January 28, 2011
by: Jeffrey M. Smith
Source: Natural News
The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population.
On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto's alfalfa today. [Note: typos corrected from Jan 16th, see details]
While visiting a seed corn dealer's demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo).
The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and '10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season.
Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. "Did you plant something there last year that wasn't planted in the rest of the field?" he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn't received glyphosate.
This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That's where extra Roundup was applied.
Don's a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don's got more--lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate. He's one of the world's experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)
Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease
More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate--the world's bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced "Roundup Ready" crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.
(Monsanto incentivizes farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to also use the company's Roundup brand of glyphosate. For example, they only provide warranties on the approved herbicide brands and offer discounts through their "Roundup Rewards" program. This has extended the company's grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)
The herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.
The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn't let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function--especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin, damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH--all of which can negatively affect crop health.
Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984 that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn't killed (see photo).
Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.
The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.
"This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate," says Don. "It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time." In fact, he points out that "If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!"
By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, "There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease."
Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.
But Fusarium's wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They've "been linked to the plague epidemics" of medieval Europe, "large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe," oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.
As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets
When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did--slightly--for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.
Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.
Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.
As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America's most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss' wilt of corn, and many more.)
In Brazil, the new "Mad Soy Disease" is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.
Corn dies young
In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they're never seen anything like it.
"A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September," says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. "But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers."
Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. "If the corn dies much earlier," says Bob, "it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports."
A question of bugs
In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That's because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.
Roundup persists in the environment
Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto's own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.
Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto's product claims.
Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.
The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).
As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.
The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application. Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.
Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.
Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.
Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!
Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.
Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate--which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn't found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.
Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)
Nutrient loss in humans and animals
The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.
Alzheimer's, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.
Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.
Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.
Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.
This loss is something we simply can't afford. We're already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.
Livestock disease and mineral deficiency
Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent--93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.
This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese--in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ?%.
Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.
Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA
As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: "How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?"
Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.
Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.
Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).
The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And "Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa," says Don. "So too are Phytophthora and Pythium," both of which are promoted by glyphosate. "Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?" he asks in frustration, "especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool."
It's already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.
In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.
Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto's alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.
About the author:
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Monsanto's Roundup linked to deadly diseases and birth defects, most people have no idea
July 7, 2011
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Source: Natural News
(NaturalNews) A recent report put together by various professors, scholars and researchers affiliated with Earth Open Source, a collaboration group devoted to food issues, cites in great deal the multitude of peer-reviewed scientific studies which show that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (glyphosate), which is applied to many genetically-modified (GM) crops, is responsible for causing birth defects, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer -- and yet government agencies around the world continue to ignore this crucial information, and withhold it from the public, as they push for its approval or expanded use.
One of the main studies highlighted in the report was published in the August 2010 edition of Chemical Research in Toxicology, and it showed that Roundup causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at levels much lower than those used on agricultural crops. And since Roundup-ready GM crops are designed to tolerate the herbicide, not resist it, they literally absorb Roundup, which is then passed on in much higher levels to humans that eat the tainted crops.
Another study conducted as part of the Argentine government's research group CONICET found high rates of the same or similar birth defect in humans living near GM soy crops that were routinely sprayed with Roundup, indicating a clear connection between the chemical and human birth defects. More than half of the growing land in Argentina is now dominated by GM soy, which is sprayed with about 53 millions gallons of Roundup every single year.
The authors of the report say that this and the bulk of other independent, indicting evidence against Roundup has been largely ignored by governments, including in the EU where new data requirements will demand that proper investigation into the safety of GMOs is conducted. Rather than rely on industry-funded pseudoscience that claims GMOs are safe, authors say those working for the people must rise to the occasion and take charge in having proper safety evaluations conducted on the safety of Roundup.
"The public ... has been kept in the dark by industry and regulators about the ability of glyphosate and Roundup to cause malformations," write the authors in their summary. "[T]he work of independent scientists who have drawn attention to the herbicide's teratogenic effects has been ignored, denigrated, or dismissed ... They have also contributed to the growing division between independent and industry science, which in turn erodes public trust in the regulatory process."
Sources for this story include:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/...
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Source: Natural News
(NaturalNews) A recent report put together by various professors, scholars and researchers affiliated with Earth Open Source, a collaboration group devoted to food issues, cites in great deal the multitude of peer-reviewed scientific studies which show that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (glyphosate), which is applied to many genetically-modified (GM) crops, is responsible for causing birth defects, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer -- and yet government agencies around the world continue to ignore this crucial information, and withhold it from the public, as they push for its approval or expanded use.
One of the main studies highlighted in the report was published in the August 2010 edition of Chemical Research in Toxicology, and it showed that Roundup causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at levels much lower than those used on agricultural crops. And since Roundup-ready GM crops are designed to tolerate the herbicide, not resist it, they literally absorb Roundup, which is then passed on in much higher levels to humans that eat the tainted crops.
Another study conducted as part of the Argentine government's research group CONICET found high rates of the same or similar birth defect in humans living near GM soy crops that were routinely sprayed with Roundup, indicating a clear connection between the chemical and human birth defects. More than half of the growing land in Argentina is now dominated by GM soy, which is sprayed with about 53 millions gallons of Roundup every single year.
The authors of the report say that this and the bulk of other independent, indicting evidence against Roundup has been largely ignored by governments, including in the EU where new data requirements will demand that proper investigation into the safety of GMOs is conducted. Rather than rely on industry-funded pseudoscience that claims GMOs are safe, authors say those working for the people must rise to the occasion and take charge in having proper safety evaluations conducted on the safety of Roundup.
"The public ... has been kept in the dark by industry and regulators about the ability of glyphosate and Roundup to cause malformations," write the authors in their summary. "[T]he work of independent scientists who have drawn attention to the herbicide's teratogenic effects has been ignored, denigrated, or dismissed ... They have also contributed to the growing division between independent and industry science, which in turn erodes public trust in the regulatory process."
Sources for this story include:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/...
Criticize Israel And Lose Your Career: Interview With Alison Weir
04. Jul, 2011
By Kourosh Ziabari
Source: Intifada
About Alison Weir
If you’ve ever tried to search for reliable information and analyses which expose the concealed and obscured side of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, you’ve surely come across to the website “If Americans Knew.” This website belongs to a non-profit organization which focuses on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and the foreign policy of the United States toward the Middle East. “If Americans Knew” publishes commentaries and articles that the American mainstream media pusillanimously shun and reject because of their fear of the influential Zionist lobby which predominantly rules the U.S. administration and Congress. “If Americans Knew” releases statistical reports on the history of Israeli – Palestinian conflict including the number of Palestinian casualties, the number of children murdered by the Israel Defense Forces, the number of Palestinians detained in the Israel jails and the number of Israel’s illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands.
American freelance journalist and researcher Alison Weir is the founder and executive director of “If Americans Knew.” She has written several articles and compiled investigative reports on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and provoked the furious and frantic criticism of Zionist organizations such as Anti Defamation League. Her articles have appeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Counter Punch, Antiwar.com, The Link, Znet, Los Angeles Times, Greenwich Post, Poynter.org and Washington Report for Middle East Affairs.
Alison Weir is at the forefront of combating the biased coverage of Israeli – Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media and through her sincere efforts has revealed the plight of the Palestinian nation under the occupation of Zionist regime. She believes that criticizing Israel in public will cost a journalist his career. She says that it’s far less damaging for an American journalist to write critically of the United State government than of Israel.
What follows is the complete text of my interview with Alison Weir in which we discussed a variety of topics including the dominance of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration and Congress and also the biased coverage of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict by the western mainstream media.
Kourosh Ziabari: Ms. Weir; Let me start with the question that, what would really happen if Americans knew? What would happen if they knew that their taxes go to empower an occupying regime which kills women and children ruthlessly, massacres innocent civilians relentlessly and destroys their homes unjustifiably?
Alison Weir: They would be outraged and would demand that this stop. I have found that when I speak to groups around the country the most common question I receive is, “What can we do about this?!”
KZ: What made you think of establishing “If Americans Knew?” Actually, what were your motives for taking such a sensitive step?
AW: When I returned from my first trip to Gaza and the West Bank, I was determined to tell Americans what was going on. I felt that while I could probably occasionally get articles into the mainstream media, the context would remain so distorted that they would make little difference. Therefore, I felt it was essential to begin an organization that would work to get the information straight to the public in as many ways as possible and that would also study and expose media malfeasance on this issue.
KZ: What difficulties did you face while working on this project?
AW: One of the most difficult aspects is raising enough money to sustain the organization. The good news is that we have been able to keep going for almost ten years. The unfortunate reality is that there’s never been enough money to go beyond a paid staff of about 2-3 people. Zionist organizations of all sorts have extremely large staffs, extensive offices, etc. They also have a great many people of sufficient wealth that they can work on this issue without compensation. We’re in a far different situation.
KZ: Have you ever been pressured by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media or the Israeli lobby in the United States not to talk of Israeli regime critically?
AW: I don’t recall being pressured by the Israeli Lobby directly. Instead, they frequently try to pressure local organizations not to have me speak.
Mainstream media organizations also don’t pressure me directly. Rather, they simply don’t report about my information or inform their audiences about the existence of If Americans Knew. Democracy Now is among this group.
One book editor commissioned an article by me and then attempted to censor what I wrote.
KZ: Have you ever been threatened or seriously intimidated for the content which you publish?
AW: Yes. I received a death threat in 2003. You can read the details here. We periodically receive obscene or harassing emails and phone calls from Zionists. There are websites that misconstrue my work and that defame me, including the very powerful Jewish “Anti-defamation League.”
There are infiltrators in the pro-Palestinian movement who initiate whispering campaigns against me and work to prevent groups from inviting me to speak and from using our written materials. This often fails; sometimes it succeeds.
Recently a man knocked my phone from my hands. You can see this here.
Once when I tried to go to Palestine I was stopped at Ben Gurion Airport, held in a detention cell for 28 hours, and deported. Twice I have been briefly detained by Israeli soldiers while trying to film incidents in the Occupied Territories.
KZ: Several renowned politicians, academicians, activists and writers have likened Israel’s treatment of the subjugated Palestinians to the deplorable situation of the blacks under the South African Apartheid regime. From the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu to former Israeli Knesset member Uri Avnery, many people believe that Israel undeniably resembles aspects of the South African Apartheid regime. What’s your viewpoint in this regard? Does the Israeli regime have the features of an apartheid state?
AW: While no two situations are ever identical, it is clear that Israeli actions are a form of apartheid. As you note, South African experts who have visited Palestine have stated this and they are clearly in a position to know.
The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa commissioned a legal study of the Israel-Palestine situation to “scrutinize the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric.” Their 15-month investigation found that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”
In addition, inside Israel itself there is systemic discrimination against non-Jews.
KZ: In your recent article, you referred to statistical studies which reveal that primetime network news shows report on Israeli children’s deaths at rates up to 14 times greater than they report on Palestinian children’s deaths. The same is applicable to the other aspects of mainstream media’s portrayal of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. For example, we clearly witnessed the exercise of double standards by the Western media during the Gaza War of 2008 – 2009. Why do the American media treat the Israeli – Palestinian conflict so unfairly?
AW: I feel there are most multiple causes. Below are some of the main ones:
1. Advertising and consumer pressure by Israel partisans against media that begin to provide more accurate coverage on this issue. These are often orchestrated and cause considerable financial damage to news organizations.
2. Reporters and editors who are biased towards Israel. I recently was astounded to learn how many of the allegedly “objective” journalists in the region reporting for American media have close ties to the Israeli military. Ethan Bronner, New York Times bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli army. Others have themselves served in the Israeli military. “Pundit” Jeffrey Goldberg, who is often interviewed for commentary on U.S. mainstream news broadcasts, served in the Israeli military.
I’ve written several articles and made a video on this topic:
1, 2, 3 and 4
The Associated Press is probably the primary source of international news for media all over the U.S. and is probably an extremely significant cause of the problem. Its control bureau, through which virtually all reports on the region must pass, is located in Israel and is staffed largely by Jewish and Israeli journalists, many with close family ties to the Israeli military. Their reporting invariably contains pro-Israel spin and context. Quite often, they don’t even send out reports on newsworthy items that reveal negative facts about Israel.
3. Media owners, publishers, CEOs, etc. who are biased toward Israel, for example, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone, etc. Journalist Jeffrey Blankfort has reported on this.
4. Editors who know nothing about this issue and would not necessarily be Israel partisans but are taken in by AP, the New York Times, etc. Journalists who have never been to the region, never read a book on it, or studied it independently, often think they are experts on the subject because they’ve been reading AP et al reports for years. They have no idea how filtered and slanted these are.
5. Journalists quickly learn that reporting honestly on Israel-Palestine is not a good career move and often self-censor. It is much safer not to touch the “third rail” of American journalism; they are aware that the people who pay them won’t like it. It is far less damaging to one’s career to write critically of the American government than of Israel.
6. Fear of being called “anti-Semitic” and of being black-balled. The ADL, similar organizations, and Israel partisans are quite powerful in the U.S. People don’t wish to come under their attack; they’ve seen what happened to Helen Thomas and others.
KZ: Many American citizens who voted for President Obama in the 2008 presidential elections had hoped that he would be a different, sincere and trustworthy politician and a real man of change who would detach himself from the hawkish policies of George W. Bush. However, no essential change of policy was observed during President Obama’s administration. What’s your analysis of the performance of President Obama? Why did he fail to fulfill his promise of change?
AW: Because he is aware that pro-Israel groups and individuals determine who has the chance to be a major contender for the Presidency of the United States. If he tried to do something substantial, there would be a powerful – and successful – campaign to prevent him from winning a second term. This campaign would consist of funneling donations away from him to his opponents and of defaming him on a variety of issues in the media. Plus, even if he tried to do something, Congress would over-rule him, out of the same fears. Long before Mearsheimer and Walt wrote their exposé on this, Paul Findley described this situation in his powerful book, “They Dare to Speak Out.” Richard Curtiss, Janet McMahon, and Delinda Hanley, from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, have been exposing this for many years.
KZ: Following the 9/11 attacks, a wave of Islamophobic sentiments began to encompass the public sphere in the United States and the European society. The U.S. administration portrayed a horrific and appalling image of Islam and sowed the seeds of hatred against Muslims in the hearts of the Western citizens. However, we already know that they were not Muslims who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Even if we admit that it was Osama Bin Laden who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, I as a Muslim should promulgate that he was not a devout Muslim, but rather a CIA asset since the Afghan-Soviet war in 1980s. What’s your viewpoint in this regard? Why is the American society’s stance toward the Muslim so repulsive?
AW: Islamophobia in the U.S. has been largely promulgated by media, individuals, and organizations working on behalf of Israel. This is one of their most despicable and dangerous campaigns and has been going on for decades. Among those whose work, statements, and or funding have resulted in making Americans fear and hate Muslims are Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson, Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, Martin Kramer, Charles Jacobs, David Horowitz, David and Meyrav Wurmser, Frank Gaffney, Caroline Glick, Daniel Pipes, etc. John Sugg has written on this topic for years; more recently Max Blumenthal, Maidhc O Cathail, and several others have exposed it.
See 1, 2, 3 and 4
KZ: The Zionist lobby and organizations such as Anti Defamation League, as you have pointed out in your articles, denounce as anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish every single criticism of the actions and policies of the Israeli regime, thus demoralizing and discrediting the critics of Israel who dare to call into question the illegal and immoral actions of this regime. What’s your take on this? How should the critics of Israel find podiums to voice their opposition to the actions and policies of the Israeli regime without being demonized?
AW: This is one of their most widely used tactics. Their intention is two-fold: to undermine the credibility of people speaking and writing accurately on Israel, and to intimidate people from doing this.
I feel that people should simply ignore these attacks and continue to write and speak as honestly and accurately as possible. Such smears have become so widespread that they are beginning to be a bit like crying wolf too often. An increasing number of Americans are rolling their eyes when they hear that yet another person with no record of bigotry is allegedly “anti-Semitic.” In fact, such an attack often helps to raise interest in the person being so maligned, many people assuming – often correctly – that this is a person giving the true facts on Israel and/or the Israel Lobby.
KZ: You may admit that as long as the United States gives its unconditional support to the Israeli regime, vetoes any UNSC resolution critical of Tel Aviv and prevents the international community from investigating its crimes and illegal activities, including its underground military nuclear program, no progress may be made in the course of holding Israel accountable for its actions and policies and therefore no change will be resulted and the suffering of the Palestinian nation will continue. Do you foresee a future in which Israel is eventually held responsible for its criminal actions before the international community? Is such a thing practically possible at all?
AW: Yes, I believe strongly that this will change when Americans learn the facts and demand a change in U.S. policies. The reality often forgotten in analyses on this issue is that Israel’s power comes from the U.S. When the sleeping giant in this relationship, i.e. the American public, wakes up, everything will change. The fact that this is already starting is reflected by the creation of entities such as J Street trying to co-opt this growing movement.
********************
By Kourosh Ziabari
Source: Intifada
About Alison Weir
If you’ve ever tried to search for reliable information and analyses which expose the concealed and obscured side of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, you’ve surely come across to the website “If Americans Knew.” This website belongs to a non-profit organization which focuses on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and the foreign policy of the United States toward the Middle East. “If Americans Knew” publishes commentaries and articles that the American mainstream media pusillanimously shun and reject because of their fear of the influential Zionist lobby which predominantly rules the U.S. administration and Congress. “If Americans Knew” releases statistical reports on the history of Israeli – Palestinian conflict including the number of Palestinian casualties, the number of children murdered by the Israel Defense Forces, the number of Palestinians detained in the Israel jails and the number of Israel’s illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands.
American freelance journalist and researcher Alison Weir is the founder and executive director of “If Americans Knew.” She has written several articles and compiled investigative reports on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and provoked the furious and frantic criticism of Zionist organizations such as Anti Defamation League. Her articles have appeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Counter Punch, Antiwar.com, The Link, Znet, Los Angeles Times, Greenwich Post, Poynter.org and Washington Report for Middle East Affairs.
Alison Weir is at the forefront of combating the biased coverage of Israeli – Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media and through her sincere efforts has revealed the plight of the Palestinian nation under the occupation of Zionist regime. She believes that criticizing Israel in public will cost a journalist his career. She says that it’s far less damaging for an American journalist to write critically of the United State government than of Israel.
What follows is the complete text of my interview with Alison Weir in which we discussed a variety of topics including the dominance of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration and Congress and also the biased coverage of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict by the western mainstream media.
Kourosh Ziabari: Ms. Weir; Let me start with the question that, what would really happen if Americans knew? What would happen if they knew that their taxes go to empower an occupying regime which kills women and children ruthlessly, massacres innocent civilians relentlessly and destroys their homes unjustifiably?
Alison Weir: They would be outraged and would demand that this stop. I have found that when I speak to groups around the country the most common question I receive is, “What can we do about this?!”
KZ: What made you think of establishing “If Americans Knew?” Actually, what were your motives for taking such a sensitive step?
AW: When I returned from my first trip to Gaza and the West Bank, I was determined to tell Americans what was going on. I felt that while I could probably occasionally get articles into the mainstream media, the context would remain so distorted that they would make little difference. Therefore, I felt it was essential to begin an organization that would work to get the information straight to the public in as many ways as possible and that would also study and expose media malfeasance on this issue.
KZ: What difficulties did you face while working on this project?
AW: One of the most difficult aspects is raising enough money to sustain the organization. The good news is that we have been able to keep going for almost ten years. The unfortunate reality is that there’s never been enough money to go beyond a paid staff of about 2-3 people. Zionist organizations of all sorts have extremely large staffs, extensive offices, etc. They also have a great many people of sufficient wealth that they can work on this issue without compensation. We’re in a far different situation.
KZ: Have you ever been pressured by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media or the Israeli lobby in the United States not to talk of Israeli regime critically?
AW: I don’t recall being pressured by the Israeli Lobby directly. Instead, they frequently try to pressure local organizations not to have me speak.
Mainstream media organizations also don’t pressure me directly. Rather, they simply don’t report about my information or inform their audiences about the existence of If Americans Knew. Democracy Now is among this group.
One book editor commissioned an article by me and then attempted to censor what I wrote.
KZ: Have you ever been threatened or seriously intimidated for the content which you publish?
AW: Yes. I received a death threat in 2003. You can read the details here. We periodically receive obscene or harassing emails and phone calls from Zionists. There are websites that misconstrue my work and that defame me, including the very powerful Jewish “Anti-defamation League.”
There are infiltrators in the pro-Palestinian movement who initiate whispering campaigns against me and work to prevent groups from inviting me to speak and from using our written materials. This often fails; sometimes it succeeds.
Recently a man knocked my phone from my hands. You can see this here.
Once when I tried to go to Palestine I was stopped at Ben Gurion Airport, held in a detention cell for 28 hours, and deported. Twice I have been briefly detained by Israeli soldiers while trying to film incidents in the Occupied Territories.
KZ: Several renowned politicians, academicians, activists and writers have likened Israel’s treatment of the subjugated Palestinians to the deplorable situation of the blacks under the South African Apartheid regime. From the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu to former Israeli Knesset member Uri Avnery, many people believe that Israel undeniably resembles aspects of the South African Apartheid regime. What’s your viewpoint in this regard? Does the Israeli regime have the features of an apartheid state?
AW: While no two situations are ever identical, it is clear that Israeli actions are a form of apartheid. As you note, South African experts who have visited Palestine have stated this and they are clearly in a position to know.
The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa commissioned a legal study of the Israel-Palestine situation to “scrutinize the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric.” Their 15-month investigation found that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”
In addition, inside Israel itself there is systemic discrimination against non-Jews.
KZ: In your recent article, you referred to statistical studies which reveal that primetime network news shows report on Israeli children’s deaths at rates up to 14 times greater than they report on Palestinian children’s deaths. The same is applicable to the other aspects of mainstream media’s portrayal of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. For example, we clearly witnessed the exercise of double standards by the Western media during the Gaza War of 2008 – 2009. Why do the American media treat the Israeli – Palestinian conflict so unfairly?
AW: I feel there are most multiple causes. Below are some of the main ones:
1. Advertising and consumer pressure by Israel partisans against media that begin to provide more accurate coverage on this issue. These are often orchestrated and cause considerable financial damage to news organizations.
2. Reporters and editors who are biased towards Israel. I recently was astounded to learn how many of the allegedly “objective” journalists in the region reporting for American media have close ties to the Israeli military. Ethan Bronner, New York Times bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli army. Others have themselves served in the Israeli military. “Pundit” Jeffrey Goldberg, who is often interviewed for commentary on U.S. mainstream news broadcasts, served in the Israeli military.
I’ve written several articles and made a video on this topic:
1, 2, 3 and 4
The Associated Press is probably the primary source of international news for media all over the U.S. and is probably an extremely significant cause of the problem. Its control bureau, through which virtually all reports on the region must pass, is located in Israel and is staffed largely by Jewish and Israeli journalists, many with close family ties to the Israeli military. Their reporting invariably contains pro-Israel spin and context. Quite often, they don’t even send out reports on newsworthy items that reveal negative facts about Israel.
3. Media owners, publishers, CEOs, etc. who are biased toward Israel, for example, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone, etc. Journalist Jeffrey Blankfort has reported on this.
4. Editors who know nothing about this issue and would not necessarily be Israel partisans but are taken in by AP, the New York Times, etc. Journalists who have never been to the region, never read a book on it, or studied it independently, often think they are experts on the subject because they’ve been reading AP et al reports for years. They have no idea how filtered and slanted these are.
5. Journalists quickly learn that reporting honestly on Israel-Palestine is not a good career move and often self-censor. It is much safer not to touch the “third rail” of American journalism; they are aware that the people who pay them won’t like it. It is far less damaging to one’s career to write critically of the American government than of Israel.
6. Fear of being called “anti-Semitic” and of being black-balled. The ADL, similar organizations, and Israel partisans are quite powerful in the U.S. People don’t wish to come under their attack; they’ve seen what happened to Helen Thomas and others.
KZ: Many American citizens who voted for President Obama in the 2008 presidential elections had hoped that he would be a different, sincere and trustworthy politician and a real man of change who would detach himself from the hawkish policies of George W. Bush. However, no essential change of policy was observed during President Obama’s administration. What’s your analysis of the performance of President Obama? Why did he fail to fulfill his promise of change?
AW: Because he is aware that pro-Israel groups and individuals determine who has the chance to be a major contender for the Presidency of the United States. If he tried to do something substantial, there would be a powerful – and successful – campaign to prevent him from winning a second term. This campaign would consist of funneling donations away from him to his opponents and of defaming him on a variety of issues in the media. Plus, even if he tried to do something, Congress would over-rule him, out of the same fears. Long before Mearsheimer and Walt wrote their exposé on this, Paul Findley described this situation in his powerful book, “They Dare to Speak Out.” Richard Curtiss, Janet McMahon, and Delinda Hanley, from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, have been exposing this for many years.
KZ: Following the 9/11 attacks, a wave of Islamophobic sentiments began to encompass the public sphere in the United States and the European society. The U.S. administration portrayed a horrific and appalling image of Islam and sowed the seeds of hatred against Muslims in the hearts of the Western citizens. However, we already know that they were not Muslims who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Even if we admit that it was Osama Bin Laden who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, I as a Muslim should promulgate that he was not a devout Muslim, but rather a CIA asset since the Afghan-Soviet war in 1980s. What’s your viewpoint in this regard? Why is the American society’s stance toward the Muslim so repulsive?
AW: Islamophobia in the U.S. has been largely promulgated by media, individuals, and organizations working on behalf of Israel. This is one of their most despicable and dangerous campaigns and has been going on for decades. Among those whose work, statements, and or funding have resulted in making Americans fear and hate Muslims are Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson, Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, Martin Kramer, Charles Jacobs, David Horowitz, David and Meyrav Wurmser, Frank Gaffney, Caroline Glick, Daniel Pipes, etc. John Sugg has written on this topic for years; more recently Max Blumenthal, Maidhc O Cathail, and several others have exposed it.
See 1, 2, 3 and 4
KZ: The Zionist lobby and organizations such as Anti Defamation League, as you have pointed out in your articles, denounce as anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish every single criticism of the actions and policies of the Israeli regime, thus demoralizing and discrediting the critics of Israel who dare to call into question the illegal and immoral actions of this regime. What’s your take on this? How should the critics of Israel find podiums to voice their opposition to the actions and policies of the Israeli regime without being demonized?
AW: This is one of their most widely used tactics. Their intention is two-fold: to undermine the credibility of people speaking and writing accurately on Israel, and to intimidate people from doing this.
I feel that people should simply ignore these attacks and continue to write and speak as honestly and accurately as possible. Such smears have become so widespread that they are beginning to be a bit like crying wolf too often. An increasing number of Americans are rolling their eyes when they hear that yet another person with no record of bigotry is allegedly “anti-Semitic.” In fact, such an attack often helps to raise interest in the person being so maligned, many people assuming – often correctly – that this is a person giving the true facts on Israel and/or the Israel Lobby.
KZ: You may admit that as long as the United States gives its unconditional support to the Israeli regime, vetoes any UNSC resolution critical of Tel Aviv and prevents the international community from investigating its crimes and illegal activities, including its underground military nuclear program, no progress may be made in the course of holding Israel accountable for its actions and policies and therefore no change will be resulted and the suffering of the Palestinian nation will continue. Do you foresee a future in which Israel is eventually held responsible for its criminal actions before the international community? Is such a thing practically possible at all?
AW: Yes, I believe strongly that this will change when Americans learn the facts and demand a change in U.S. policies. The reality often forgotten in analyses on this issue is that Israel’s power comes from the U.S. When the sleeping giant in this relationship, i.e. the American public, wakes up, everything will change. The fact that this is already starting is reflected by the creation of entities such as J Street trying to co-opt this growing movement.
********************
New Guidance Allows Nations to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
7 July 2011
by: Mike Ludwig
Source: Truthout
Consumer advocates across the world are celebrating an international agreement that will allow countries to label genetically engineered (GE) foods without facing legal challenges from the World Trade Organization.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is composed of food safety regulators from more than 100 countries, adopted a guidance document during its annual summit in Geneva, Switzerland, on Tuesday that prevents any country's GE food labeling policies from being legally challenged
as barriers to trade. The commission was created in 1963 to create international food safety standards.
The guidance does not mandate the labeling of GE foods, but allows countries to develop their own labeling policies.
The US delegation to the Codex Commission reportedly reversed its position on the guidance document, allowing for the commission to reach consensus after 20 years of debate, according to Consumers International.
The US often finds itself at odds with countries that are reluctant to jump on the GE bandwagon. The Obama administration generally considers GE foods to be no different from conventional foods and is opposed to mandatory labeling of foods containing GE ingredients.
Other countries, however, are eager to regulate food crops genetically engineered by agribusiness companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF.
"Peru's recent introduction of GM food labeling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO," said Edita Vilcapoma, a spokesperson for a Peruvian consumer group. "This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumers movement."
Consumer groups in the United States and across the world have called for foods containing GE ingredients to be labeled as such for years. Consumer advocacy groups are hailing the Codex agreement as a "consumer rights milestone," pointing out that labeling will lead to better oversight of GE food products.
"This is one of the key reasons we want all genetically modified foods to be required to be labeled - so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction," said Dr. Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at the US Consumers Union.
by: Mike Ludwig
Source: Truthout
Consumer advocates across the world are celebrating an international agreement that will allow countries to label genetically engineered (GE) foods without facing legal challenges from the World Trade Organization.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is composed of food safety regulators from more than 100 countries, adopted a guidance document during its annual summit in Geneva, Switzerland, on Tuesday that prevents any country's GE food labeling policies from being legally challenged
as barriers to trade. The commission was created in 1963 to create international food safety standards.
The guidance does not mandate the labeling of GE foods, but allows countries to develop their own labeling policies.
The US delegation to the Codex Commission reportedly reversed its position on the guidance document, allowing for the commission to reach consensus after 20 years of debate, according to Consumers International.
The US often finds itself at odds with countries that are reluctant to jump on the GE bandwagon. The Obama administration generally considers GE foods to be no different from conventional foods and is opposed to mandatory labeling of foods containing GE ingredients.
Other countries, however, are eager to regulate food crops genetically engineered by agribusiness companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF.
"Peru's recent introduction of GM food labeling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO," said Edita Vilcapoma, a spokesperson for a Peruvian consumer group. "This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumers movement."
Consumer groups in the United States and across the world have called for foods containing GE ingredients to be labeled as such for years. Consumer advocacy groups are hailing the Codex agreement as a "consumer rights milestone," pointing out that labeling will lead to better oversight of GE food products.
"This is one of the key reasons we want all genetically modified foods to be required to be labeled - so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction," said Dr. Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at the US Consumers Union.
Populist Alliances or Senseless Wars and Corporate Welfare
7 July 2011
by: Bruce E. Levine
Source: Truthout
Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have an intriguing idea. While both know that there are significant ideological divides between their camps (and so neither are suggesting forming a political party together), they are proposing populist coalitions on some major issues. Interviewed together by host Andrew Napolitano ("Freedom Watch," January 19, 2011), Nader began by explaining why he views libertarians as allies with progressives in a fight against "corporate government."
Nader: To the extent that they are genuine libertarian conservatives and not corporatists - corporatists believe in corporate government - they are great allies with many liberals and progressives to challenge the bloated, wasteful military budget, to challenge undeclared wars overseas, to challenge hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, to challenge the invasiveness of our civil liberties and civil rights by the notorious PATRIOT Act, to challenge the sovereignty-shredding, job-destroying NAFTA and World Trade Organization Agreements - and also, too, the first victory will be a powerful whistleblower bill, that libertarian conservatives and liberals and progressives in the Congress almost got through last year, to let government employees ethically blow the whistle on corporate rapaciousness and contracts and government misdeeds. Just think of that agenda for a dynamic political force!
Napolitano: ... Congressman Paul, almost everything that Ralph Nader just said, you could have said. And you have said. Is this a coalition of the leading libertarian in the Congress and one of the leading progressives in American culture today?
Paul: Well, I believe in coalitions. You know, they always talk about "We need more bipartisanship." And I say we have too much bipartisanship, because the bipartisanship here in Washington endorses corporatism, which Ralph and I disapprove of. But, you know, coalitions are different. Ralph and I do have some disagreements. But that list he just made, I agree with him on that. So I think we should come together and work together and I think we can.
American Populists
Whether or not Nader and Paul can pull off such a coalition, their conversation can promote a useful dialogue among populists and anti-authoritarians across the political spectrum. We Americans are routinely grouped as Democrats, Republicans and Independents and divided into left-liberal, right-conservative and center-moderate camps, but these categories tell us little about where we stand on two historically important questions: (1) Do you favor some fashion of elite rule, or are you a populist who believes in government that is genuinely of, by and for the people? (2) And if you believe that a ruling elite exists, who exactly are they?
In 2009, Rasmussen Reports declared: "55% of Americans are populist, 7% Support the Political Class." Rasmussen defined populist as: trusting the American people's judgment more than America's political leaders; seeing government and big business as political allies working against the interest of consumers and investors; and viewing the federal government as one more special-interest group that primarily looks after its own needs. By 2010, utilizing the same definition, Rasmussen reported that 65 percent of voters are populist (or what they then called "populist/mainstream") and only 4 percent support the political class. Including "leaners," 81 percent are in the populist/mainstream category and 12 percent support the political class. Rasmussen reported that 76 percent of those polled generally trust the American people more than political leaders on important national issues; 70 percent believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors; 71 percent view the federal government as a special interest group; and a majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters share those views.
From America's very beginnings, there has been a battle between those who believe in genuine democracy versus those who are wary of the people's judgment. This was the battle between Thomas Paine versus both Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. In "Thomas Paine and the Promise of America," Paine scholar Harvey Kaye describes how modern corporatists today promote "the lives of Founders like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who in decided contrast to Paine scorned democracy and feared 'the people.'" Adams actually spoke of working people as "the common Herd of Mankind," and he referred to Paine's "Common Sense" as a "poor, ignorant, Malicious, short-sighted Crapulous Mass."
The battle between the people versus the elite continued to take center stage in the late 19th century, especially in the great populist revolt of insurgent farmers. It is difficult to categorize these populists along contemporary political lines of left-liberal, right-conservative, or center-moderate, but it is easy to categorize them as anti-elitists who believed that government should truly be of, by and for the people. Exploited and oppressed by a crop lien system, they became so riddled with debt that they routinely had to sell their farms and become "tenant farmers" or "sharecroppers," often on what had once been their own property. Their clear enemy was the "moneyed elite," which included the banking system, exploitative merchants and the railroads. These populists fought back, first economically, with large-scale working people's cooperatives, and then politically, with the People's Party in 1892 battling both the Democratic and Republican Parties (and winning the majority of votes in Kansas, Colorado, Nevada and Idaho). In 1896, they cast their lot with the Democratic Party and soon became extinct, not the last anti-corporatist movement to suffer such a death.
Populists and Anti-Authoritarianism
Real-deal populists are emotionally fueled by their contempt for illegitimate authority. Anti-authoritarians - be they Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Ralph Nader or Ron Paul - have historically energized young people who have not yet been socialized into abandoning their rebelliousness against illegitimate authority. While authoritarians accept a standard schooling and a government that demands compliance to authority by virtue of rank and position, anti-authoritarians consider whether that authority is or is not legitimate before accepting it.
Today, there continues to be - as there was prior to the American Revolution - differing views of exactly who are the illegitimate authorities. In colonial America, at the same time that many of America's future founders were rebelling against only Parliament's "taxation without representation" and continuing to toast King George III, Thomas Paine was declaring in his January 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense" that the whole of British authority - Parliament, the monarchy, the aristocracy and their Constitution and the East India Company - were illegitimate authorities for Americans; and that independence (still a taboo word for many of these future founders) made common sense.
What today are America's illegitimate authorities? Giant corporations? A federal government which has become a powerful special-interest institution? Or a "corporatocracy" - a partnership between the wealthy elite, giant corporations and collaborating government officials?
When populists such as Nader and Paul both use the terms corporatists and corporate government, this greatly improves the possibility of coalitions and alliances among populists. While it is more comfortable for many libertarian populists to rail only against "government tyranny" and for many progressive populists to rail only against "corporate tyranny," what can unify populists is a recognition that elite rule consists of a "corporatocracy tyranny" - rule by a corporate-governmental partnership.
In a corporatocracy, while there are elections, giant corporations and the wealthy elite rule so as to satisfy their own self-interest. In a corporatocracy, corporations and the wealthy elite directly and indirectly finance candidates, who are then indebted to them; indebted government officials appoint to key decision-making roles those friendly to corporations, including executives from these corporations; high-level government officials are rewarded with high-paying industry positions when they exit government; and former government officials are given high-paying lobbying jobs so as to use their relationships with current government officials to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of.
With respect to the corporatocracy, as Nader and Paul have recently evidenced, it is not difficult to forge alliances among progressive and libertarian populists who agree about ending US involvement in unnecessary wars, wasteful defense spending, government violations of our civil liberties and Wall Street bailouts, and other corporate welfare. However, there remain other significant disagreements not only between progressive and libertarian populists, but within these particular groups (e.g. libertarian heroes such as Jesse Ventura and Ron Paul disagree about abortion). Will these disagreements - ideological, cultural and psychological ones - keep them, too, divided to form coalitions?
Are Populist Divisions Irreconcilable?
The most significant ideological difference between progressive populists and libertarian populists are about the role of free markets and government. Progressive populists, similar to 19th-century agrarian populist rebels, believe it is naive to trust the unbridled free market because concentrated economic power (inevitable in an unregulated market economy) can be just as dangerous as concentrated political power, in no small part because those holding concentrated economic power can too easily acquire undue political power for themselves; and therefore, the people must take control of government to counterbalance this. In contrast, many libertarian populists - unlike 19th-century populists - have faith in the free market and believe it is naive to trust any government, including one created in the name of the people, because such a government will be taken over by an elitist cadre.
Thus, Paul and Nader disagree on health care solutions. Nader clearly believes a proper use of the government is to create single-payer, Medicare for all. But Paul, in his recent interview together with Nader, states, "Well, we both oppose the corporatism that's involved in medicine and that's one thing we agree on. But no, I disagree with the delivery of health care by the government."
Paul, a physician, actually hates both government and insurance company involvement in health care. In a 2007 Republican debate, he stated, "We've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy. Nobody seems to be happy - except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs." Paul's free-market solutions to health care are not exactly clear, but his loathing of insurance companies (and their managed care) and drug companies should at least make progressive populists curious about his alternatives. Perhaps, this is one issue that Nader and Paul will have to agree to disagree, but it seems that Paul can be ideologically consistent and agree that individual states should be able to experiment with single payer or a powerful public option to insurance companies.
Can coalitions of diverse anti-authoritarians hold together on various issues? One example of an anti-authoritarian movement that I am personally familiar with is the mental health treatment reform movement, which comprises people who identify themselves as "on the left," others who identify themselves as "libertarians," and still others who disdain any political labels. I can tell you from my nearly two decades of working with these reformers that they certainly have different political views, but they all share a distrust for drug companies, a contempt for pseudoscience and a belief that people deserve truly informed choice with respect to treatment. Most of these reformers respect Erich Fromm, the democratic-socialist psychoanalyst, along with Thomas Szasz, the libertarian psychiatrist, both passionate anti-authoritarians who have confronted mental health professionals for using dogma to coerce and control people (e.g., psychopathologizing homosexuality until the 1970s; and currently, diagnosing rebellious young people with "oppositional defiant disorder" and medicating them).
Similarly, there is an anti-authoritarian educational reform movement comprised of both libertarian educators such as John Taylor Gatto and progressive educators such as Alfie Kohn, who are unified in their agreement that most standard schools are oppressive environments that more often encourage obeying orders and dependence on authorities rather than nurturing curiosity and critical thinking.
Mutual Respect: An Antidote to Being Divided and Conquered
One of the least discussed differences among contemporary anti-authoritarians - but a crucial one - is their view of human nature, which often divides them in an emotional manner that inhibits respectful dialogue. Many self-identified libertarians believe that people are essentially competitive and motivated by self-interest, while many self-identified progressive populists believe that human beings are essentially cooperative and altruistic. Both sides would do well to read historian Lawrence Goodwyn's "Populist Moment" in which he tells us the following about the 19th-century farmer insurgents:
Populists thought of man as being both competitive and cooperative. They tilted strongly toward the latter, but they confronted the enduring qualities of the former. They accepted this complexity about mankind, and they tried to conceive of a society that would be generous - and would also house this complexity.
In addition to Goodwyn, modern libertarian and progressive populists who want to follow Nader and Paul's coalition-building lead might consider taking seriously the wisdom of Hillel, the great Jewish scholar. Two thousand years ago during the time of the Roman Empire's domination, Hillel attempted to provide greater unity and strength for his people and for future generations of rebels against illegitimate authority. He confronted the unnecessary and weakening divide between "self-interest" and "cooperation" that often exists within ourselves and among one another:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And, if not now, when?
When populists respect the complexity of their own humanity, they will gain a certain wholeness that creates greater psychological strength. That strength results in greater self-security, which makes people more capable of respecting different points of views. And then - rather than being divided and conquered by their differences - populists can unite on both their essential anti-authoritarianism and on their respect for differences.
by: Bruce E. Levine
Source: Truthout
Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have an intriguing idea. While both know that there are significant ideological divides between their camps (and so neither are suggesting forming a political party together), they are proposing populist coalitions on some major issues. Interviewed together by host Andrew Napolitano ("Freedom Watch," January 19, 2011), Nader began by explaining why he views libertarians as allies with progressives in a fight against "corporate government."
Nader: To the extent that they are genuine libertarian conservatives and not corporatists - corporatists believe in corporate government - they are great allies with many liberals and progressives to challenge the bloated, wasteful military budget, to challenge undeclared wars overseas, to challenge hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, to challenge the invasiveness of our civil liberties and civil rights by the notorious PATRIOT Act, to challenge the sovereignty-shredding, job-destroying NAFTA and World Trade Organization Agreements - and also, too, the first victory will be a powerful whistleblower bill, that libertarian conservatives and liberals and progressives in the Congress almost got through last year, to let government employees ethically blow the whistle on corporate rapaciousness and contracts and government misdeeds. Just think of that agenda for a dynamic political force!
Napolitano: ... Congressman Paul, almost everything that Ralph Nader just said, you could have said. And you have said. Is this a coalition of the leading libertarian in the Congress and one of the leading progressives in American culture today?
Paul: Well, I believe in coalitions. You know, they always talk about "We need more bipartisanship." And I say we have too much bipartisanship, because the bipartisanship here in Washington endorses corporatism, which Ralph and I disapprove of. But, you know, coalitions are different. Ralph and I do have some disagreements. But that list he just made, I agree with him on that. So I think we should come together and work together and I think we can.
American Populists
Whether or not Nader and Paul can pull off such a coalition, their conversation can promote a useful dialogue among populists and anti-authoritarians across the political spectrum. We Americans are routinely grouped as Democrats, Republicans and Independents and divided into left-liberal, right-conservative and center-moderate camps, but these categories tell us little about where we stand on two historically important questions: (1) Do you favor some fashion of elite rule, or are you a populist who believes in government that is genuinely of, by and for the people? (2) And if you believe that a ruling elite exists, who exactly are they?
In 2009, Rasmussen Reports declared: "55% of Americans are populist, 7% Support the Political Class." Rasmussen defined populist as: trusting the American people's judgment more than America's political leaders; seeing government and big business as political allies working against the interest of consumers and investors; and viewing the federal government as one more special-interest group that primarily looks after its own needs. By 2010, utilizing the same definition, Rasmussen reported that 65 percent of voters are populist (or what they then called "populist/mainstream") and only 4 percent support the political class. Including "leaners," 81 percent are in the populist/mainstream category and 12 percent support the political class. Rasmussen reported that 76 percent of those polled generally trust the American people more than political leaders on important national issues; 70 percent believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors; 71 percent view the federal government as a special interest group; and a majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters share those views.
From America's very beginnings, there has been a battle between those who believe in genuine democracy versus those who are wary of the people's judgment. This was the battle between Thomas Paine versus both Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. In "Thomas Paine and the Promise of America," Paine scholar Harvey Kaye describes how modern corporatists today promote "the lives of Founders like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who in decided contrast to Paine scorned democracy and feared 'the people.'" Adams actually spoke of working people as "the common Herd of Mankind," and he referred to Paine's "Common Sense" as a "poor, ignorant, Malicious, short-sighted Crapulous Mass."
The battle between the people versus the elite continued to take center stage in the late 19th century, especially in the great populist revolt of insurgent farmers. It is difficult to categorize these populists along contemporary political lines of left-liberal, right-conservative, or center-moderate, but it is easy to categorize them as anti-elitists who believed that government should truly be of, by and for the people. Exploited and oppressed by a crop lien system, they became so riddled with debt that they routinely had to sell their farms and become "tenant farmers" or "sharecroppers," often on what had once been their own property. Their clear enemy was the "moneyed elite," which included the banking system, exploitative merchants and the railroads. These populists fought back, first economically, with large-scale working people's cooperatives, and then politically, with the People's Party in 1892 battling both the Democratic and Republican Parties (and winning the majority of votes in Kansas, Colorado, Nevada and Idaho). In 1896, they cast their lot with the Democratic Party and soon became extinct, not the last anti-corporatist movement to suffer such a death.
Populists and Anti-Authoritarianism
Real-deal populists are emotionally fueled by their contempt for illegitimate authority. Anti-authoritarians - be they Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Ralph Nader or Ron Paul - have historically energized young people who have not yet been socialized into abandoning their rebelliousness against illegitimate authority. While authoritarians accept a standard schooling and a government that demands compliance to authority by virtue of rank and position, anti-authoritarians consider whether that authority is or is not legitimate before accepting it.
Today, there continues to be - as there was prior to the American Revolution - differing views of exactly who are the illegitimate authorities. In colonial America, at the same time that many of America's future founders were rebelling against only Parliament's "taxation without representation" and continuing to toast King George III, Thomas Paine was declaring in his January 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense" that the whole of British authority - Parliament, the monarchy, the aristocracy and their Constitution and the East India Company - were illegitimate authorities for Americans; and that independence (still a taboo word for many of these future founders) made common sense.
What today are America's illegitimate authorities? Giant corporations? A federal government which has become a powerful special-interest institution? Or a "corporatocracy" - a partnership between the wealthy elite, giant corporations and collaborating government officials?
When populists such as Nader and Paul both use the terms corporatists and corporate government, this greatly improves the possibility of coalitions and alliances among populists. While it is more comfortable for many libertarian populists to rail only against "government tyranny" and for many progressive populists to rail only against "corporate tyranny," what can unify populists is a recognition that elite rule consists of a "corporatocracy tyranny" - rule by a corporate-governmental partnership.
In a corporatocracy, while there are elections, giant corporations and the wealthy elite rule so as to satisfy their own self-interest. In a corporatocracy, corporations and the wealthy elite directly and indirectly finance candidates, who are then indebted to them; indebted government officials appoint to key decision-making roles those friendly to corporations, including executives from these corporations; high-level government officials are rewarded with high-paying industry positions when they exit government; and former government officials are given high-paying lobbying jobs so as to use their relationships with current government officials to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of.
With respect to the corporatocracy, as Nader and Paul have recently evidenced, it is not difficult to forge alliances among progressive and libertarian populists who agree about ending US involvement in unnecessary wars, wasteful defense spending, government violations of our civil liberties and Wall Street bailouts, and other corporate welfare. However, there remain other significant disagreements not only between progressive and libertarian populists, but within these particular groups (e.g. libertarian heroes such as Jesse Ventura and Ron Paul disagree about abortion). Will these disagreements - ideological, cultural and psychological ones - keep them, too, divided to form coalitions?
Are Populist Divisions Irreconcilable?
The most significant ideological difference between progressive populists and libertarian populists are about the role of free markets and government. Progressive populists, similar to 19th-century agrarian populist rebels, believe it is naive to trust the unbridled free market because concentrated economic power (inevitable in an unregulated market economy) can be just as dangerous as concentrated political power, in no small part because those holding concentrated economic power can too easily acquire undue political power for themselves; and therefore, the people must take control of government to counterbalance this. In contrast, many libertarian populists - unlike 19th-century populists - have faith in the free market and believe it is naive to trust any government, including one created in the name of the people, because such a government will be taken over by an elitist cadre.
Thus, Paul and Nader disagree on health care solutions. Nader clearly believes a proper use of the government is to create single-payer, Medicare for all. But Paul, in his recent interview together with Nader, states, "Well, we both oppose the corporatism that's involved in medicine and that's one thing we agree on. But no, I disagree with the delivery of health care by the government."
Paul, a physician, actually hates both government and insurance company involvement in health care. In a 2007 Republican debate, he stated, "We've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy. Nobody seems to be happy - except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs." Paul's free-market solutions to health care are not exactly clear, but his loathing of insurance companies (and their managed care) and drug companies should at least make progressive populists curious about his alternatives. Perhaps, this is one issue that Nader and Paul will have to agree to disagree, but it seems that Paul can be ideologically consistent and agree that individual states should be able to experiment with single payer or a powerful public option to insurance companies.
Can coalitions of diverse anti-authoritarians hold together on various issues? One example of an anti-authoritarian movement that I am personally familiar with is the mental health treatment reform movement, which comprises people who identify themselves as "on the left," others who identify themselves as "libertarians," and still others who disdain any political labels. I can tell you from my nearly two decades of working with these reformers that they certainly have different political views, but they all share a distrust for drug companies, a contempt for pseudoscience and a belief that people deserve truly informed choice with respect to treatment. Most of these reformers respect Erich Fromm, the democratic-socialist psychoanalyst, along with Thomas Szasz, the libertarian psychiatrist, both passionate anti-authoritarians who have confronted mental health professionals for using dogma to coerce and control people (e.g., psychopathologizing homosexuality until the 1970s; and currently, diagnosing rebellious young people with "oppositional defiant disorder" and medicating them).
Similarly, there is an anti-authoritarian educational reform movement comprised of both libertarian educators such as John Taylor Gatto and progressive educators such as Alfie Kohn, who are unified in their agreement that most standard schools are oppressive environments that more often encourage obeying orders and dependence on authorities rather than nurturing curiosity and critical thinking.
Mutual Respect: An Antidote to Being Divided and Conquered
One of the least discussed differences among contemporary anti-authoritarians - but a crucial one - is their view of human nature, which often divides them in an emotional manner that inhibits respectful dialogue. Many self-identified libertarians believe that people are essentially competitive and motivated by self-interest, while many self-identified progressive populists believe that human beings are essentially cooperative and altruistic. Both sides would do well to read historian Lawrence Goodwyn's "Populist Moment" in which he tells us the following about the 19th-century farmer insurgents:
Populists thought of man as being both competitive and cooperative. They tilted strongly toward the latter, but they confronted the enduring qualities of the former. They accepted this complexity about mankind, and they tried to conceive of a society that would be generous - and would also house this complexity.
In addition to Goodwyn, modern libertarian and progressive populists who want to follow Nader and Paul's coalition-building lead might consider taking seriously the wisdom of Hillel, the great Jewish scholar. Two thousand years ago during the time of the Roman Empire's domination, Hillel attempted to provide greater unity and strength for his people and for future generations of rebels against illegitimate authority. He confronted the unnecessary and weakening divide between "self-interest" and "cooperation" that often exists within ourselves and among one another:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And, if not now, when?
When populists respect the complexity of their own humanity, they will gain a certain wholeness that creates greater psychological strength. That strength results in greater self-security, which makes people more capable of respecting different points of views. And then - rather than being divided and conquered by their differences - populists can unite on both their essential anti-authoritarianism and on their respect for differences.
On the News With Thom Hartmann: Brzezinski Warns Wealth Gap May Lead to Uprising in US Streets, and More
7 July 2011
by: Thom Hartmann
The Thom Hartmann Program | News Report
Source:truth-out
Thom Hartmann here – on the news…
You need to know this. President Obama is summoning Congressional leaders to the White House today for another round of debt-limit negotiations and he’s advised Republicans to “check their ultimatums at the door.” The President is trying to pitch a $4 trillion deficit reduction package over the next 10 years – that slashes away at programs mostly affecting the working class and even cuts up the social safety net in America – trimming $400 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. All of these tough cuts will be in exchange for closing a few tax loopholes for corporations, millionaires, and billionaire. Ultimately, President Obama’s deal is heavy on spending cuts, light on tax hikes. But don’t expect Republicans to like the deal – they’d rather crash the Americans economy than see tax rates for their millionaire and billionaire campaign donors go up a measly 3% - to where they were under Bill Clinton when we had a budget surplus and created 23 million jobs. Right now – government revenue in America is at a 60-year-low – and Republicans are refusing to acknowledge that our government is going broke because of 3 decades of Reagan’s “starve the beast” economics and an army of corporate lobbyists that have blown holes in the tax code. We don’t have a spending problem in America – we have a revenue problem – and a debt-limit deal needs to focus on this reality. Roll back the Reagan tax cuts – and make billionaires hedge fund managers on Wall Street - who pay less in taxes than their janitor – cough up their fair share like the rest of us. That’s what shared sacrifice looks like.
Workers in Wisconsin are screwed…what else is new? Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is transforming the workforce in his state. Not only did Walker bust up public unions – but also he took away their power to declare certain jobs around the state as “union-only work” – meaning the state can now bring in private employees willing to work for less money and less benefits – creating a race-to-the-bottom in the labor force. And Walker has already hit rock bottom in that race. Since Walker’s new law went into effect – Racine County in Wisconsin has called up prison inmates who work for no money and no benefits to do work that unions used to do like landscaping and maintenance around the county. I guess this is Walker’s idea of deficit reduction – employing free prison slave labor. Let’s hope Congressional Republicans don’t get any ideas from their hero in Wisconsin.
In the best of the rest of the news…
The National Bureau of Economic Research has released a report that shows just how important Medicaid is to the well-being of our nation. The study found that individuals on Medicaid were 35% more likely to see a doctor and 15% more likely to have access to prescription drugs. Also – Medicaid recipients were 30% more likely to be admitted into a hospital – and women on Medicaid were 60% more likely to seek preventative care like mammograms. With better access to the healthcare system thanks to Medicaid – individuals were 25% more likely to say their health was in excellent conditions. Despite all that though – Republicans in Congress as well as Republican Governors around the country are trying to dismantle Medicaid. The idea that a government program is actually improving the lives of millions makes them sick.
Is wealth inequality in America hurdling our nation toward civil unrest? In a television interview this morning – former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that the growing wealth imbalance in America – now reaching levels not seen since the Great Depression – could lead to civil unrest in the streets. As the middle-class in America falls deeper and deeper into desperation – Brzezisnki said, “we’re going to slide into intensified social conflicts, social hostility, some forms of radicalism, there is just going to be a sense that this is not a just society.” We have a society in which 400 Americans own more wealth that 150 million other Americans. We have a society in which 50% of all the children in America will depend on food stamps at some point in their life before they are 18 – and among African American children that number is 90%. We no longer live in a just society - and if Brzezinski is right - turbulent times could be ahead for America.
No more rewards for bad behavior. Federal regulators at the FDIC approved a new plan yesterday that holds Wall Street CEOs accountable if they run their banks into the ground. Under the new authority given to the FDIC – federal regulators can take back those fat paychecks to CEOs in the event that their bank collapsed and needs to be liquidated. Back in 2008 – we saw over and over again – corporate executive running from the wreckage of their failing banks with their pockets filled to the brim in bonus cash. But this new policy by the FDIC ensures that the executives who screwed their corporation and their shareholders with risky gambling – now have to go down with the ship.
Is Rupert Murdoch’s media empire crumbling? As a phone-hacking scandal that British Prime Minister David Cameron described as “absolutely disgusting” threatens to take down Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid in the UK - NewsCorp’s shares are plummeting and British lawmakers are calling for a crackdown on Murdoch’s many media holdings in the country. With the turmoil overseas – Murdoch is focusing on his detractors here in the states – namely MediaMatters – the non-profit media watchdog. Over the last ten days – Murdoch’s Fox so-called News has run over 30 segments attacking MediaMatters – and is mobilizing viewers to flood the IRS with petitions to strip MediaMatters of their non-profit tax-exempt status. The British have had enough with Murdoch’s perversion of the media – and sensing the United States might be turning on him too – Murdoch is going after the truth-tellers like MediaMatters. I sense desperation…
And that’s the way it is today – Thursday, July 7th, 2011. I’m Thom Hartmann – on the news.
by: Thom Hartmann
The Thom Hartmann Program | News Report
Source:truth-out
Thom Hartmann here – on the news…
You need to know this. President Obama is summoning Congressional leaders to the White House today for another round of debt-limit negotiations and he’s advised Republicans to “check their ultimatums at the door.” The President is trying to pitch a $4 trillion deficit reduction package over the next 10 years – that slashes away at programs mostly affecting the working class and even cuts up the social safety net in America – trimming $400 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. All of these tough cuts will be in exchange for closing a few tax loopholes for corporations, millionaires, and billionaire. Ultimately, President Obama’s deal is heavy on spending cuts, light on tax hikes. But don’t expect Republicans to like the deal – they’d rather crash the Americans economy than see tax rates for their millionaire and billionaire campaign donors go up a measly 3% - to where they were under Bill Clinton when we had a budget surplus and created 23 million jobs. Right now – government revenue in America is at a 60-year-low – and Republicans are refusing to acknowledge that our government is going broke because of 3 decades of Reagan’s “starve the beast” economics and an army of corporate lobbyists that have blown holes in the tax code. We don’t have a spending problem in America – we have a revenue problem – and a debt-limit deal needs to focus on this reality. Roll back the Reagan tax cuts – and make billionaires hedge fund managers on Wall Street - who pay less in taxes than their janitor – cough up their fair share like the rest of us. That’s what shared sacrifice looks like.
Workers in Wisconsin are screwed…what else is new? Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is transforming the workforce in his state. Not only did Walker bust up public unions – but also he took away their power to declare certain jobs around the state as “union-only work” – meaning the state can now bring in private employees willing to work for less money and less benefits – creating a race-to-the-bottom in the labor force. And Walker has already hit rock bottom in that race. Since Walker’s new law went into effect – Racine County in Wisconsin has called up prison inmates who work for no money and no benefits to do work that unions used to do like landscaping and maintenance around the county. I guess this is Walker’s idea of deficit reduction – employing free prison slave labor. Let’s hope Congressional Republicans don’t get any ideas from their hero in Wisconsin.
In the best of the rest of the news…
The National Bureau of Economic Research has released a report that shows just how important Medicaid is to the well-being of our nation. The study found that individuals on Medicaid were 35% more likely to see a doctor and 15% more likely to have access to prescription drugs. Also – Medicaid recipients were 30% more likely to be admitted into a hospital – and women on Medicaid were 60% more likely to seek preventative care like mammograms. With better access to the healthcare system thanks to Medicaid – individuals were 25% more likely to say their health was in excellent conditions. Despite all that though – Republicans in Congress as well as Republican Governors around the country are trying to dismantle Medicaid. The idea that a government program is actually improving the lives of millions makes them sick.
Is wealth inequality in America hurdling our nation toward civil unrest? In a television interview this morning – former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that the growing wealth imbalance in America – now reaching levels not seen since the Great Depression – could lead to civil unrest in the streets. As the middle-class in America falls deeper and deeper into desperation – Brzezisnki said, “we’re going to slide into intensified social conflicts, social hostility, some forms of radicalism, there is just going to be a sense that this is not a just society.” We have a society in which 400 Americans own more wealth that 150 million other Americans. We have a society in which 50% of all the children in America will depend on food stamps at some point in their life before they are 18 – and among African American children that number is 90%. We no longer live in a just society - and if Brzezinski is right - turbulent times could be ahead for America.
No more rewards for bad behavior. Federal regulators at the FDIC approved a new plan yesterday that holds Wall Street CEOs accountable if they run their banks into the ground. Under the new authority given to the FDIC – federal regulators can take back those fat paychecks to CEOs in the event that their bank collapsed and needs to be liquidated. Back in 2008 – we saw over and over again – corporate executive running from the wreckage of their failing banks with their pockets filled to the brim in bonus cash. But this new policy by the FDIC ensures that the executives who screwed their corporation and their shareholders with risky gambling – now have to go down with the ship.
Is Rupert Murdoch’s media empire crumbling? As a phone-hacking scandal that British Prime Minister David Cameron described as “absolutely disgusting” threatens to take down Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid in the UK - NewsCorp’s shares are plummeting and British lawmakers are calling for a crackdown on Murdoch’s many media holdings in the country. With the turmoil overseas – Murdoch is focusing on his detractors here in the states – namely MediaMatters – the non-profit media watchdog. Over the last ten days – Murdoch’s Fox so-called News has run over 30 segments attacking MediaMatters – and is mobilizing viewers to flood the IRS with petitions to strip MediaMatters of their non-profit tax-exempt status. The British have had enough with Murdoch’s perversion of the media – and sensing the United States might be turning on him too – Murdoch is going after the truth-tellers like MediaMatters. I sense desperation…
And that’s the way it is today – Thursday, July 7th, 2011. I’m Thom Hartmann – on the news.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Libya: UN team assesses safety and humanitarian access in Nafusa mountains
1 July 2011
Source: U.N. News Center
Humanitarian needs in the Nafusa mountains in western Libya remain critical, United Nations agencies reported today at the end of their first mission to the area, where they made an assessment of safety and access to civilians who require emergency assistance.
“The humanitarian situation in the Nafusa mountains remains a top concern,” Panos Moumtzis, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Libya. “It remains imperative for UN humanitarian organisations to have continued access to the Nafusa mountains to conduct in-depth assessment missions to accurately and impartially determine the needs of the affected population and respond accordingly,” he added.
The UN team visited the towns of Wazin and Nalut yesterday and Jadu and Zintan today, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in a press release.
The conflict in Libya has spread to several towns in the Nafusa mountains, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) reported that more than 100,000 people have fled the fighting in the area since Libya descended into conflict four months ago. They remain internally displaced, while more than 64,000 others have sought refuge in neighbouring Tunisia.
The inter-agency mission, which was comprised of OCHA, UNHCR, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the UN World Food Programme (WFP), saw the widespread destruction of property in the border town of Wazin, from where the vast majority of the population had fled due to persistent shelling.
In Nalut and other areas, the mission observed limited power and water supplies and heard accounts from the local community of dwindling food supplies, lack of cash, jobs and functioning markets.
“Food needs for the Nafusa mountains remain serious,” said Ussama Osman of WFP. “The vast majority of the affected population now relies on food assistance,” he said, adding that WFP will continue to provide food aid to those who need it most in the area.
UNICEF voiced concern over the humanitarian situation facing children in the Nafusa mountains, particularly health, access to clean water, protection and education. The agency said it will ensure that a vaccination campaign is carried out.
UNHCR is drawing up future repatriation plans for the eventual voluntary return of the thousands of Libyan refugees when security conditions permit.
Source: U.N. News Center
Humanitarian needs in the Nafusa mountains in western Libya remain critical, United Nations agencies reported today at the end of their first mission to the area, where they made an assessment of safety and access to civilians who require emergency assistance.
“The humanitarian situation in the Nafusa mountains remains a top concern,” Panos Moumtzis, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Libya. “It remains imperative for UN humanitarian organisations to have continued access to the Nafusa mountains to conduct in-depth assessment missions to accurately and impartially determine the needs of the affected population and respond accordingly,” he added.
The UN team visited the towns of Wazin and Nalut yesterday and Jadu and Zintan today, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in a press release.
The conflict in Libya has spread to several towns in the Nafusa mountains, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) reported that more than 100,000 people have fled the fighting in the area since Libya descended into conflict four months ago. They remain internally displaced, while more than 64,000 others have sought refuge in neighbouring Tunisia.
The inter-agency mission, which was comprised of OCHA, UNHCR, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the UN World Food Programme (WFP), saw the widespread destruction of property in the border town of Wazin, from where the vast majority of the population had fled due to persistent shelling.
In Nalut and other areas, the mission observed limited power and water supplies and heard accounts from the local community of dwindling food supplies, lack of cash, jobs and functioning markets.
“Food needs for the Nafusa mountains remain serious,” said Ussama Osman of WFP. “The vast majority of the affected population now relies on food assistance,” he said, adding that WFP will continue to provide food aid to those who need it most in the area.
UNICEF voiced concern over the humanitarian situation facing children in the Nafusa mountains, particularly health, access to clean water, protection and education. The agency said it will ensure that a vaccination campaign is carried out.
UNHCR is drawing up future repatriation plans for the eventual voluntary return of the thousands of Libyan refugees when security conditions permit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)