When the World Is Led By a Child

By David Brooks/ New York Times/ May 15, 2017

At certain times Donald Trump has seemed like a budding authoritarian, a corrupt Nixon, a rabble-rousing populist or a big business corporatist.

But as Trump has settled into his White House role, he has given a series of long interviews, and when you study the transcripts it becomes clear that fundamentally he is none of these things.

At base, Trump is an infantalist. There are three tasks that most mature adults have sort of figured out by the time they hit 25. Trump has mastered none of them. Immaturity is becoming the dominant note of his presidency, lack of self-control his leitmotif.

First, most adults have learned to sit still. But mentally, Trump is still a 7-year-old boy who is bouncing around the classroom. Trump’s answers in these interviews are not very long — 200 words at the high end — but he will typically flit through four or five topics before ending up with how unfair the press is to him.

His inability to focus his attention makes it hard for him to learn and master facts. He is ill informed about his own policies and tramples his own talking points. It makes it hard to control his mouth. On an impulse, he will promise a tax reform when his staff has done little of the actual work.

Second, most people of drinking age have achieved some accurate sense of themselves, some internal criteria to measure their own merits and demerits. But Trump seems to need perpetual outside approval to stabilize his sense of self, so he is perpetually desperate for approval, telling heroic fabulist tales about himself.

“In a short period of time I understood everything there was to know about health care,” he told Time. “A lot of the people have said that, some people said it was the single best speech ever made in that chamber,” he told The Associated Press, referring to his joint session speech.

Me

By Trump’s own account, he knows more about aircraft carrier technology than the Navy. According to his interview with The Economist, he invented the phrase “priming the pump” (even though it was famous by 1933). Trump is not only trying to deceive others. His falsehoods are attempts to build a world in which he can feel good for an instant and comfortably deceive himself.

 He is thus the all-time record-holder of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the phenomenon in which the incompetent person is too incompetent to understand his own incompetence. Trump thought he’d be celebrated for firing James Comey. He thought his press coverage would grow wildly positive once he won the nomination. He is perpetually surprised because reality does not comport with his fantasies.

Third, by adulthood most people can perceive how others are thinking. For example, they learn subtle arts such as false modesty so they won’t be perceived as obnoxious.

But Trump seems to have not yet developed a theory of mind. Other people are black boxes that supply either affirmation or disapproval. As a result, he is weirdly transparent. He wants people to love him, so he is constantly telling interviewers that he is widely loved. In Trump’s telling, every meeting was scheduled for 15 minutes but his guests stayed two hours because they liked him so much.

Which brings us to the reports that Trump betrayed an intelligence source and leaked secrets to his Russian visitors. From all we know so far, Trump didn’t do it because he is a Russian agent, or for any malevolent intent. He did it because he is sloppy, because he lacks all impulse control, and above all because he is a 7-year-old boy desperate for the approval of those he admires.

The Russian leak story reveals one other thing, the dangerousness of a hollow man.

Our institutions depend on people who have enough engraved character traits to fulfill their assigned duties. But there is perpetually less to Trump than it appears. When we analyze a president’s utterances we tend to assume that there is some substantive process behind the words, that it’s part of some strategic intent.

But Trump’s statements don’t necessarily come from anywhere, lead anywhere or have a permanent reality beyond his wish to be liked at any given instant.

We’ve got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar.

“We badly want to understand Trump, to grasp him,” David Roberts writes in Vox. “It might give us some sense of control, or at least an ability to predict what he will do next. But what if there’s nothing to understand? What if there is no there there?”

And out of that void comes a carelessness that quite possibly betrayed an intelligence source, and endangered a country.

Posted in Donald Trump, government, politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How Trump Sees the World

world

Posted in Donald Trump, foreign policy, political humor, politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reign of Idiots

By Chris Hedges/ Truthdig/ April 30, 2017

gumgum-verify

 
Posted in Donald Trump, government, philosophy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How Much Longer?

The Global Elite Are Headed For a Fall. And They Don’t Even Know It.

By Damon Linker/ TheWeek/ April 27, 2017

 

E9XX8Wedit

The global elite think they’re sitting pretty. How wrong they are.

Democrats keep telling themselves that Hillary Clinton “really” won the 2016 election (or would have, had it not been for interference by Vladimir Putin and James Comey). Republicans keep patting themselves on the back about how much power they now wield at all levels of government. And centrists throughout the West are breathing a sigh of relief about Emmanuel Macron’s likely victory over the National Front’s Marine Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential election on May 7.

You can almost hear the sentiments echoing down the corridors of (political and economic) power on both sides of the Atlantic: “There’s nothing to worry about. Everything’s fine. No need for serious soul searching or changes of direction. Sure, populism’s a nuisance. But we’re keeping it at bay. We just need to stay the course, fiddle around the edges a little bit, and certainly not give an inch to the racists and xenophobes who keep making trouble. We know how the world works, and we can handle the necessary fine tuning of the meritocracy. We got this.”

 

And why wouldn’t they think this way? They are themselves the greatest beneficiaries of the global meritocracy — and that very fact serves to validate its worth. They live in or near urban centers that are booming with jobs in tech, finance, media, and other fields that draw on the expertise they acquired in their educations at the greatest universities in the world. They work hard and are rewarded with high salaries, frequent travel, nice cars, and cutting-edge gadgets. It’s fun, anxious, thrilling — an intoxicating mix of brutal asceticism and ecstatic hedonism.

The problem is that growing numbers of people — here in America, in the U.K., in France, and beyond — don’t see it like this at all. Or rather, they only see it from the outside, a position from which it looks very different. What they see is a system that is fundamentally unjust, rigged, and shot through with corruption and self-dealing.

They see Marissa Meyer, the CEO of Yahoo, taking home a cool $186 million in stock (on top of many millions in additional salary and bonuses) for five years of “largely unsuccessful” work.

They see Henrique De Castro, who worked briefly for Meyer at Yahoo, pulling $109 million in compensation for a disastrous 15 months on the job.

They see Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly getting fired from Fox News for sexually harassing a parade of women over the years — and taking home tens of millions of dollars each in severance.

 

They see former Democratic President Barack Obama sharing a $65 million book advance with his wife, earning $400,000 for a single speech scheduled to be delivered in the fall at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald, and gallivanting around the globe with David Geffen, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey, and Bono.

In Washington, they see a president who promised to act as the people’s voice appointing a long list of millionaires and billionaires to top positions. They see the White House and Congress struggling to pass a health-care bill that will leave millions more without insurance coverage at a time when a majority of Americans and a plurality of Republicans favor a single-payer system that would cover all. They see a president proposing to drastically cut corporate and individual taxes (including the elimination of inheritance taxes, which will benefit only the richest of the rich) when polls show that the top frustration with the tax system is that corporations and the wealthy don’t pay their fair share. They see a unified push to cut government programs at a moment when polls show a growing share of the public prefers bigger government

To those on the center-left who are disgusted by the plutocratic antics of the Republican Party but dismiss the significance of Obama cashing in on his time in the White House by enriching himself and hobnobbing with the most famous people on the planet, I’d only note that “optics” (also known as “appearances”) matter in politics — perhaps more than anything else.

And this is how things appear at this historical moment: The world is run by an international elite that lives in a rarified world of seemingly boundless power and luxury. Though the members of this elite consider their own power and luxury to be completely legitimate, it is not. It is the product of a system that’s rigged to benefit them while everybody else languishes in declining small cities and provincial towns, eking out a dreary existence, toiling away their lives in menial service-sector jobs or scraping by on disability checks while seeking out a modicum of fleeting joy in the dumbstruck haze of a painkiller high.

Unless something fundamental changes, the gap separating these worlds will only increase, economically, culturally, and psychologically. Republicans show every sign of continuing to pursue policies that actively make the economic problems worse. Centrist Democrats, meanwhile, appear to be both unwilling to propose a sweeping critique of the outlook and policies that got us to this point in the first place and inclined to dismiss the populist anger building all around us as an expression of atavistic prejudice.

This cannot last. At this rate, make no mistake: The global elite will fall.

 elite
 
Posted in Economics, economy, government, inequality, politics | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

How to Handle North Korea

Letter to the Editor, L.A. Times, 4/20, Monterey Herald, 4/21

Another brilliant strategy by the Trump Administration: provoke and threaten North Korea. Two nuclear-armed nations with narcissistic, inexperienced, unstable leaders. What could possibly go wrong?

Arlen Grossman

NKorea

Posted in Donald Trump, foreign policy, government, military, North Korea, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Syria: Where is the Evidence?

Unjust Killing is Murder: The Cruise Missile Attack On Syria and the Just War Doctrine

By Doran Hunter/Christian Democracy Magazine/April 10, 2017

David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Star

David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Star

Barely 48 hours after the release of sarin gas in Idlib, Syria, the US military launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase, substantially damaging the base, and killing both military personnel and civilians. From his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump declared, citing no evidence, that there “can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.” [1]

Just hours after the poison gas incident, again with absolutely zero proof, mainstream media outlets were already condemning Bashar al-Assad for the attack, becoming willing instruments in the propaganda offensive for war that had so humiliatingly flagged in 2013 in the wake of the almost certainly bogus claims of chemical weapons use by Assad in Ghouta. [2] 

What kind of major investigation should we suppose was undertaken in the course of those few hours? It must have been a rigorous and thorough one, since a cruise missile attack would result, and did result, in the loss of human life? Right?

At this point in the course of US imperialism’s foul and blood-soaked track record of lies and mass murder in the region—have we really forgotten “weapons of mass destruction” in 2003 and the tragedy that followed?—it is depressing to see so much uncritical media support for the Trump Administration’s aggression.

To review the known facts: Assad had surrendered his chemical weapons stockpile in 2013, under international supervision, and in line with the terms brokered by Russia. With the aid of Russian and Shiite militias, he had driven ISIS and al-Qaeda from every major Syrian population center. By this point, the “rebel” jihadist forces held sway only in rural areas. Only a few days before the incident, representatives of European nations would meet to decide on their policy for the future of Syria. Rex Tillerson, former Exxon CEO, now secretary of state, had just said that it was up to the Syrians themselves to decide who their leaders would be, and that Assad’s rule would have to be accepted.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Assad to have ordered this attack, let alone evidence that he did so. He would not have nearly achieved total victory over the “rebels” only to suddenly decide to gas children and other civilians, which he would know would provide the kind of pretext for a major attack for which his enemies have been hoping. Seventy civilians died in Idlib. In return, an airbase was destroyed. Does that seem like a calculation that would have been made by Assad, who has managed to hang on to power throughout six years of the proxy war, with both the superpower US and Europe against him?

In his remarks at Mar-a-Largo, the “commander in chief” pretended to be moved by the sarin victims, saying, “No child of God should ever suffer such horror.” [3] This, while just over the border in Mosul, Iraq, US bombs have rained hell on women and children in the hundreds, not to mention the over 1 million killed since the onset of US aggression in 2003. Where is the thought for those children of God?

As usual, we the public debate such matters in terms framed for us by the military and foreign policy establishment—in other words, almost always on false premises.

“A Hitleresque tyrant has deliberately dropped chemical bombs on children and hospitals. If left unchecked, he will only commit worse atrocities. Think of the children!”

The fact is, the Syrian conflict, though complex, essentially boils down to a fight over control of energy resources and regional influence. As the Guardian reported in 2013:

“In 2009 . . . Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets—albeit crucially bypassing Russia. An Agence France-Presse report claimed Assad’s rationale was ‘to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.’

 

“Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012—just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo—and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines. 

“The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a ‘direct slap in the face’ to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that ‘whatever regime comes after’ Assad, it will be ‘completely’ in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will ‘not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports,’ according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.” [4] 

And so we had the entrance into the conflict of the Saudi-, Qatari-, and Turkish-funded terrorist jihadi proxies, with the US concerned to maintain its hegemony over the region for economic reasons, and funding its own militias and other dubious characters. Diplomatic cables revealing US plans to destabilize Syria can be read here [5], and CIA plans to instigate the now infamous demonstrations are documented here [6].

As is almost certainly the case, the chemical attack was not carried out by the government of Syria. The “rebels” and their allies have every reason to have done it, and Assad had none. The incident, in any case, is being used as a pretext to further the aims of US imperialism, not to relieve human suffering. There is no case to be made on the basis of Just War Doctrine. [7] [8]  Although I have said that it is unlikely in the extreme that Assad carried out the attack, and that is was likely carried out by forces opposed to him, no serious investigation has been done. So that means we cannot assign culpability, and, therefore, the first criterion for Just War Doctrine, “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain,” has not been satisfied. Strictly speaking, we do not know who the aggressor was. As I said, it is likely that forces opposed to Assad carried it out (and then any retaliation must be directed at them). Moreover, there is the second criterion: “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.” Can anyone seriously maintain that this was done in the 48 hours between incident and response?

This latest act of US military aggression is therefore a violation of the Fifth Commandment—an act of murder. And those in the Church closest to the situation, the Syrian Catholic Bishops, have indeed condemned the bombing in clear and decisive terms, pointing out as I did above that no investigation has been done, that Assad had no reason to carry out such an attack, and that Syrian Christians will pay the price. [9] 

If you live in a foreign country that is a target of US imperialism, and if US officials and their media lackeys begin making impassioned pleas about “human rights abuses” and “think of the children!” it is time to gather your loved ones and head for the hills, because you can be certain that horror and death are on the way.

 

 

 

Posted in foreign policy, government, military, politics, Syria, war | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Pandora’s Box of War

By Chris Hedges/Truthdig/April 7, 2017

gumgum-verify
Posted in foreign policy, government, military, Syria, war, War on Terror | Tagged , , , , , , , | 29 Comments

Quick Judgement

Something may be amiss immediately blaming Syrian government for Sarin gas attack

By Dave Lefcourt/OpEdNews/April 5, 2017

Syria

Here we go again. The horrific sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Idlib Province, Syria on Monday killing a reported 58 people including women and children was immediately blamed on the Syrian Arab Army of President Bashar al-Assad by “Western leaders including President Trump,” [1] before any independent investigation had begun and before conclusive evidence was established as to the perpetrators of this crime. But what else is new.

Doesn’t this sound similar to the sarin gas attack in August 2013 where the Assad government was immediately blamed by the US? Yet a subsequent UN Mission Report confirmed in December, 2013 “opposition” rebels used chemical weapons and not the government.

Prior to that time President Obama had issued a “red line” that if crossed would result in a US missile attack against the Syrian government. It was also conjectured after the attack al Qaeda wanted a greater US military presence in Syria so blaming the government for the attack would presumably force Obama’s hand and retaliate against the Syrian government.

Luckily Obama was rescued by Russian President Vladimir Putin who diplomatically arranged for his ally Assad to agree to give up his chemical weapons arsenal and no US bombing campaign ensued.

So when one thinks about the latest gas attack blaming the Syrian Arab Army follows the similar pattern used in 2013; the US and its complicit MSM jumping to the immediate conclusion it had to be carried out by the Syrian government.

I suggest reading “Something is Not Adding Up in Idlib Chemical Weapons Attack” [2] by Paul Antonopoulos, an Australian analyst who makes an alternative argument using photos of al Qaeda associated “White Helmets” on the scene handling the dead gassed victims with bare hands and without gas masks.

From local sources he reveals “250 people from Majdal and Khattab were kidnapped by al Qaeda terrorists last week and claimed many of those dead from the chemical weapons were those from Majdal and Khattab”. Antonopoulos “suggests that on the eve of upcoming peace negotiations, terrorist forces have again created a false flag scenario” resembling the 2013 Ghouta chemical weapons attack.

He includes a photo of pick-up trucks at the scene near the victims of the attack and people nearby without protective gear and not affected at all when sarin can begin attacking the body within seconds.

Antonopoulos concludes, “With Syrian Army and its allies in a comfortable position in Syria, making advances across the country…why would they resort to using chemical weapons in Nusra Front occupied Idlib? ” Interestingly, even the Times admitted the area around Khan Shaykhun is held by al Qaeda militants. He adds, “It defies any logic that on the eve of a Syrian peace conference in Brussels and a week before peace negotiations are to resume, that the Syrian government would blatantly use the non-existent stock of chemical weapons.”

“All evidence suggests this is another false chemical attack allegation made against the government as seen in the Ghouta 2103 attack”. 

Admittedly I’ve never heard of Paul Antonopoulos and so soon after such a horrific attack it’s impossible to make a substantive judgment on who committed the atrocity.

But when the US government and western MSM headed by the New York Times comes to the immediate conclusion the Syrian government is to blame, making assertions and assessments without any investigation having taken place it’s a tell tale sign something is amiss. 

A jumped on bandwagon of accusations, assertions, assessments without substantiated proof does not make for honest, unbiased conclusions.

What it does reveal is we’re living in a dangerous McCarthyesque time in the US. And that didn’t start with the coming of the “Donald”. He’s just part of the bandwagon. 

[1] Worst Chemical Attack in Years; U.S. Blames Assad”, by Anna Barnard and Michael R. Gordon, “The New York Times, April 4, 2017.

[2] “Something is Not Adding Up in Idlib Chemical Weapons Attack” by Paul Antonopoulos, Information Clearing House”, April 4, 2017

Submitters Bio:

Retired. The author of “DECEIT AND EXCESS IN AMERICA, HOW THE MONEYED INTERESTS HAVE STOLEN AMERICA AND HOW WE CAN GET IT BACK”, Authorhouse, 2009

Posted in foreign policy, government, politics, Syria, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

MEDIA: PROFITS OVER TRUTH

America’s TV Media Crisis Goes Far Beyond Covering Trump: We Simply Aren’t Hearing About the Most Pressing Issues of Our Time

If the media really wants to fight Trump, they can start by reporting on climate change and inequality.

By Thom Hartmann/Alternet/ March 22, 2017

America has a “lying press” problem.  And it’s not the “enemy of the people” situation our president has asserted.

Consider the biggest threats America faces right now.  

Abrupt climate change [3] is happening around the world as a result of our use of fossil fuels. France 24 reported [4] on February 18 that half the population of Somalia is facing famine because of an unprecedented, climate change-driven drought that’s extending across north and central Africa, while the United States is whipsawed between unprecedented weather extremes because there’s 6 percent more moisture [5] in the air than in 1950, feeding massive storms. The list goes on from the Arctic, which was up to 50 degrees warmer than it should be this winter, to the Antarctic, where sea ice is also reaching lows not seen since humans came out of the trees.  

Have you seen the story on American network news? Probably not.

While Canada has declared the internet to be a “fundamental right for all [6]” and is reinforcing its version of net neutrality while extending high-speed, low-cost (and often free) broadband internet service to all Canadians, the new head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has said right out loud that he wants to end net neutrality [7] in the U.S., increasing costs for Americans, potentially limiting access to websites that giant ISP corporations don’t like (like perhaps this one) or who don’t pay ISP’s extra for “fast access.”

Have you seen the story on American network news? Probably not.

Fracking is causing an explosion of earthquakes [8] in Oklahoma, Ohio and Pennsylvania (among others) and devastating water supplies around the nation, while fossil fuel giants hand so much money off to Republican politicians that they’re willing to deny that human-caused climate change is even a thing or that fracking is dangerous. The fossil fuel industry has even now largely seized control of the EPA [9].

News

Have you seen the story on American network news? Probably not.

An explosion of consolidation in corporate America started in 1982 when Reagan effectively stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The last real enforcement was by Nixon against AT&T, which resolved under Carter with the company breaking up into 7 “Baby Bells” to enhance competition, but those companies are now all re-consolidated.

Reagan’s deregulation lead to the mergers and acquisitions mania from the 1980s to today, highlighted in the movie Wall Street with Michael Douglas famously echoing Michael Milken’s sentiment that “Greed is good.” The latest industries to recently hyper-consolidate are Big Pharma and Big Health Insurance. But media consolidation is the most pernicious [10] when it comes to a “lying press.”

Have you seen the story on American network news? Probably not.

An American landscape that used to be filled with local, independently owned businesses has become so homogenized [11] by the handful of companies that control our retail, restaurant, and travel sectors that you could parachute from space to any random part of the country and have no idea where you are because everything is the same. It makes billions for the billionaires, but locks out anything resembling the local competition that used to be a hallmark of American business.

Have you seen the story on American network news? Probably not.

Our so-called “free trade” deals are giveaways to huge multinationals, who now can even force national laws to be struck down [12], and serve mostly to cement the profits of billionaires and transnationals (this goes waaaaay beyond the “offshoring jobs” Trump talking point). Because these trade deals put multinational corporate “courts” above the laws of our own nation, they should rightly be called treaties, which require two-thirds of the Senate to ratify; instead, since Nixon, they’ve been called “trade agreements” and repeatedly passed by tiny majorities with Republican support over Democratic opposition.

While pundits rant about crime in Chicago, nobody mentions the estimated 100,000 people who die every year [13] from workplace-related diseases, the 65,000 who die from mostly fossil fuel-related air pollution, or the 400,000 Americans killed every year by the tobacco industry. At the same time we hyperventilate about street crime and drugs, corporate criminals and banksters destroy working class families with much higher frequency than burglars or robbers but are almost never, ever jailed.  

Have you heard a single in-depth word about any of these issues on the network news?  Odds are your answer is “No,” and when you have, it’s the rare exception that proves the rule, and usually presented in a very narrow frame that doesn’t include corporate malfeasance.

Our radio and TV press is not keeping us informed about things that actually matter to our daily lives and economy, and instead focusing on things that drive up ratings (including, but not limited to, the Donald Trump Reality Show POTUS Version, which they cynically pounded us with throughout 2015 and 2016 because it was, as CBS’s Les Mooves famously said, not good for America but great for CBS).  

Why?

In a word: Profits. Profits over truth. Profits over “news.” Profits over the planet. Profits over human survival.

People call into my radio program and ask, “Why don’t I hear about net neutrality on the most liberal of the TV networks?” The easy answer: their parent company is so opposed to net neutrality that they’ve participated in lawsuits to end it. Why? To increase the profits of their Internet ISP arm.

People ask, “Why doesn’t the main “cable news” network cover all the opposition to the giant mergers that are happening?” The easy answer: their parent company is trying to merge with giant telco/ISP company, and is itself the product of multiple mergers.

People ask, “Why doesn’t the conservative TV network ever talk about wealth inequality or billionaire control of the GOP?” The easy answer: a billionaire largely owns their parent company.

People ask, “Why doesn’t public radio do investigative reporting on corporate malfeasance anymore, and instead regularly has on spokespeople for corporate-funded right-wing think tanks?” The easy answer: they’re now funded in substantial part by corporate money.

In 1980, thousands of individuals and local companies owned the majority of radio stations, TV stations and newspapers across America. The result was the outgrowth of competition: broad diversity of programming and opinion on our nation’s airwaves, and healthy debates about a wide variety of issues.

Because of a series of massive deregulations, from Reagan blowing up the Fairness Doctrine to Clinton signing the Telecommunications Act, all that media is now owned by a handful of mega-corporations and a few billionaires.  

Healthy and resilient ecosystems require diversity. The same is true of a healthy media system.

Between the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 and the Communications Act of 1934, our media, until Reagan defanged both in the 1980s, was broad and diverse in its ownership and programming. This is no longer the case, and the American people instinctively know it (even if they lack the details of why).  

Thus, when Donald Trump echoes the tyrants of history by calling out the Lügenpresse (“lying press” in German—the term Hitler used to ultimately shut down the independent German press in 1933) as “fake news,” people know at a gut level that there’s an element of truth to it.  

And if Trump’s new FCC head has his way, the internet (at least in America) will soon be no better.

The billionaire takeover of our media is nearly complete, leading to a deafening silence about the activities of billionaires gaming our economic, political/judicial, and media ecosystems.  We even have a billionaire president and cabinet, brought to us by over $2 billion of free corporate media in the primaries and general election.  

The remnants of American democracy are under daily assault from voter suppression and purges, billionaire-owned judges and politicians, billionaire-friendly tax and trade policies, and a billionaire-owned media.  Income and wealth inequality are at levels not seen since 1929, but you won’t hear a peep about it on the network news.

Billionaire assaults are both consolidating and taking down media companies [14] and journalists (Rachel Maddow’s detailed reporting on this is the shining exception to the rest of the press). And billionaires who game the stock market will profit as much through a crash as they do through bubbles like the one we’re in now. Only the “little people” with their 401Ks or pensions get really badly hurt. But don’t expect to learn that from the corporate media.

“Small government” is merely code for “less regulation of billionaires and the  companies they control”; as government power wanes, billionaire power increases.  Thus, the post-1981 multi-trillion-dollar transfer of wealth from working families to the top 1% continues apace with nary a notice on the evening TV.

If “small-d” democratic political movements want long-term success, they must put at the top of their to-do list a return to a vigorous Sherman Act (and its heirs), and a return to local control/ownership of media with a new “news programming in the public interest” mandate (eliminated by Reagan in 1987) for the media.  

Anything less is merely whistling past the graveyard of democracy.

 

Thom Hartmann [15] is an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is “The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America — and What We Can Do to Stop It. [16]

 
Posted in media, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

DEMOCRATS VS REPUBLICANS

The Democratic Party is far from perfect, but anyone who can’t see the difference between them and Republicans is simply not paying attention. It would be hard to find a more perfect example of those differences than last week’s votes in which both houses of Congress voted to allow Internet service providers–like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon–to use and sell user’s private information and browsing history, with or without customer permission. All votes in favor of gutting internet privacy were by Republicans. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of this outrageous gift to the ISPs.

-Arlen Grossman

Letters to the Editor, published in SF Chronicle (April 4) and Monterey Herald (April 5)
Posted in Democratic Party, government, politics, Republican Party, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments