early graves from some kind of cancer or other condition that shortens lifespan.   IN the 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' book, the PR industry backing the fertilizer manufacturers argued that the people were wrong because "toxic sludge was great for crops". And besides the complainers had no proof of ill effects.   Never mind the vomiting, breakouts in rashes, sexual dysfunction, brain anomalies and convulsions, which "were just in their minds."

Fracking will not go away in other states unless we the citizens demand it and fight for it. The Neoliberals are too invested in this crap  - which really has no business even leaving the ground. It's too degraded an energy source and also doesn't deliver on its energy promise no matter what its PR rats claim.   As Richard Heinberg explains (p. 110) it in his book, 'Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future':

No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market.

Regarding the promises for kerogen or oil shale, he writes:

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. "

Sen. Bernie Sanders Enters the Presidential Race: At Last The Antidote to Neoliberalism

The news yesterday of Bernie Sanders entering the presidential race has to warm the cockles of any true liberal's heart.  With total wackos on one side (the Repukes) and only one (centrist) candidate on the other side (one who, btw, signed on to the Iraq War and is more center-right than centrist) the Dem faithful and liberals in general had little hope for any choice or even powerful voices to speak against the rising Neoliberal tide.

Two weeks ago, in an appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show, Sen. Sanders made it clear he'd run for president if we wanted him to. Well, we do! We need a voice of reason in the 'ring'  against the Neoliberal insanity, especially as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made it clear she isn't interested in running.  Besides she has her hands full in the current TPP battle with the Neoliberal Obama.

Make no mistake that Sen. Bernie Sanders - who will be running as another Democratic candidate (making it clear 3rd party candidates have no chance given the duopoly) has no more chance of winning a presidential contest than well......extraterrestrials landing and kicking the Neolib mutts in D.C. out and setting up a new ET government.  Nevertheless, when Democratic voters finally get it through their heads that Elizabeth Warren really isn't in the game, a lot of votes ought to free up and fall Sanders' way.

Still, we know the neo-conservatives and Neoliberals hate the thought of real competition, so Sen. Sanders will be tarred from the get go with the hated word "socialist."

Barely two and a half months ago, in fact, WaPo hack George Will unloaded on him in a vitriolic, uninformed piece that basically conflated socialism with communism in a clear effort to scare off any potential voters. However, intelligent and informed voters know the difference so won't be put off by malarkey sure to come from the crazy Right.  I mean we're talking about dopes that really believe Hitler was a socialist because he used the term "National Socialists" for his party. They aren't even remotely aware of how he dispatched his S.A. thugs to beat up socialists, communists and trade unionists.

Will, like too many other nincompoops who have no clue what they write, also claimed any Sanders campaign would be yet another experiment in "collectivism".  (He reels off a number of historical examples of failed Socialist efforts to get into the political system).

In fact, Sanders' warp and woof is to control the spread of oligarchic -driven income inequality. In debates, for example, he will be able to keep any Democratic candidates honest, especially where they stand on the Neoliberal imperative. He will be able to ask Hillary up front if she is for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or against it. Also, if she is in favor of expanding Social Security or cutting it. Will she be a clone of Obama or be a true middle class champion?  These are questions all Dem voters need to have addressed, as well as Independents like myself,  who want to be able to do more than hold our noses and pull levers for the lesser of two evils!

In one of Sen. Sanders' most memorable articles, 'NO, to U.S. Oligarchy '(The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, p. 1), he nailed the toxic effluent of Neliberalism ruining this country.

"The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, 22% of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps.

And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000 to 2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

But not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases, the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper crust of extremely wealthy families is hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle class that has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place, the very wealthy are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country."

I am glad Bernie is in this race, even though he has virtually no chance to win. Never mind, we need a powerful oppositional voice to the prevalent Neoliberal narrative that has turned almost everyone in our political system into mindless zombies unable to think for themselves. Hence, unable to help any real citizens.  We need a REAL alternative and Sanders is it!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/62009/hillary-veers-left-to-head-off-sanders

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/lefties_meet_your_candidate_why_bernie_sanders_is_the_only_authentic_alternative_to_hillary_clinton/

TPP Still A Bad Deal, NO Matter What Obama Says!

"Hmmmmm......if we can just sneak this by the People all will be well!"


Barack Obama’s claim that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would be beneficial to the average American worker must still be taken with a grain of salt. Just over a year and a half ago I noted that - via Britain's Guardian - WikiLeaks had released the draft text  of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.    

This is a Neoliberal-generated multinational "free trade" treaty that - like NAFTA and GATT before it - promises much but delivers precious little to the average citizen.   The full agreement covers a number of distinct areas but the chapter released by WikiLeaks 17 1/2 months ago focuses on intellectual property rights - an area that influences as many other areas as civil liberties and pharmaceuticals. Most noteworthy, at the time Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group, remarked that:

"Lots of people in civil society have stressed that being more transparent, and talking about the text on the table, is crucial to give treaties like this any legitimacy. We shouldn't have to rely on leaks to start a debate about what's in then."
 

Indeed!   And the most damning indictment that the whole enchilada is bogus and only favors the elites and power brokers is the fact that the 30,000-word intellectual property chapter disclosed a vicious intent to  increase the term of patents, including medical patents, beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability.

The day after the leaks, smikringchimp.com blogger Thomas Hartmann observed:

" This week, Americans got a peek behind the curtain of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and what we found is frightening. On Thursday, Wikileaks published a complete draft of the “intellectual property rights” chapter of the TPP, and it poses a serious risk to free speech and information access. The document contains proposals that would change copyright and patent laws, so-called fair use practices, and the liabilities for alleged violations.

The provisions would stifle innovation, creativity, and information sharing, all under the guise of protecting intellectual property. And, many of the proposed changes are being suggested by US negotiators. Opposition to these restrictive policies is coming from other nations, like Canada, Chile, Malaysia, and New Zealand."

 

Right, so now many citizens will be rendered poorer because of increased costs to their meds, negating or disallowing the emergence of lower cost generics. Copyright restrictions are also bound to stifle creativity, making it much more difficult to reference previous work to either build upon or critique. Then there is the double standard on hacking, disallowing it for the usual n'er do wells but allowing exceptions: protection can be broken in the course of "lawfully authorized activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes".

Given what segments had been disclosed it was clear the rest of the TPP agreement would be even worse. Indeed on Wednesday night's Rachel Maddow show Maddow played a clip from the president’s appearance on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” on Monday, in which he actually said that progressives who oppose the TPP "prefer the status quo,” .

Actually no, Mr. Prez, we prefer a world and level playing field without Neoliberal hijinks and economic manipulations! THAT is the status quo right now, which TPP doesn't do one scintilla to break!

He also went on saying that while he believes Senator Warren to be an ally on many other issues, in this case “she’s just wrong.” Well, duh, of course she'd be seen as "wrong" if she stands up for the crumbling middle class against advancing Neoliberalism!

Maddow noted that although Obama believes the TPP to be "the most progressive trade compact in American history", progressives in his own party — in particular, Senator Warren — strongly oppose it. And she's absolutely right because we believe the playing field can't be tilted any more than it is toward Neoliberalism and markets dominating over the pro- human agenda. We cannot afford to have in place anything where government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative

 

Warren  correctly informed Maddow that one of the problems with the TPP is that the public has no access to it. Senators and representatives can read it, but they’re not allowed to discuss the details of it in public — which effectively means that Obama is asking the American people to take his word that the deal would have a favorable effect on the quality of middle-class American lives. But one could ask Mr. Prez if an informed citizenry is the basis for democracy, why are we being kept in the dark? Perhaps because we no longer have a democracy  but a corporatocracy! (And I won't even get into how much data, and how many files are being blocked from citizen scrutiny with the Obama administration now deemed the most secretive in U.S. history)

But that is the other prop the Neoliberals depend upon: citizen inertia, ignorance,  stupidity or belief in impotence, i.e. that they only have "opinions" - which carry no weight.  Also, they don't want citizens pursuing truth - information outside the media they promote, which is more invested in propaganda. This, my friends, is the Neoliberal paradigm at work. Whether it's preventing more disclosure on the exact details of the TPP,  or releasing all salient CIA files to do with the JFK assassination. (Which the National Archives refused to do in 2013, the 50th anniversary year - thereby enabling disinfo specialists and quacks like John McAdams to shamelessly continue their crusades to mock the conspiracy template.).
 

Meanwhile, the administration said Wednesday that the agreement will be made available online, and that there will be a period of "public comment  on it. Maddow noted this before asking Warren if that move would assuage some of her concerns.  But Sen. Warren wasn't biting:
 

“They’re asking us to vote now to grease the skids,” Warren replied, “so there won’t be any chance to amend or block it, won’t be any chance to slow it down.” She claimed that the administration is saying, “Give all that up, and you’ll get a chance to see the deal on the other side.”


 Sen. Warren didn't think that was acceptable and neither do I. It is instead a form of extortion. Indeed, the only thing that the American public has been able to learn about the deal is who was negotiating it — corporate lobbyists.  Well, we saw how that worked out when these same parasites wrote and negotiated the 2003 "Medicare Modernization Act" which ended up costing nearly 3 times more than originally promised and delivered a lump sum of corporate welfare equal to $13.6b to Big Phrma thanks to those who pushed it through like Billy Tauzin (La) who then became a lobbyist. Anytime corporate lobbyists are involved you know: a) the bill or agreement is toxic, and b) it is thoroughly in Neoliberal interests, not the people's.

To Maddow's question, Sen. Warren responded:

“My view is when the process is rigged, the outcome’s likely to be rigged too.”

Maddow then asked:
 

"You’re saying that the corporate interests don’t just have access to see what’s in [the TPP], they helped shape what’s in it?”


To which Sen. Warren replied:

“They’ve been in there for months and months and months during the negotiations,”

In other words, watching like the predators they are to make sure every damned 't' is crossed and every 'i' is dotted - in the favor of Neoliberal hegemony

Watch the entire interview via “The Rachel Maddow Show

And here is the letter of Sens. Warren and Sherrod Brown to Obama after his most recent attacks:

Your Administration has deemed the draft text of the agreement classified and kept it hidden from public view, thereby making it a secret deal… It is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. And while you noted that Members of Congress may “walk over ... and read the text of the agreement” -- as we have done -- you neglected to mention that we are prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of that text in public.

Before Congress votes to facilitate adoption of the TPP, the American people should be allowed to see for themselves whether it’s a good deal for them.

If we really are a democracy then we need to heed Hartmann's words:

"Unions, civil rights advocates, environmental activists, and many other groups are demanding that the details of the TPP are made public. Before this massive trade deal is signed, Americans have the right to know what it contains, and the right to demand that our elected leaders say “No” to the TPP. -"

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/61928/hey-mr-president-transparency-applies-to-the-tpp-too

Excerpt:

What do we know about the TPP? Well, according to Public Citizen, we know that the TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.

We know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards. And we know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street.

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/61952/what-s-obama-up-to-with-his-tpp-and-ttip