|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix |
Polyarchy | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 |
|
Switchboard | ||||
Latest | |||||
Past week | |||||
Past month |
Jul 31, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
In case you were wondering, yes, wealth from the energy and finance industries does dominate campaign spending early in campaigns, and flows mostly to Republicans:Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House, NY Times: They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters..., they reside in ... exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.JohnH said...Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign... Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision five years ago. ...
...the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right ... contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs. While such measures would help protect their own wealth, the donors describe their embrace of them more broadly, as the surest means of promoting economic growth and preserving a system that would allow others to prosper, too. ...
Most of the families are clustered around just nine cities. ...
Tend to Be Self-Made ...
A number of the families are tied to networks of ideological donors ...
pgl said in reply to JohnH...Just as bad, each of the two parties has rigged the process in favor of insiders--super-delegates control a large number of convention delegates. "the supers will go with the winner in 2016, too. It's technically possible for Clinton to win the nomination by dominating the superdelegate count even if she (narrowly) loses every state: Thanks to strict proportional allocation on the Democratic side, a candidate only gains a small delegate advantage for a small edge in primary votes."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-s-superdelegate-tipping-pointUnless Bernie can soundly defeat Clinton in the delegate count (an unlikely event) Clinton will win. And Big Money will continue to back Clinton, though Bernie is winning the money battle with small donors.
Time to vote third party. The outcome in most states is not at all in doubt long before the general election, so it's pointless to waste your vote on one of the two evils.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33139-do-the-democrats-offer-a-progressive-choice-for-presidentDid you even read the post? Especially that cool graph entitled - "Mostly Backing Republicans". 138 of the 158 are backing Republicans
anne said in reply to JohnH...
Unless Bernie can soundly defeat Clinton in the delegate count (an unlikely event) Clinton will win. And Big Money will continue to back Clinton, though Bernie is winning the money battle with small donors.
[ I am sure this is correct. ]
bakho said in reply to JohnH...
Bernie Sander is running to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What has Sanders ever done to help Democrats get elected? How would Sanders help the down ballot candidates? We have a very winnable Governors race in Indiana but we need help from the top of the ticket, not a purist who is too pure to help out.
What strikes me most about Sanders supporters is their anger. Anger gives them passion. But anger does not enact policies. The Tea Party is a prime example. They are angry. They demand that the anti-pols they elected deliver what they want. It ain't gonna happen. Sanders thinks he can rally angry people on the left and get things to change. NaGonnaHappn. It will be no more effective than the TeaParty. We need a down and dirty politician who knows how to cut deals and turn the screws of power.
mulp said in reply to JohnH...
How many rich people did it take to destroy Eric Cantor for Speaker of the House?
Oh, wait, he was taken down by maybe 4000 faceless, nameless, angry white conservative men. These are people in the district who spoke their mind and influenced a dozen people to support Brat. Brat got 36 thousand votes, and most people make choices based on the slightest information, going with the status quo 90% of the time because they never hear anything to cause them to look at alternatives. This is the reason people want all of Congress thrown out, EXCEPT their current members of Congress if not in the opposite party.
Brat did not call Cantor names, but he criticized Cantor's positions. Cantor tried a personality hatchet job, calling Brat "liberal". But vocal supporters of Brat could easily attack Cantor's character and policy offering Brat as the clear alternative by quoting Brat or concluding with Brat. And it takes persistence to get through to the political talk shows and get someone like Ingram to talk about Brat. And then reach out to Brat.
When I grew up, every candidate had a few thousand advocates convincing a dozen others to vote for them "in a box". They simply joined them in the Democratic or Republican Party chapter in town and overtime got to know a wider circle of activists who would speak up for you. They would get you into the Rotary or Grange or hundreds of other groups that fit who you were so dozens and hundreds more would know you and be your advocate.
When you attack the parties, you are effectively calling for a campaign of mass market madison avenue or Colonel Sanders finger licken advertising to recruit voters, but when you become lost in the flood of ads, you then need to destroy the mostly well known to force everyone to seek a "new rock". No one knows the candidate better than they know a rock they find in their garden because the only thing you get is the picture painted by the mad men.
I grew up when parties had block captains, they party men and women who knew everyone on the block to influence their vote.
Whenever someone says "each of the two parties has rigged the process in favor of insiders" followed by "Time to vote third party" my only question is,
"when will you have a block captain for your third party on my block and on every block in my State so you can put third party insiders into all the local and State offices?"
Surely you do not expect the Democratic Party to do all the work required to elect the thousand outsiders needed just to shake things up in just one State, do you???
Given the masses no longer seem to get involved in parties of national scale any more, the established parties rely on their "establishment" institutions which can quickly organize campaigns in a box for thousands of elections within a State. No national parties exist, just 50+ State and territory parties for Democrats and Republicans, with a few dozen other parties that have other establishments, with most far from the voters.
See Grist's commentary in 2012, then find any hint of any real Green Party activity in any State in the Union, activity that will lead to winning some noticeable elections that will lead to reporting on the party within just that State.
http://grist.org/news/its-time-for-the-green-party-to-grow-up/Robert Salzberg said...
Note to Mark Thoma:
It cannot be said enough that despite literally 10,000 pages of evidence of money corrupting political decisions, that 9 members of the Supreme Court decided that since there wasn't compelling evidence of quid pro quo, there wasn't corruption.
Hear no evil, see no evil, evil doesn't exist. I refute thee thus. (Sound of chair being kicked over.) For non-philosophy students, look it up.
likbez said...
In reality the US presidential election degenerated into a show reminding elections in the USSR. Lower level election still make some sense, though.
It will be very sad if this jingoistic, probably psychopathic and not very bright female neocon become the next POTUS. I think none of politicians who voted for Iraq war are eligible for high office.
I still remember how skillfully Bush II, and Obama were sold to muppets (twice). They played the electorate like a musical instrument each time getting the tune they wanted.
It looks like the two party system is a great alternative to the one party system with essentially the same result.
I wonder why Politburo members did not use this opportunity to present the USSR in more favorable light.
Slogan "Change we can believe in" can be viewed as a damning indictment to two party system.
..."
Sep 30, 2015 | www.theguardian.com
Throughout his American visit the pope's approach was deft and nuanced, but challenging. He could speak softly because he carried a big stick; he had fiercely denounced unfettered capitalism in his documents Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato si', which both identified common causes in the rich world's indifference to the planet and to the poor.
This pope is a tactician as well as a moralist. All this could have a significant impact in the US. Politically, there has been a shift that could prove pivotal in terms of the quarter of the electorate that identifies as Catholic.
Under the previous two popes, Republicans could count on papal endorsement for their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances. Catholic Democrats, by contrast, had a trickier time, treading a tightrope between voicing respect for the pope and for their electorate on such issues.
tjt77 -> ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 20:08
by the time the election actually yawns its way into being, some 14 months away, the public will have long forgotten the visit of Pope Francis..although wahtever current titlilating juicy 'news /entertainment' story plus the words that the still standing bought and paid for clowns utter a few days before might have some impact on the majority voter in (to quote the late Gore Vidal) "the United States of Amenesia."
Dave "marmite71" -> O Robert Cuminale 29 Sep 2015 19:12
No confusion - Every Catholic will say the creed with these words "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. This is said in every Mass.
I think I was eight when I was taught for my first communion that meant belief in the Catholic church as the only legitimate christian church and church hierarchy headed by the that guy who lives in Rome.But what would I know, I was only catholic for 25 years, as was all my wider family, two of whom are priests.
Okasis -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 19:10
Many Progressives Do Give a Damn. Every time I have to listen to one of the Catholic Bigots on the esteemed Supreme Court, I want to puke! Most of us are pretty unhappy about the Anti-Abortion/Gay/Immigrant/Women trash that passes for political dialogue in the US - Much of it aided and abetted by the Catholic Bishops, in all their wisdom...
Robert Cuminale -> Dave "marmite71" O 29 Sep 2015 18:41
I know the Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed and The Athanasion Creed. I'm not Catholic so I asked others who are and they don't what it is either.
Are you confusing that small "c" in catholic (universal) with the large "C" as in the name of the denomination?Maqbool Qurashi -> talenttruth 29 Sep 2015 17:30
It is like the Roman Empire. Its military was spread all over the world while the internal core was getting rotten.
Our infrastructure is rotting. The water system in the Washington DC is 150 years old and leaking 15% of the water. The rate at which they are repairing, it will take another 70 years to fix it.
Education system is in a chaos. As we ignore these deficiencies, the problems become worse. Hey, we do have the largest and well equipped military in the world and we keep feeding it.
John Kayoss -> John Kayoss 29 Sep 2015 16:11Here's a couple articles, well sourced ones, to begin your education with:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hypocrisy-of-human-rights-watch/5367940
Dave "marmite71" -> O MXJones 29 Sep 2015 15:52Most Americans aren't Protestant - the pew survey last year http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
lists Protestants at 46.5 and it declined 4.8% from the last survey in 2007 when they were 51.3%.I also don't think the dispirit numbers of Protestants voters are as dead set against Papal advice as you seem to believe. My Methodist father-in-law was very impressed by him for instance.
What I think the article makes a case for (poorly articulated I confess -pardon the pun) is that without the American catholic clergy's pushing just narrow moral issues like stopping abortions and gay marriage and failing to mention the church's social justice positions to catholic voters that will make a difference in a key voting demographic, i.e. Catholic Voters.
Even a relatively small switch in the groups voting patterns will have major impact in US elections.
namjodh -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 14:30A few things ...
1. The Catholic Church in the United States is part of the worldwide Catholic Church. With 69.4 million members, it is the largest religious body in the United States, comprising 22% of the population.
2. Separation of Church and State ... ummmmmmm tell that to the frigging Tea Party, dude, or Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee for that matter.
Your comment like most "Conservative" comments is both factually incorrect and simply bullshit.
ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 13:40Time will tell whether the pope has a decisive influence upon the 2016 race for the White House.
It will be far more important to see how the conservative US Catholic Bishops' Conference, most of the members of which are far more conservative than most conservative Catholics, and who are culture warrior apparatschiks appointed during the long dark winter of the JPII/BXVI-pontificate, will respond to Pope Francis' words and actions.
We will know soon enough during the Synod, which opens its Second Session on October 4 and is slated to last two weeks, or potentially more, given the expected highly controversial debate.
There is a reason why Pope Francis added, by appointment, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich to the number of participants in the Synod, and this must not have escaped Mr. Vallelly. It is Blase Cupich, after all, who most profoundly "gets" what Francis intends to achieve.
Meanwhile, among the US bishops there are still some very recalcitrant holdouts (e.g. the prelates in San Francisco, CA, or Providence, RI, to name only two) who would love to see Francis gone.
What can be said, I think, is that it has become a bit more difficult for the USCCB to unashamedly broadcast the Republican Party Line as it did, to the embarrassment and diminishment of its own moral authority, during the previous Presidential Election Campaign. In that sense, Pope Francis may well have left many Catholics a precious, and certainly by some bishops despised, gift: vote according to your informed conscience, vote for the Gospel, for peace, justice, and equality for all.
chanayutr 29 Sep 2015 13:31
There is simply no way that the timing of Boehner's announcement is completely unrelated to the Pope's visit, so in that way, at least, the Pope has had an influence, insofar as the teabilly faction will be put off for a couple more months, at least. What happens after that will (most likely) be the responsibility of another Irish-American politician, Kevin McCarthy. The timing of the next teabilly-inspired government shutdown, debt-ceiling crisis, or other near death experience has been moved back in such a way that it could very well influence the Nov., 2016 election. So, yeah, in a way, the Pope did cast his vote against the conservatives.
John Kayoss -> Aaron King 29 Sep 2015 12:53
i highly doubt Francis would have bombed Libya based on lies (as even the US State Department infested Human Rights Watch was clear, after the fact, that it was). Nor would Francis have assisted open Nazis in their coup in Ukraine. Nor would he have armed Wahabists in Syria.
Nor would he have used drones to kill a 16 yr old American citizen, simply because the kid chose to have a father that the US didn't like.
This pope would not have given a free pass to Wall Street, nor would he have arranged a nationwide violent crackdown on those who protested this free pass.
The pope would not have jailed Chelsea Manning for documenting the truth about what informed people already knew, nor would he have imprisoned John Kariakou (sp?) for blowing the whistle on torture (nor would he have remained silent as the torture ring run domestically under the leadership of John Burge, in the same area Obama used to "represent", was exposed)
Nor would he have had the plane of a Head of State (who is far closer to Francis's positions than a corporatist like Obama could ever hope to be) grounded, based on a rumor proven to be false.
Of course, to claim that a man who the banks have invested so heavily in, only to be repaid in appointments, and who tries to push monstrosities like TTIP and TPP onto a public whose "representatives" are not even allowed to speak about the details, as being somehow "left" is indicative of the level of (self?) deception needed to support Obama.
And please, do tell me about how Francis had his opposition chained to a desk for 8 hours at a black site during the debates, to keep the media ignorant of her existence. (As Obama did in 2012).
Obama is not fit to kiss the shoes of the Bishop of Rome, much less be equated with him.
fredimeyer -> Al Simballa 29 Sep 2015 12:31
you raise an extremely worrying point. look at the knesset, where parties with a handful of followers with the most bizarre religious notions can sometimes control certain votes.
In America, splinter 'religious' groups from the scientologists to the mormons to the amish have very specific one or two issue political agendas. and Americans fall over backwards to accommodate any mention of 'religious freedom'
Voters do not seem to mind that candidate x is a total nutter and denies the very fabric of science, or wears magic under clothing or insists of snipping the johnsons of baby boys. no matter how whacky, it is 'religious freedom'.
The massive turnout for the leader of a barbaric and medieval 'religion' was frightening. but experience, so far, suggests that even his most devoted followers do not put into practice and of his preachings.
George Williams YorkerBouncer 29 Sep 2015 11:48A little hypocritical since his predecessors condemned to death a lot of heretics, which is what political prisoners were called. The Office of the Inquisition lasted until 1964, when, like ACORN, it simply had its name changed.
GreenLake Cooper2345 29 Sep 2015 11:10There is no evidence to support your claim that the majority of faithful Catholics oppose the church's teaching on the sanctity of life.
I didn't say anything about "faithful" Catholics -- you inserted that word. I said that the majority of Catholics in the United States oppose the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. As evidence, I would cite this Univision poll, which found only 21% of American Catholics support the Church's opposition to abortion. 10% believe it should be allowed in all cases and 66% believe it should be allowed in some cases.
Opposition to the Church's position on every other social issue is even more overwhelming.
StevoKingoftheNewts -> Kevin Parcell 29 Sep 2015 11:07Hmm. Seems like out of the frying pan into the fire.
A remarkable number of my schoolmates have killed themselves over the years. I believe this is down to the activities of the local priest, who buggered many of them (not me, thankfully) and was helpfully moved by the bishop to another diocese where he did it again. The actual case was reported in the Observer.
I'd no sooner send my child to a Catholic school than I'd sign them up to the junior Ku Klux Klan.
FWIW, I wouldn't send my kid to private school either.
John Kennedy 29 Sep 2015 09:55The Pope is a great man and a great leader, but I doubt he will have any impact on the election. I think you over estimate the partisan impact, the Pope was very balanced, I suspect on purpose. In fact, I would even venture to say he was a mirror, that reflected your own basis's and views back upon you in a thoughtful manner. I am not surprised that this paper saw this reflection in the mirror.
Daniel P. Ferreira -> bbqtv 29 Sep 2015 09:45
Change has to come gradually, and he is spearheading the biggest change the church has experienced in centuries.
Don't be a hypocrite, governments are the ones responsible to control corporations and stop the destruction of humankind.
Mindless greed in form of short term "profits" at any cost cannot be offset by selling Vatican works of art, which is nothing but another short term fix.We are a sick society, and we can only enjoy our existence by not caring about others suffering or turning a blind eye.
He has leverage and he is using it.
I am an atheist, but highly respect him.
BaronVonAmericano 29 Sep 2015 09:18The Pope does not put wind under the wings of all Democrats. It's hard to see how so-called "centrist" Democrats get much out of the Pope's remonstrations. Those candidates are just as wedded to the golden calf as any Republican, and they are opposed to the Pope's position on gay rights and abortion. In other words, the only good things about right-wing Democrats find no support from the Pope, putting them somewhere behind even Republicans as far as this visit goes.
I think if the Pope's visit boosted any candidate, it was Bernie Sanders, who not only focuses on the equity issues the Pope emphasized, but is willing to reach out without judgment to all who will listen.
Captain_Smartypants -> conifer2 29 Sep 2015 08:44I did say something about you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.
So you've didn't get involved in the original point, and brought in something completely irrelevant instead. Christianity and the Church is hardly one thing, and the Church acts less by Christian values than many an atheist. I don't think we're even having a debate here, unless you're still going to argue for that Christianity (a very different thing from the Church, for the umpteenth time) favours credit.
conifer2 -> Captain_Smartypants 29 Sep 2015 08:39
To make it even simpler for you, it would be like requesting myself to lecture people on debt on the sole basis of myself being a lender. There's nothing in my status as a lender that would require me to do such a thing - in fact, as one I should probably understand that an inherent part of interest is to cover the risk of credit loss, in other words the non-payment of debt, and that this is widespread and part of the business model of any lender.
To make it simpler for you - I didn't say anything about the Pope lecturing Argentina on it's debt. I did say something about you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.
Lysicamus -> Keo2008 29 Sep 2015 06:05I understand that the Bible forbids usury, lending or changing money for profit. This was why the Jews were moneylenders in Britain; the Church did not want Christians to transgress but didn't care if the Jews did. When the Christians had borrowed too much they expelled the Jews to avoid paying back what they owed.
rivelle -> Zepp 29 Sep 2015 05:56Chomsky describes the present day GOP as not a party but a "radical insurgency".
Whatever their other disagreements, the people at the magazine "The American Conservative" would probably agree with Chomsky's description.
Captain_Smartypants -> conifer2 29 Sep 2015 05:31I think you'll find that Christian churches have no problem with credit or the profits from it. Many churches have investment portfolios.
I would not confuse a pragmatic approach to investing surplus funds with the Christian message though, as the latter doesn't moralise about debt and its repayment. I'm pretty sure it's in the Pope's job description to promote Christianity and its values rather than give debt management advice...
DoctorStrangeglove -> JimPNY 29 Sep 2015 00:56If you somehow see hypocrisy in those not hyde-bound to a religionist-myth version of American history, if that imaginary phantasm is problem for you, then you've no effin' idea what either "separation of church and state", "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." or "freedom of religion" mean.
Gordon Stanly 29 Sep 2015 00:50The Guardian needs to stop over-exaggerating the Pope's influence. The latest polls show that only 20% of the US population identifies as 'Catholic'.
Most of the Catholic population in America are immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Britain, and South America.
The largest (and fastest growing) growing demographic in America are the "religiously unafilliated" (atheists, agnostics, and nones). They represent about 35% of the US population.
Religion has lost it's influence.
spinnyspace -> Esslloyd 28 Sep 2015 23:48How dare the Elected Pope attempt to interfere with the 'sole pastime' of the USA in their passion for interfering with other countries leadership.
How dare someone else from one of those little countries who should be doing and thinking what their told not as they want. They don't want people preaching at them? Stop the worldwide policing and judgment of the rest of the world.
peacefulmilitant -> GreenLake 28 Sep 2015 22:51
as the number of white Catholics declines and Hispanic Catholics increases, the trend will probably build more in the Democrats favor.
Except Hispanics are the most likely US Catholics to abandon the Church.
capitalismsucks1 -> Meme Mine 28 Sep 2015 22:40
Add a "Neo" and you are correct. Neoliberals from both corporate owned and operated parties, Republican and Democratic, voted for the war. Socialists and others opposed the war.
Francizek 28 Sep 2015 21:59
Above all, the Pope is realistic and pragmatic. Not so many years ago, the western world was beset with an unsustainable birth rate, and an horrendous infant mortality rate, not so different from the current situation in so-called third world countries today. Medical improvements have certainly helped enormously to change this situation, but equally obviously changes in cultural attitudes involving birth control have had just as big an effect. These changes will not be reversed.
Sep 28, 2015 | baselinescenario.com
We have lots of problems: Expensive yet mediocre health care. Lack of retirement security. Out-of-control megabanks. Inequality of opportunity. And, of course, climate change.
At the end of the day, though, there are only two things that matter: early childhood education and electoral reform.
We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good.
michaelhendrickson | September 26, 2015 at 9:47 pm
The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick.
Sep 28, 2015 | naked capitalism
HEDGES: Yes, because it acknowledges reality. And unfortunately the Catholic church, going back to the long tenure of John Paul II, pushed out thousands of vocations, of priests, sisters, brothers, layworkers, who acknowledged the truth about global income disparity and the rapacious nature of capitalism, especially in the developing world. And by doing so they empowered an extremely right-wing elite centered around groups like Opus Dei, which saw even the acknowledgement of that reality as a kind of heresy. So what the pope is doing is he is shifting the church back onto a ground where at least it speaks about the reality that most–and remember, the largest growing segment of Catholics in the United States are Hispanic–that the largest constituency or certainly a very large constituency of the Catholic church faces every day. And that is an important step.However, he has not stood up and offered an alternative. He has named the excesses and distortions of unfettered capitalism and the cruelty of unfettered capitalism, but neither he nor the church has said what should take its place.
... ... ...
HEDGES: Yes. I mean, you know, I think in many ways as pope and as an institution they're acknowledging this reality rather late, given what neoliberal economics have done in terms of reconfiguring the global economy into virtually a form of neofeudalism. So we're very, very far down the road. And somehow not to acknowledge this reality would be, I think–you know, continue to keep the hierarchy of the church in what is in essence a non-reality-based worldview.So it is a good thing, yes, without question that the pope is acknowledging the effects of climate change, is acknowledging the effects of neoliberal economics and globalization. But as I said before, acknowledging it at this point is simply acquiescing to a reality that most of the members of the Catholic church already know.
JAY: I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, because I'm still a little bit on the fence about how to assess, in the end is this kind of language, rhetoric positive or not. But he sits next to President Obama. President Obama, in a recent article you wrote, should actually be charged with crimes after–.
HEDGES: Preemptive–that's not even, I mean, preemptive war under post-Nuremberg laws is a criminal act of aggression.
JAY: And also is not actually going and charging President Bush and Vice President Cheney is actually a violation of international law.
HEDGES: [Yes.]
... ... ...
HEDGES: Well, he comes out of that traditional Franciscan ethos, which is the closer you are to the poor the closer you are to God. And that is a particular theological–he is a Jesuit, but that is a particular theological strain within the Catholic church, and I think that very much describes where he's coming from.
So he's reading between the lines, he's asking for a kinder, gentler system for people to take into account the suffering that global capitalism has inflicted, lifting up the voices of the poor. But in the end as far as I can tell, it's about charity. It's not about justice. And that's how he can stand next to Obama. He's not–he's, you know, even in the passage you read he's critiquing the excesses of the system, and nowhere does he critique the system itself. And you're exactly right, there is–there are no impediments, internal or external, now within global capitalism for it to reform itself. In fact, of course, things are getting worse. We are moving into this kind of oligarchic domain where two-thirds of the country, including in the United States, are hanging on by their fingertips.
So that's on the one hand, he has moved the church back into the realm of reality, which I think is a good thing. But I don't think by any stretch of the imagination he can be called a radical.
... ... ...
JAY: I'm talking more ordinary people who are kind of influenced by various things, which I think a lot of people are. And hearing the pope come down so strongly, certainly on at least Catholics and maybe even other religious people, it might give them some pause to think about this.
HEDGES: Well, and it also highlights the importance of the issue, which I think is good.
JAY: It raises a question, as well. This language, as I said earlier, is kind of in the realm of kind of social democracy, which means can we get rid of the excesses of capitalism but you don't have to actually challenge who owns stuff and change who owns stuff, and not really change who has power. And you're saying this has a positive effect even though you can see all the negatives of this. Does that same analysis apply to, say, a Bernie Sanders, who essentially has social democratic rhetoric. He–same thing. I mean, Sanders doesn't really question how things are owned in the United States. He's not making proposals. Like, even on his proposals for infrastructure and investment it's still mostly as far as we can tell about private-public partnerships. It's not building out a public sector, which one would think is a more socialistic way to do it.
On the other hand, the rhetoric against the billionaire class, does it not have a positive effect in terms of public opinion in the same way the pope does?
HEDGES: No. Because–two reasons. One, of course, he's working within the confines of the Democratic party and is himself –- sits with the Democratic caucus, has seniority within the caucus, is in essence an unofficial member of the Democratic party. As Howard Dean has pointed out he votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time. He has been the main obstacle to creating a third party within Vermont. So that's the first problem. He's a member of the Democratic establishment. He campaigned for Clinton in '92, again in '96. He campaigned for Obama. So if he was serious about taking on the billionaire class, he would take on the Democratic party. He's not. That's the first thing.
But the second thing, and here he would diverge from the pope, is that he is–he refuses to critique or attack empire, or the military-industrial complex, which is hollowing the country out, destroying our country from the inside out. He has voted for every military appropriations bill. He has voted slavishly for every pro-Israel bill and resolution that's ever been passed through the Senate. And if we don't confront the disease of empire and an arms industry that is now swallowing–I mean, the best estimates are about $1.6 or $1.7 trillion a year. I mean, officially it's about 54 percent of the budget, about $600 million. But then they hide all sorts of military expenditures, the Veterans' Affairs administration, the nuclear weapons industry and research. As well as all sorts of black budgets that go into military activities that we as citizens are not allowed to see.
And the pope is no friend of empire. I mean, even John Paul II was no friend of empire in terms–and Bernie Sanders in that sense, I think, has one more strike against him than the pope.
JAY: Well, but you could do a whole list of things about the pope if you want to go into his negative positions. I mean, certainly on social issues–. And go on and on.
HEDGES: On misogyny and–of course. But in terms of critiquing power he [said]–.
JAY: But he sits next to President Obama and he doesn't say anything about President Obama's participation in various wars and drone strikes.
HEDGES: No, but he's–no, he doesn't. But he's not an active enabler of empire. Bernie Sanders is.
JAY: Because Bernie Sanders voted for–he voted against the Iraq war, you could give him that.
HEDGES: Well he had, you know, that's about it. Because after that there wasn't a military appropriations bill he didn't sign on for.
JAY: The–but the Vatican, and I can't say this pope has been out, he hasn't perhaps had a war where he's had to take that kind of position on. Although on the previous Iraq war I think the Vatican was against the invasion of Iraq and has taken some decent positions on some of these things. But then, so did Sanders. But if you don't really come out and critique empire, I have not heard this pope critique empire. He critiques inequality.
HEDGES: He hasn't. But–.
JAY: I'm not–I'm saying that you wind up with the pope of having a certain propaganda value, say, on climate change. Well, why doesn't Sanders–Sanders is not going to win. We know that. So it winds up being is the words, is the rhetoric, is the arguments that people are hearing, does it have some positive effect on public opinion? Given everything you've said about him.
HEDGES: [Inaud.] because he's appealing to widespread sentiments in the same way that Obama did in 2008. But he has promised that he will campaign on behalf of whoever the nominee is, and the system's rigged, fixed. And if it's not Hillary Clinton will be another anointed member of the Democratic establishment. And Sanders will play the role that Van Jones played in the last election which is, you know, we can't have whoever the Republican nominee is. She may not be perfect, don't be a purist, and he will funnel this energy back into a dead political system and we're right back where we are. You cannot call yourself a socialist unless you're an anti-militarist and an anti-imperialist, and he's neither.
JAY: And you think the pope is?
HEDGES: I think–we don't know, because he hasn't issued any statements. But traditionally the Vatican hierarchy has certainly not in any way been enthusiastic about American imperialism and at times has…
JAY: [Inaud.] the American church, certainly not.
HEDGES: Oh, without question.
JAY: With the support of the Vietnam war, and so on.
HEDGES: Yeah. But for instance, at the inception of the Iraq war, the Vatican was against the invasion. And I was speaking around the country about, you know, why we shouldn't invade Iraq. And probably 25 percent of my speaking invitations came from Catholic colleges that had peace and justice studies. And the thing about a Catholic, unlike a Protestant, I myself come out of the Presbyterian tradition, is that there is a sense of a community beyond your borders. There is a kind of–Catholicism doesn't lend itself as well to the kind of nationalism that is often endemic to Protestantism. And so yes, the Catholic hierarchy certainly was waving the flag, without question. And the pope comes out of Argentina, when the Catholic hierarchy was defending the dirty war, the disappearance of 30,000 Argentines by their own military and security forces. That's common. But because–.
JAY: This particular pope has had some accusations against his participation.
HEDGES: Yes. Well he didn't, he was very passive at a moment of horror for his country. But Catholics do have a sense that there are fellow co-believers who do not carry their passport. And I think that's a kind of sign of health within the church and gives the church at least wider scope for a range of views
JAY: Do you think that some of the left, and I would include in this the Cuban government to some extent, are going a little too far in this praising of the pope? I can understand the positive elements of the things you're saying. The thing I read off the top was quite powerful. And you know, he doesn't say capitalist system. But at least as a critique it certainly is strongly anti-capitalist. I take your point, the alternative is not presented. But that's a big deal, as we discussed earlier, that the alternative is not presented.
But some people are–the extent to which the pope is being embraced here without keeping in mind that there's a side to the pope's message which is just fight against greed, just the immoralism of capitalism. And in some ways it ideologically disarms people in terms of what needs to be done to actually do something about these ills.
HEDGES: Right. And you know, and it allows you to kind of read things into the pope that probably aren't there. I mean, what he's really presenting is very basic Christian theology against idolatry. I mean, that's where it comes from. It's against idols. And that's been part of Christian theology since before Augustine.
... ... ...
September 16, 2015 | Fort Russ/Komsomolskaya Pravda
It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall.
Translated from Russian by Tom Winter
Translator's note: this press account is based on a post on Maria Zakharova's facebook page, and I have changed this account slightly in alignment with Zakharova's original text. It was not clear in KP what was Zakharova and what was KP. I think it is in this translation...
Head of the Information Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry wrote a "critical review" on the "Yalta speech" of the assistant US Secretary of State.
In Kiev, there was a conference "Yalta European Strategy". Already amazing. Yalta is in the Russian Crimea, and the "Yalta" conference was held in the Ukrainian capital. Well and good -- you couldn't miss that one!. But at this Yalta conference came the assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Yes, the same one that passed out the cookies. But now, considered a shadow ruler of Ukraine, she points out to the Kiev authorities what to do. This time, Nuland said in a public speech:
- There should be no tolerance for those oligarchs who do not pay taxes. There must be zero tolerance for bribery and corruption, to those who would use violence for political ends.And these words of the grande dame of the State Department could not be overlooked. Just think, Americans don't like it when their loans to Ukraine get stolen. And anti-oligarchic Maidan brought the very oligarchs to power, and corruption in the country has become even greater. Some of us have grown weary of this talk. But, let Nuland drone on ...
But then Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesman Maria Zakharova replied. So much so that not a stone was left on stone in the American's "Yalta speech":
"All this a little bit, just a little, looks like a lecture to the fox about how bad it is to steal chickens, but actually it surprised in other ways. As soon as Russian authorities began exposing the tax evasion, bribery, or corruption of the oligarchs, Victoria Nuland's office hastened to call zero tolerance "political repression" - Zakharova wrote on her facebook page.
It would be great to see the Department of State "show that same zero tolerance and inquire a bit about how the initial capital of the Russian (and Ukrainian would not hurt) oligarchs got started, those oligarchs who have been accused of corruption at home, but who, once in London, feel protected by the authorities, enjoying all the benefits of membership in the Club of Victims of Political Persecution" - continued Zakharova."It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall. Giving the green light to the dirty money from Russia and the former Soviet Union, the Western world is only boosting the zeal with which the domestic thieves shove their loot in foreign bins."
"Though perhaps," wonders the Foreign Minstiry spokesman "this is the actual purpose of the imaginary zero tolerance?""Why do people on Interpol's lists, by the decision of the Russian courts, prove their financial immorality, as they thrive in the Western capitals, and no alarm bells go off in the State Department?"
It turns out to be an interesting story: Taking fetid streams of notes, the West has just one requirement at the border crossing. Scream "victim of the regime." That's it! and you're in spades!
This calls to mind the old Soviet bribery password translated into modern American:
- In Soviet times, it was common phrase, revealing corrupt intent to proceed with plans insidious in varying degrees: "I'm from Ivan Ivanovich." Today the corresponding "Open Sesame" that opens the doors "in Europe and the best houses in Philadelphia," is the phrase "I'm running away from Vladimir".Victoria, if you're going to start cleaning out the cockroaches, stop feeding them on your side.