Truthout Stories Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:15:25 -0500 en-gb Violence in Mexico, the US Connection and the New Mexican Revolution: An Interview with John Ackerman

December 6, 2014: A march is held for the 43 abducted students. (Photo: Somos El Medio)December 6, 2014: A march is held for the 43 abducted students. (Photo: Somos El Medio)

Academic John Ackerman explores the sources of growing dissatisfaction in Mexico and sheds light on how the US connection perpetuates Mexico's social inequalities, endemic violence and authoritarian government.

December 6, 2014: A march is held for the 43 abducted students. (Photo: Somos El Medio)December 6, 2014: A march is held for the 43 abducted students. (Photo: Somos El Medio)

Like everything we’ve published in 2014, this story was made possible by our readers! Will you join the community that supports Truthout by donating today?

The disappearance and likely massacre of 43 students from the rural teachers' school of Ayotzinapa in Mexico September 26 has provoked shock and outrage internationally.

Within Mexico, in addition to unprecedented levels of public anger, it has raised serious doubts about the sustainability of President Enrique Peña Nieto's mode of government, with its aggressively neoliberal economic program and levels of violence as high or higher than under his predecessor, Felipe Calderón, who initiated the drug war in 2006 with US collaboration.

Professor of law and political science at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, John Ackerman explores the sources of growing dissatisfaction in Mexico and sheds light on how the US connection perpetuates Mexico's social inequalities, endemic violence and authoritarian government.

Ackerman is also editor-in-chief of the Mexican Law Review and a columnist for Proceso magazine and La Jornada newspaper. A leading public intellectual in Mexico, he is a frequent contributor to the international media. For the academic year 2014-2015, he is a visiting professor at the Institute of Latin American Studies (University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle) and at Sciences Po (PSIA).

Jim Cohen : How long have you been living in Mexico, and what does your work consist of at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)?

John Ackerman: I've been based in Mexico since 1993. I've been a Mexican citizen since 2000, and you might say as well that I'm a Mexican nationalist. I work at the Institute for Legal Research of the UNAM and teach with the law and political science faculties. One of my classes is on constitutional theory, but it's actually about the Mexican revolution of 1910 and the origins of Mexico's world-historical 1917 constitution.

You're not just a Mexican citizen, but also a nationalist: Could you elaborate on that?

Nationalism is a much-abused term, but I'm using it in what I think is the best sense. In the US or European perspective, it is often associated with ethnic exclusionism, but Mexican nationalism is more of the civic sort - very open, democratic, plural, inclusive and forward-looking.

You emphasize in many of your writings and speeches the positive legacy of the Mexican revolution, and in particular, the 1917 Constitution, whose principles you see as still very pertinent to our times.

Yes. This is the perfect moment for the revival of the principles of the Mexican Revolution, and of the constitution that arose from it. It is a product of an earlier period, prior to the Cold War and even to the Russian Revolution, when social reformers had a much broader menu of options.

The Cold War closed down options on both sides of the divide. In contrast, the constitution that emerged from the revolution is very open and plural. Some of it was directly inspired by the radical rationalist ideals of Flores Magón, an anarcho-syndicalist, as well as Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa. In short, in Mexico there is a plural and even subversive understanding of what "liberalism" means. It provides a very useful way to rethink new directions for progressive politics today.

The US political and ideological establishment, and liberal democracy in general, have been left celebrating their "victory" of 1989 without being able to create new visions for the 21st century.

Over the past 20 years, it has become clear that the end of the Cold War has meant more of a defeat for (neo)liberalism than for progressive thought. Many people thought that progressive thought was defeated in 1989 because we no longer had the communist referent and the cleavage in politics that it represented; political discourse is dominated by liberal, or rather neoliberal "democracy." In my view, it's quite the opposite: Liberalism itself has become hollowed out over the past 20 years. It's not so easy to claim that "really existing democracy" is about liberty and freedom when the communist adversary has disappeared.

This "democracy" hasn't gone through any innovation. In a recent speech, Obama declared that his foreign policy is in complete continuity with that of Bush and that the United States must be "just as much of a leader tomorrow as in the 20thcentury" by continuing "to defend the values of freedom, democracy, competition."

This is pure nostalgia. The US political and ideological establishment, and liberal democracy in general, have been left celebrating their "victory" of 1989 without being able to create new visions for the 21st century. As for the left, it has the world open to it. It has more flexibility than in the past because the communist referent was very constraining; one was either for - or against - it.

Today there is complete freedom to explore new possibilities and that is beginning to happen, as we can see in a whole range of struggles, from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street to recent movements in Brazil and Turkey.

We are experimenting with new ways of understanding politics and power. There is Podemos in Spain, for instance. The left is ahead of the game, whereas liberal democrats - and I'm not sure how liberal and democratic they are any more - are just playing the same old record over and over again.

That is why what is happening in Mexico today is so powerful. [President Enrique] Peña Nieto, with his reforms, was supposedly the poster child of the international press and foreign investors for a supposedly triumphant liberal democratic project.

For the Financial Times he was the perfect president, "the answer to Chávez" and the "populism" of the South. They even said he was going to revive the "Washington consensus." But after less than two years in office, that project has come tumbling down and been exposed in all its hollowness. The people of Mexico and the world are demanding something else. In Mexico, these demands are made more powerful and pregnant by the revolutionary legacy.

The oil expropriation of 1938 was not about ideology or even so much about oil - it was about labor! It was carried out in response to blackmail by international oil companies, which refused to recognize collective bargaining and Mexican labor legislation.

People are wondering who is going to lead today's uprising in Mexico. How will it be channeled? Will a new political party arise? I'm not so concerned about that, precisely because of the legacy of the Mexican Revolution. When you listen to the people who are taking to the streets today and their leaders, in particular those in the state of Guerrero - they're democratic and humble leaders - they are looking to recover the revolutionary ideals and promises of equality, justice, rational and egalitarian development, sovereignty and separation of church and state. We don't really need a new ideology when so much of it is there already!

The 43 disappeared students of Ayotzinapa were training to be teachers in a rural teachers' school in Guerrero. That state has a particular history of social struggles in which these schools have played an important role. How exceptional, then, is the case of Guerrero?

There are a few dozen such schools in Oaxaca, Michoacán and other states. But Guerrero has been very special ever since the days of independence and the revolution, a particularly intense place of struggle, because it has a more sophisticated political consciousness than elsewhere. It's one of the poorest states in the country, but critical consciousness has very deep roots there. People claim their ties to indigenous traditions, but also to national, revolutionary and independence traditions.

Speaking of these traditions, could you say more about the legacy of President Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-40), of whom you're an admirer?

Today's "techno-saurs" - that is, technocrats who are actually dinosaurs - think of Lázaro Cárdenas as the representative of the "old guard," as if he were Stalin in person - statist, authoritarian, "populist." He's supposedly a figure of another era, which "modern" Mexico needs to escape . . . through liberal, democratic, market-based reforms. That is an enormous mistake.

Cárdenas is a very special figure. The closest equivalent in the US would be Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was a state-builder and could be even considered the "father" of the modern Mexican state. He gave material form to the promises of the revolution and Mexican independence. Without him, it would be impossible to imagine the exceptional stability of the Mexican regime from 1940 to the present, with elections with alternation of power every six years. Many other Latin American countries have had civil wars and coups. Mexico has been authoritarian, and, since the creation of the Party of the Institutional Revolution (PRI) in 1946, neoliberal, elitist and exclusionary, but entirely stable.

The oil expropriation of 1938 was not about ideology or even so much about oil – it was about labor! It was carried out in response to blackmail by international oil companies, which refused to recognize collective bargaining and Mexican labor legislation.

The Mexican Supreme Court threw out their case and [the companies] decided to suspend oil production if they weren't allowed to operate by their own rules. Cárdenas said no - either I accept an enclave in my country or I make my country whole in terms of the rule of law.

If he hadn't expropriated oil in 1938, Mexico would never have been able to defend its sovereignty as it did throughout the 20th century, and subordination to US interests would have advanced much more rapidly. Oil would have been privatized a long time ago; we would have US military bases all over the country today. There would be much more poverty, much less development.

With the birth of the PRI in the year he took office, the revolution was transformed from a project and a compass for political action into pure ideology and state myth-making.

Enrique Peña Nieto, upon entering office in 2012, proclaimed his "Pact for Mexico." One of his central objectives was to declare war on the legacy of the Mexican Revolution and Lázaro Cárdenas. In June 2014, about three months before the students' disappearance, I wrote an article for La Jornada saying that this attack on the Mexican revolution and the Cardenas legacy would have unexpected consequences and suggesting that Peña Nieto might not even be able to finish out his term of office. That is not an implausible outcome.

After Cárdenas left office in 1940, how was his legacy lost? How did the process of growing dependency on the US and US capital advance?

The first step was World War II. Already in the 1930s, Mexico cooperated in the US war economy through a combination of coercion and willingness. But the break from the revolutionary sovereign legacy of Mexico really began in 1946 with President Miguel Alemán (1946-52). The first civilian president after a series of generals, he was a young technocrat and an early neoliberal. With the birth of the PRI in the year he took office, the revolution was transformed from a project and a compass for political action into pure ideology and state myth-making. The Mexican political class, now fully allied with Washington, used the revolution's legacy to support its own legitimacy while undermining in practice all the revolution's principles.

Alemán was famous for purchasing his suits in Hollywood and his Rolls Royce in London. He was an actor of global financial capitalism. He was also perhaps Mexico's most corrupt president to date; the comparison with Peña Nieto is striking.

He was a union-buster who sent the military to break up a strike of the oil workers' union; he attacked the railroad workers' union and placed the corrupt Fidel Velázquez at the head of the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM), where he remained until his death in 1997. That is how pro-US neoliberal authoritarianism in revolutionary packaging was born.

In contrast, the fable we're told today is that up until the 1980s we had a supposedly nationalistic, anti-American political class, and that the change took place beginning in the late 1980s, with presidents de la Madrid, Salinas and Zedillo. No! These three presidents have followed in Alemán's footsteps.

In Mexico, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the US will always favor authoritarian stability over democracy fueled by popular movements and demands.

The PRI as such has always been pro-American and has always covered that over with revolutionary mythology. The economic growth in the years of the "Mexican miracle" (1950s and '60s) was very much linked to foreign capital. There was some import substitution industrialization, but never extreme protectionism. All the presidents had close ties with the US government. The US government was complicit in the 1968 student massacre.

What remained unattractive from the dominant US perspective were the PRI's "peak organizations" of unions of workers and peasants, inherited from the revolution. These were top-heavy, highly corrupt and clientelistic, but they did assure some sort of accountability of the politicians to workers and peasants. Progressively since 1946 these popular gains have been peeled away.

The official democratic transition was celebrated in 2000 with the first clean presidential elections, in which the PRI lost to the Party of National Action (PAN). But Calderón of the PAN won an extremely dubious victory in 2006, and there are also doubts about 2012, when the PRI returned to power using lots of material incentives to corrupt the vote.

The so-called "democratic transition" is little more than a separation between the political class and the people. The standard view of Mexico considers the PRI's peaceful acceptance of its loss in the 2000 presidential elections to be proof of the democratic nature of the new regime.

Regarding US policy in Mexico with regard to the drug war, the central objective is to make sure that the violence stays south of the border.

However, the celebration of elections and peaceful alternation of presidential power were already the norm in Mexico. I look at the 2000 election as just another changing of the guard. The new coalition led by the PAN on the basis of "neoliberal spoils" in the early 1990s had to present itself as "different" without empowering citizens in the slightest. The 2000 elections were no more "free and fair" nor less authoritarian than earlier ones, from 1940 on.

How do you see the progressive parties that have come along since then? First the PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution, founded in 1989) and, recently, Morena (Movement for National Regeneration), founded by Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his followers, who quit the PRD and condemned it for reproducing the opportunism it claimed to be opposing?

We'll see what happens with Morena, but institutional politics as such has run out of steam. One of its great weaknesses has been its inability to link together social struggles and political action, or to provide adequate connections between the local, national and international dimensions of resistance. The left needs to take stock of these weaknesses if it is to generate new spaces of convergence for a broad range of talented people and interesting proposals, while refusing the corrupt clientelism of the parties, the self-interested "solidarity" of the NGOs and the intolerant sectarian politics of the ultra-left.

How would you characterize the role of the US throughout the transition you've described?

The United States has been trying to make sure that Mexico's transition doesn't "get out of hand." It has always supported the political class and the institutions, while never actively opposing the corruption and the human rights abuses. In Mexico, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the US will always favor authoritarian stability over democracy fueled by popular movements and demands.

Calderón's war on the drug cartels upon taking office in 2006 caused the levels of violence to spike, which gave the US an opening to provide military and security "aid." How would you fit this recent chapter into the broader story of US military policy?

Calderón's legitimacy problem due to the circumstances of the 2006 election, which pushed him to militarize the drug war, is comparable to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq after the 2000 elections. Both covered over legitimacy problems by rolling out the military.

Regarding US policy in Mexico with regard to the drug war, the central objective is to make sure that the violence stays south of the border. There's much less interest in reducing the violence as such, or even in cutting the flow of drugs. It's absolutely logical from a US national security perspective: They don't want beheadings and disappeared students north of border; they want them south!

The real problem is more on the Mexican side. The Mexican government has no humanitarian concern about its own people. The Mexican state has assumed the US' priorities in the "drug war," under Peña Nieto, just as under Calderón. The US government would not allow a similar strategy in its own country, precisely because of all the violence it would engender.

The US offers technical, intelligence and direct military support which the Mexican government is happy to receive because it means money, intelligence information and increased power in the hands of those Mexicans who manage the helicopters, the weapons and the intelligence.

There is complicity between Mexican leaders in their impunity and the "national security" concerns of the United States, and that is what leads to this dead-end street.

It gives them enormous power to conduct surveillance and shoot people at will. Those involved want more political power, not less. That leads to complicity between the corrupt, authoritarian Mexican political class and the Pentagon. This has been creating disaster in the country. Neither Obama nor the US Senate have said much about human rights violations or corruption in Mexico - they're off the table - even though it's internationally recognized that Mexico is among the most corrupt countries with the worst human rights violations in the world.

Doesn't the US State Department's website carry information on human rights violations in Mexico?

Yes, there is an annual report on the situation of human rights that they have to do for any country that receives military support, and Mexico is in that report, but that's where it stays.

When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Congress tried to impose some conditionality on the reauthorizing of those funds, but that never got very far. There is never clear intervention in favor of human rights and against corruption in Mexico. The word on the street is that the former US ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual (2009-2011) was kicked out because he was too interested in investigating corruption.

In short, there is complicity between Mexican leaders in their impunity and the "national security" concerns of the United States, and that is what leads to this dead-end street in which nobody can move, because the United States is totally invested in the drug war and present on the ground. Recently the Wall Street Journal ran some exposés about how US Marshalls dress up as Mexican Marines for special missions such as the capture of drug lord "El Chapo" Guzmán in February 2014. In 2011, CIA agents were shot and wounded by Mexican federal police in Morelos. Drone flights over Mexican territory began under Obama in 2010.

In Mexico, the United States hasn't dared try a Colombia-type solution with actual military bases, but they do have so-called "fusion centers" throughout the country for intelligence-gathering.

In short then, the Mexicans offer the US what it wants: keeping the violence to the south of the border; the Americans offer the Mexicans what they want, which is power - including power over specific drug gangs, on behalf of other drug gangs.

In the economic domain, it's the same: The Mexican oligarchs are very interested in having good relations with US corporations because it gives them power and influence, and US corporations are also very interested in that relationship because they can insert themselves into the Mexican system and make big profits. Nobody is actually fighting for the Mexican people. The Mexican economic and political transition is comparable to that of Russia, with the same concentration of wealth and power among a handful of oligarchs, starting with Carlos Slim.

What NAFTA has clearly done is destabilize the countryside by making it increasingly difficult for small peasant producers to make a living, while increasing the power of agribusiness.

The transition, in short, has been mostly about the growing isolation of the political class and the concentration of oligarchic power, as both groups get closer and closer to the Pentagon and Wall Street. This has created a sclerotic, lifeless system. Today, with a mass movement building, the system is having a "heart attack." You can get over one heart attack, but the next one may be more deadly - which would be a good thing, because this system needs to die and the prospect of its death raises great hope.

What, in theory, would replace today's system in crisis?

The contemporary opposition movement in Mexico is not based on religious fundamentalism or on fascism, but on radical democratic social liberalism, which traces its source to the Mexican Revolution. That's what is coming to the surface now, and that's why everyone should support the new Mexican Revolution. It's about inclusion, democracy, sovereignty and healthy relations with the United States. Nobody in Mexico is talking about cutting off relations with the US and building walls - they want the walls to come down! They want to support their brothers and sisters in the US. Everything about these new grassroots social forces challenging the existing system of US-Mexico relations is positive - I see almost no risks.

Could you talk about NAFTA and its effects on Mexican society?

I'm not an economist by specialty, but what NAFTA has clearly done is destabilize the countryside by making it increasingly difficult for small peasant producers to make a living, while increasing the power of agribusiness. Its direct effect on Mexico's sluggish economic growth over the past two decades is a separate question that I'm not qualified to answer, but socially it has meant an enormous displacement of people from the countryside and increased migration to the US. Migration has decreased recently, but in the first decade of the 21st century, there were half a million people crossing every year. That in turn has fed narcotrafficking, because in these same regions, the youth need to find some option, and if the militarized border makes migration more difficult, how are you going to make a living?

Reinforcing the border with more walls and Border Patrol agents increases the income of the polleros who take the migrants across. It's gotten harder and more expensive to get across, which increases the role of human traffickers, some of whom are also narcotraffickers and violent assassins.

All of this illustrates why violence in Mexico is so much the result of US policy. Beyond the complicities between dominant economic and political actors on both sides, there is the money of US drug users coming into Mexico and funding the narcos; the laundering of money through the banking system, which the banks themselves encourage, as is well documented. Then you have the tens of thousands of guns crossing the border into Mexico each year, with the backing of the gun lobby. Obama tried a few years ago to institute increased reporting requirements for gun sellers, but it was total window dressing.

The mass deportation of undocumented immigrants from the US also feeds the fire, in two ways. First, as Obama himself said when announcing his recent executive order, the US will now only send back the criminals, which of course will further boost criminality. Second, reinforcing the border with more walls and Border Patrol agents increases the income of the polleros who take the migrants across. It's gotten harder and more expensive to across, which increases the role of human traffickers, some of whom are also narcotraffickers and violent assassins. There's a perfect (or imperfect!) storm brewing; it's hard to imagine that this is sustainable.

Does Mexico, as a partner to NAFTA, still belong to Latin America? What does the North American referent actually mean to Mexico?

Although it borders the US, Mexico - the political class included - has always thought of itself as part of Latin America, and even as a buffer against US imperialism in the region. But since Peña Nieto, the message has been, rather, "Let's not even call ourselves Latin Americans, we are North American!" A few days before his inauguration in December 2012, he wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post (11/23/2012) calling for greater integration and even for "North American energy independence." No Mexican politician, even the most neoliberal, had ever gone so far in speaking of Mexico as part of North America rather than Latin America. I'm against this. Mexico is and should remain a Latin American country.

And yet, if we're going to take North America seriously, let's take it seriously! How many Mexicans live in North America? About 120 million in Mexico and over 30 million in the US. "Non-Hispanic whites" in the US number less than 200 million - only slightly more than 60 percent - and they are very mixed in terms of ethnicity or national origin. In that sense Mexicans make up a much more unified population than whites.

Canada's population is small. If we're going to talk about a North American region, it should take seriously the interests and the democratic vision of Mexicans! There is an enormous potential for solidarity between Mexicans in the US and Mexicans in Mexico. That could really change North America for the better. If it's only the Mexican people battling against its own political class allied with the US, that's a lot of weight on the shoulders of the Mexican people, but if they have the support of Mexicans and others in the US, that could be the way out of the impasse.

Last December 3, protest actions were held in 43 US cities in solidarity with the 43 missing students. This involved not just Mexican-Americans and Latinos, of course. We are reliving the moment of solidarity with Latin America in the '70s and '80s, at the time of the Chilean coup and the Reagan administration's interventions in Central America, only now it involves a close neighbor. Such solidarity can really make a difference.

What would you reply to someone who says that it's not for US citizens to decide how Mexicans run their government and that criticism of the Mexican government simply reproduces imperialist relations?

After the coup d'état in Honduras in 2009, Obama declared that it was hypocritical to criticize the US both for intervening and for not intervening. It was his way of justifying the US's inaction against the coup. My response: The idea that the US can somehow "not intervene" in Latin America is a fantasy! The question is not whether they intervene or not but how they intervene. Militarily? In favor of authoritarian regimes? Or rather in favor of democratic social movements?

Many people have told me that Secretary of State John Kerry doesn't have a minute to think about Latin America because he's too worried about the Middle East. I find this very hard to believe. The US is always fully involved in Latin America; it's just a question of how that involvement is directed. Yes, the US should withdraw all military and security funding for the Mexican government - Colombia also. But instead, let's have a Marshall Plan! Let's support development, progress and democracy, instead of covert CIA missions.

Follow John Ackerman's writings at: and Twitter: @JohnMAckerman

News Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:07:18 -0500
Can Congress End the Cuba Embargo? Many Republicans Want the Embargo to Fall

Rand Paul at a book signing event in September of 2011. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)Many establishment-wing Republican presidential hopefuls (but not Rand Paul) slammed the president's move to restore ties with Cuba. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Will Truthout's mission continue in 2015 and beyond? That depends on you. Make a tax-deductible donation now to sustain our work!

A left-right coalition, supported by the president and public opinion, could successfully push Congress to end the Cuba embargo.

Can Republicans nostalgic for the Cold War block President Obama from taking executive actions to improve US diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba? Could a Republican-led Congress vote to end the US embargo? Some Republican leaders were quick to denounce President Obama's announcement that the United States was restoring ties with Cuba. But how many divisions do these Cold War dead-enders control?

On whether Republicans can follow through on threats to block the president, Associated Press is skeptical:

Opponents of President Barack Obama's sudden move to reestablish ties with Cuba has little chance of scuttling his effort in Congress.
[. . .]
But even if they were to pass sweeping legislation to stop what Obama wants to do, he could veto it, and they are not likely to have the votes to override a veto.
[. . .]
Republicans will face pressure from businesses and the farm industry - eyeing opportunities for commerce in Cuba - not to stand in the way of expanded ties.

The Chamber of Commerce spent heavily in the midterm elections, investing $35 million to elect business-minded, predominantly Republican lawmakers. Its president, Thomas J. Donohue, said Wednesday that Obama's actions "will go a long way in allowing opportunities for free enterprise to flourish."

The DNC noted that many establishment-wing Republican presidential hopefuls (but not Rand Paul!) slammed the president's move to restore ties. But, as AP noted:

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who also went to Cuba to accompany [Alan] Gross home, said Obama's move should not be seen as a concession. "My sense is that most of my colleagues feel that we're long past due" in moderating the US stance on Cuba.

House Speaker John Boehner joined the dead-ender chorus of denunciation. But will Boehner be able to control the Republican rank and file? A 2009 CBS/New York Times poll found a plurality of Republicans (60 percent of Americans, overall) thought all Americans should be allowed to travel to Cuba.

Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz said the President's move didn't go far enough:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), meanwhile, questioned why any restrictions would remain on travel to Cuba for Americans.

"I think there is an issue of freedom," Chaffetz, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a phone interview with The Washington Post.

"It's amazing to me, post-Cold War, that the United States of America will not allow me to travel to Cuba," he added. "I think we should allow all Americans to make those choices. You can travel to North Korea, you can travel to some pretty awful places. Americans should be able to make those decisions all by themselves."

Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis [IL-13] praised the President's move:

US Rep. Rodney Davis hailed an Obama administration move to normalize relations with Cuba, saying the shift has the potential to be good for the Cuban people and for American agriculture.

"What I hope this brings to the American people is the ability to trade with a country that is craving our products and craving assistance from our agricultural sector," the Taylorville Republican said Wednesday. "Illinois stands to gain from leaps and bounds with the ability to sell our crops. The terms of purchasing and selling products are changed in this decision by the president. In the past Cuba would have to pay in advance before the product got there. From what I'm reading there's been some modifications that allows for more normalized trade relations. That really helps out Illinois agriculture."

Recall that a left-right coalition led by Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Democratic Rep. John Conyers almost succeeded in passing a post-Snowden restriction on NSA blanket surveillance against the policy of the administration and the House Republican leadership. A similar left-right coalition supported by the president and public opinion could successfully push Congress to end the Cuba embargo. The Congressional Progressive Caucus - almost half the Democrats in the new House - is fully onboard:

"The president has laid out a promising path forward and now it is up to Congress to act. Congress must lift the trade embargo and normalize travel between our two nations, which are only 90 miles apart. The Congressional Progressive Caucus looks forward to working with President Obama and members of Congress who want to stabilize relations between the U.S. and Cuba."

You can urge your representatives to support President Obama's call for repeal of the embargo here.

Opinion Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:12:17 -0500
In El Salvador, 17 Women Imprisoned for Miscarriage Await Pardon

Seventeen women, ages 19 to 30 years old at their sentencing, remain in prison in El Salvador as international pressure rises to exonerate them. Most of them suffered miscarriages, premature births or stillbirths; all of them were poor and without access to prenatal care or obstetrical services.

Santa Ana Cathedral, El Salvador. (Photo: Jose Herrera; Edited: LW / TO)Santa Ana Cathedral, El Salvador. (Photo: Jose Herrera; Edited: LW / TO)

Show your support for independent news and help Truthout survive. Click here to fund more stories like this one!

Seventeen women, ages 19 to 30 years old at their sentencing, remain in prison in El Salvador as international pressure rises to exonerate them.

The women were all convicted on the charge of "aggravated homicide" of a newborn. At least one of them underwent a psychiatric evaluation and exhibited intellectual disabilities. Most of them suffered miscarriages, premature births or stillbirths; all of them were poor and without access to prenatal care or obstetrical services; and the majority of them have been sentenced to - and are serving - 30 years in prison.

According to Julia Evelyn Martínez, university professor of economics in El Salvador and social advocate, these women have been wrongly accused and convicted of the crime of murder.

"One needs to understand that all of these cases deal with women who have lived and continue to live in situations of extreme financial need, without social support networks or access to quality health services," Martinez said. "Most of them had obstetrical problems during their pregnancies and suffered miscarriages or went through childbirth without either health or medical care. They arrived at public hospitals unconscious, bleeding, in search of assistance, at which point, in flagrant violation of professional ethics, they were reported, tried and sentenced, first for abortion and then for aggravated homicide, forcing them out of hospital and into prison."

Martínez goes on to describe the legal maneuvering that led to these women's convictions and is keeping them in prison.

"… These women are not accused of abortion, but of aggravated homicide, and therefore are not eligible for pardon. But what they disingenuously forget to say is that all of these women were first accused of abortion, and that in the process of their trial, prosecutors and/or judges made the decision to change the charge to aggravated homicide, in case the prosecution could not present convincing evidence that the deaths of these newborns were intentionally caused by the women.

Abortion is completely banned in El Salvador, no matter what the circumstances. The Constitution was modified in 1999 to include the recognition of life at the moment of conception. According to the Feminist Collective for Local Development in El Salvador (Colectiva Feminista para el desarrollo local de El SalvadorColectiva Feminista para el desarrollo local de El Salvador):

Presently - thanks to the powerful lobby of the Catholic Church, prolife groups and the conservative political right - Salvadoran lawmakers have eliminated all exceptions that would allow a woman to resort to an abortion. Article 133 of the Penal Code in force strenuously condemns any type of abortion. Under the current law, a person who carries out an abortion with the consent of the carrier or a woman who induces an abortion may be condemned to prison with sentences from 2 to 12 years.

Under the law, there is no legal separation between miscarriage or spontaneous abortion and abortion that is induced. So all types of pregnancy interruptions that result in the death of the fetus are potentially considered as homicides. Again from the Collective:

"In addition to the illegality of abortion is the lack of a clear legal definition of what is an abortion and/or pregnancy interruption. Spontaneous abortions and premature deliveries of advanced pregnancies that result in the death of the fetus are considered to have been provoked by the woman and are, therefore, homicides."

In fact, there are many more women in prison for abortion than these 17. According to the Free the 17 Association (Plataforma Libertad para las 17), more than 125 women are imprisoned for that "crime," serving sentences ranging from 11- 40 years.

But for these 17 women, the particulars of their cases and the fact that they were so egregiously mishandled in court should make them eligible for pardon, even under the country's draconian antiabortion laws. The question remains whether the legal switch to accusations of murder can be overcome as well.

Libertad para las 17 and the Feminist Collective have spearheaded the campaign to release the women in El Salvador. In March, they presented a petition to the government requesting a pardon. They call their campaign, "A Flower for the 17" (Una flor por las 17).

Here is a biography of just one of the 17, provided by the Feministas organization in Spain:


From the outskirts of Morazan: When the incident occurred in 2001 she was 25 years old. She experienced learning difficulties at school and is illiterate. She had a convulsion when she was 16. According to a psychiatric evaluation that was performed, she exhibits some form of mental retardation.

She was accused without proof of being guilty of the death of the infant she was carrying. The autopsy clearly specified that the cause of the newborn's death was undetermined and that it could not be verified whether it had been alive at the moment Mirian gave birth or whether it had already been dead. Because of her lack of financial resources, Mirian could not pay a lawyer and had a public defender who failed to assert the inconsistencies in the evidence.

Condemned to 30 years in prison, she has served 13 years. (6)

There is a petition asking John Kerry to call upon the Government of El Salvador for the release of the 17.

News Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:11:47 -0500
The Senate Drone Report of 2019: Looking Back on Washington's War on Terror

It was December 6, 2019, three years into a sagging Clinton presidency and a bitterly divided Congress. That day, the 500-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s long fought-over, much-delayed, heavily redacted report on the secret CIA drone wars and other American air campaigns in the 18-year-long war on terror was finally released.  That day, committee chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) took to the Senate floor, amid the warnings of his Republican colleagues that its release might “inflame” America’s enemies leading to violence across the Greater Middle East, and said:

“Over the past couple of weeks, I have gone through a great deal of introspection about whether to delay the release of this report to a later time. We are clearly in a period of turmoil and instability in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, that's going to continue for the foreseeable future, whether this report is released or not. There may never be the 'right' time to release it. The instability we see today will not be resolved in months or years. But this report is too important to shelve indefinitely.  The simple fact is that the drone and air campaigns we have launched and pursued these last 18 years have proven to be a stain on our values and on our history.”

Though it was a Friday afternoon, normally a dead zone for media attention, the response was instant and stunning.  As had happened five years earlier with the committee’s similarly fought-over report on torture, it became a 24/7 media event.  The “revelations” from the report poured out to a stunned nation.  There were the CIA’s own figures on the hundreds of children in the backlands of Pakistan and Yemen killed by drone strikes against “terrorists” and “militants.”  There were the “double-tap strikes” in which drones returned after initial attacks to go after rescuers of those buried in rubble or to take out the funerals of those previously slain.  There were the CIA’s own statistics on the stunning numbers of unknown villagers killed for every significant and known figure targeted and finally taken out (1,147 dead in Pakistan for 41 men specifically targeted).  There were the unexpected internal Agency discussions of the imprecision of the robotic weapons always publicly hailed as “surgically precise” (and also of the weakness of much of the intelligence that led them to their targets).  There was the joking and commonplace use of dehumanizing language (“bug splat” for those killed) by the teams directing the drones.  There were the “signature strikes,” or the targeting of groups of young men of military age about whom nothing specifically was known, and of course there was the raging argument that ensued in the media over the “effectiveness” of it all (including various emails from CIA officials admitting that drone campaigns in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen had proven to be mechanisms not so much for destroying terrorists as for creating new ones).

There were the new tidbits of information on the workings of the president’s “kill list” and the convening of “terror Tuesday” briefings to target specific individuals around the world.  There were the insider discussions of ongoing decisions to target American citizens abroad for assassination by drone without due process of law and the revealing emails in which participants up to presidential advisers discussed how exactly to craft the exculpatory “legal” documents for those acts at the Department of Justice. 

Above all, to an unsuspecting nation, there was the shocking revelation that American air power had, in the course of those years, destroyed in whole or in part at least nine wedding parties, including brides, grooms, family members, and revelers, involving the deaths of hundreds of wedding goers in at least three countries of the Greater Middle East.  This revelation shocked the nation, resulting in headlines ranging from the Washington Post’s sober “Wedding Tally Revealed” to the New York Post’s “Bride and Boom!

But while all of that created headlines, the main debate was over the “effectiveness” of the White House’s and CIA’s drone campaigns.  As Senator Wyden insisted that day in his speech:

“If you read the many case studies in the executive summary of our report, it will be unmistakable not only how ineffective American air power has been over these years, but how, for every ‘bad guy’ taken out, the air strikes were, in the end, a mechanism for the mass creation of terrorists and a continuing, powerful recruitment tool for jihadist and al-Qaeda-linked organizations across the Greater Middle East and Africa.  If you doubt me, just count the jihadis in our world on September 10, 2001, and today in the areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia where our major drone campaigns have taken place, as well, of course, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Then tell me with a straight face that they ‘worked.’”

As with the 2014 torture report, so the responses of those deeply implicated in the drone assassination campaigns and the loosing of American air power more generally in the backlands of the planet put on display the full strength of the American national security state.  It was no surprise, of course, when CIA Director David Petraeus (on his second tour of duty at the Agency) held the usual Langley, Virginia, news conference -- an unknown event until then-Director John Brennan first held one in December 2014 to dispute the Senate torture report.  There, as the New York Times described it, Petraeus criticized the latest report for being “‘flawed,’ ‘partisan,’ and ‘frustrating,’ and pointed out numerous disagreements that he had with its damning conclusions about the CIA’s drone program.”

The real brunt of the attack, however, came from prominent former CIA officials, including former directors George Tenet (“You know, the image that’s been portrayed is we sat around the campfire and said, ‘Oh boy, now we go get to assassinate people.’  We don’t assassinate people.  Let me say that again to you, we don’t assassinate people. O.K.?”); Mike Hayden (“If the world had acted as American air power has done in these years, many people who shouldn’t have gotten married wouldn’t have gotten married and the world would be a saner place for marriage.”); and Brennan himself (“Whatever your views are on our drone program, our nation and in particular this agency did a lot of things right during a difficult time to keep this country strong and secure and you should be thanking them, not undermining them.”).  Hayden, Brennan, and national security, intelligence, and Pentagon officials also blanketed the news and the Sunday morning talk shows.  Former CIA Director of Public Affairs Bill Harlow, who had set up the website to defend the patriotic honor of the Agency at the time of the release of the Senate torture report, repeated the process five years later with the website

Former CIA Director Leon Panetta repeated his classic statement of 2009, insisting to a range of media interviewers that the drone campaign was not just “effective,” but still “the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.”  Former President Barack Obama did an interview with NBC News from his new presidential library, still under construction in Chicago, saying in part, “We assassinated some folks, but those who did so were American patriots working in a time of great stress and fear.  Assassination may have been necessary and understandable in the moment, but it is not who we are.”  And 78-year-old former Vice President Dick Cheney, who appeared on Fox News from his Wyoming ranch, insisted that the new Senate report, like the old one, was a “gob of unpatriotic hooey.”  President Hillary Clinton, interviewed by BuzzFeed, said of the report, "One of the things that sets us apart from other countries is that when we make mistakes, we admit them."  She did not, however, go on to admit that the still ongoing drone program or even the wedding air strikes were “mistakes.”

On December 11th, as everyone knows, the mass junior high school shootings in Wisconsin occurred and media attention quite understandably shifted there, 24/7.  On December 13th, Reuters reported that a drone attack in Pakistan’s tribal borderlands, which was “suspected” of killing seven “militants,” including possibly an al-Qaeda sub-commander -- local residents reported that two children and a 70-year-old elder had been among the dead -- was the thousandth drone strike in the CIA’s secret wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Running a Criminal Enterprise in Washington

It’s not 2019, of course.  We don’t know whether Hillary Clinton will be elected president or Ron Wyden reelected to the Senate, no less whether he’ll become the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a body once again controlled by Democrats, or whether there will ever be a torture-report-style investigation of the “secret” drone assassination campaigns the White House, the CIA, and the U.S. military have been running across the backlands of the planet. 

Still, count me among the surprised if, in 2019, some part or parts of the U.S. national security state and the White House aren’t still running drone campaigns that cross national borders with impunity, kill whomever those in Washington choose in “terror Tuesday” meetings or target in “signature strikes,” take out American citizens if it pleases the White House to do so, and generally continue to run what has proven to be a global war for (not on) terror.

When it comes to all of this “secret” but remarkably well-publicized behavior, as with the CIA’s torture program, the U.S. has been making up the future rules of the road for the rest of the world.  It has created a gold standard for assassination and torture by green-lighting “rectal rehydration” (a euphemism for anal rape) and other grim acts.  In the process, it has cooked up self-serving explanations and justifications for actions that would outrage official Washington and the public generally if any other country committed them.

This piece, of course, is not really about the future, but the past and what we should already know about it.  What’s most remarkable about the Senate torture report is that -- except for the odd, grim detail like “rectal rehydration” -- we should never have needed it.  Black sites, torture techniques, the abusing of innocents -- the essential information about the nightmarish Bermuda Triangle of injustice the Bush administration set up after 9/11 has been publicly available, in many instances for years.

Those “2019” revelations about drone assassination campaigns and other grim aspects of the loosing of American air power in the Greater Middle East have been on the public record for years, too.  In truth, we shouldn’t be in any doubt about much of what’s billed as “secret” in our American world.  And the lessons to be drawn from those secret acts should be obvious enough without spending another $40 million and studying yet more millions of classified documents for years.

Here are three conclusions that should now be obvious enough when it comes to Washington’s never-ending war on terror and the growth of the national security state.

1. Whatever grim actions are the focus of debate at the moment, take it for granted that they don’t “work” because nothing connected to the war on terror has worked: The coverage of the Senate torture report has been focused on arguments over whether those “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or EITs, “worked” in the years after 9/11 (as in 2019, the coverage would undoubtedly focus on whether drone assassination campaigns had worked).  The executive summary of the Senate report has already offered numerous cases where information gained through torture practices did not produce actionable intelligence or stop terror plots or save lives, though misinformation from them might have helped embolden the Bush administration in its invasion of Iraq.

Bush administration officials, former CIA directors, and the intelligence “community” in general have vociferously insisted on the opposite.  Six former top CIA officials, including three former directors, publicly claimed that those torture techniques “saved thousands of lives.”  The truth, however, is that we shouldn’t even be having a serious discussion of this issue.  We know the answer.  We knew it long before the redacted executive summary of the Senate report was released.  Torture didn’t work, because 13 years of the war on terror has offered a simple enough lesson: nothing worked.

You name it and it failed.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about invasions, occupations, interventions, small conflicts, raids, bombing runs, secret operations, offshore “black sites,” or god knows what else -- none of it came close to succeeding by even the most minimal standards set in Washington.  In this period, many grim things were done and most of them blew back, creating more enemies, new Islamic extremist movements, and even a jihadist mini-state in the heart of the Middle East that, fittingly enough, was essentially founded at Camp Bucca, an American military prison in Iraq.  Let me repeat that: if Washington did it any time in the last 13 years, whatever it was, it didn’t work. Period.

2. In national security and war terms, only one thing has “worked” in these years and that’s the national security state itself: Every blunder, every disaster, every extreme act that proved a horror in the world also perversely strengthened the national security state.  In other words, the crew that couldn’t shoot straight could do no wrong when it came to their own agencies and careers.

No matter how poorly or badly or stupidly or immorally or criminally agents, operatives, war fighters, private contractors, and high officials acted or what they ordered done, each disaster in this period was like a dose of further career enhancement, like manna from heaven, for a structure that ate taxpayer dollars for lunch and grew in unprecedented ways, despite a world that lacked all significant enemies.  In these years, the national security state entrenched itself and its methods in Washington for the long run. The Department of Homeland Security expanded; the 17 interlocked intelligence agencies that made up the U.S. intelligence community exploded; the Pentagon grew endlessly; the corporate “complexes” that surrounded and meshed with an increasingly privatized national security apparatus had a field day.  And the various officials who oversaw every botched operation and sally into the world, including the torture regime the Bush administration created, were almost to a man promoted, as well as honored in various ways and, in retirement, found themselves further honored and enriched.  The single lesson from all of this for any official was: whatever you do, however rash, extreme, or dumb beyond imagining, whatever you don’t accomplish, whomever you hurt, you are enriching the national security state -- and that’s a good thing.

3. Nothing Washington did could ever qualify as a “war crime” or even a straightforward crime because, in national security terms, our wartime capital has become a crime-free zoneAgain, this is an obvious fact of our era.  There can be no accountability (hence all the promotions) and especially no criminal accountability inside the national security state.  While the rest of us are still in legal America, its officials are in what I’ve long called “post-legal” America and in that state, neither torture (to the point of death), nor kidnapping and assassination, nor destroying evidence of criminal activity, perjury, or the setting up of an extralegal prison system are crimes.  The only possible crime in national security Washington is whistleblowing.  On this, too, the evidence is in and the results speak for themselves.  The post-9/11 moment has proven to be an eternal “get out of jail free card” for the officials of two administrations and the national security state. 

Unfortunately, the obvious points, the simple conclusions that might be drawn from the last 13 years go unnoticed in a Washington where nothing, it seems, can be learned.  As a result, for all the sound and fury of this torture moment, the national security state will only grow stronger, more organized, more aggressively ready to defend itself, while ridding itself of the last vestiges of democratic oversight and control.

There is only one winner in the war on terror and it’s the national security state itself.  So let’s be clear, despite its supporters who regularly hail the "patriotism" of such officials, and despite an increasingly grim world filled with bad guys, they are not the good guys and they are running what, by any normal standards, should be considered a criminal enterprise.

See you in 2019.

Opinion Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:26:36 -0500
Closing in on ALS? Link Between Lethal Disease and Algae Explored

2014.12.18.Algae.mainResidents of Toledo, Ohio, lost drinking water for days this summer when toxins from a Lake Erie algal bloom were found in the water supply. (Photo: Jeff Reutter / Ohio Sea Grant)For 28 years, Bill Gilmore lived in a New Hampshire beach town, where he surfed and kayaked. “I’ve been in water my whole life,” he said. “Before the ocean, it was lakes. I’ve been a water rat since I was four.”

Now Gilmore can no longer swim, fish or surf, let alone button a shirt or lift a fork to his mouth. Earlier this year, he was diagnosed with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

In New England, medical researchers are now uncovering clues that appear to link some cases of the lethal neurological disease to people’s proximity to lakes and coastal waters.

About five years ago, doctors at a New Hampshire hospital noticed a pattern in their ALS patients – many of them, like Gilmore, lived near water. Since then, researchers at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center have identified several ALS hot spots in lake and coastal communities in New England, and they suspect that toxic blooms of blue-green algae – which are becoming more common worldwide – may play a role.

Now scientists are investigating whether breathing a neurotoxin produced by the algae may raise the risk of the disease. They have a long way to go, however: While the toxin does seem to kill nerve cells, no research, even in animals, has confirmed the link to ALS. 

No Known Cause

As with all ALS patients, no one knows what caused Bill Gilmore’s disease. He was a big, strong guy – a carpenter by profession. One morning in 2011, his arms felt weak. “I couldn’t pick up my tools. I thought I had injured myself,” said Gilmore, 59, who lived half his life in Hampton and now lives in Rochester, N.H. 

2014.12.18.GilmoreNew Hampshire native Bill Gilmore, shown with his wife Paula, was diagnosed with ALS in June. (Photo: Bill Gilmore)Three years and many doctors’ appointments later, Gilmore received the news in June that the progressive weakening in his limbs was caused by ALS.

Neither Hampton nor Rochester is considered a hot spot for ALS. Gilmore is one of roughly 5,600 people in the United States diagnosed each year with the disease. The average patient lives two to five years from the time of diagnosis.

There is no cure, and for the majority of patients, no known cause. For 90 to 95 percent of people with ALS, there’s no known genetic mutation. Researchers assume that some unknown interaction between genes and the environment is responsible.

In recent years, some of this research has focused on blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria.

“There’s a growing awareness of the importance of gene/environment interactions with neurodegenerative diseases. There is more interest in examining environmental exposures, including exposures to cyanobacteria, as possible risk factors for sporadic ALS,” said Paul Alan Cox, director of the nonprofit Institute of Ethnomedicine in Wyoming, which focuses on treatments for ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Cyanobacteria – some of the oldest organisms on the planet – can occur wherever there is moisture. Blooms are fed largely by nutrients in agricultural and urban runoff.

Some cyanobacteria produce toxic compounds that can sicken people. In August, hundreds of thousands of people in Toledo, Ohio, were left without tap water for days when toxins from an algal bloom in Lake Erie were found in the water supply.

While the cyanobacteria toxin that prompted the Toledo water crisis can cause diarrhea, intestinal pain and liver problems, other toxins produced by the blue-green algae can harm the nervous systems of humans and wildlife.

Scientists have long suspected that a cyanobacteria toxin could play a role in some forms of ALS. After World War II, US military doctors in Guam found that many indigenous Chamorro suffered from a rapidly progressing neurological disease with symptoms similar to both ALS and dementia. Years later, scientists found the neurotoxin BMAA in the brains of Chamorro people who died from the disease. Cyanobacteria that grow on the roots and seeds of cycad trees produce the toxin.

Cox, a researcher in Guam in the 1990s, hypothesized that BMAA worked its way up the food chain from the cycad seeds to bats to the Chamorro who hunted them. But Cox and his colleagues also found BMAA in the brains of Canadian Alzheimer’s patients who had never dined on Guam’s fruit bats. In patients who had died from other causes, they found no traces of it. The source of the BMAA in the Canadians remains unknown.

Some researchers have suggested that fish and shellfish from waters contaminated with cyanobacteria blooms may be one way that people ingest BMAA. In southern France, researchers suspect ALS cases may be linked to consumption of mussels and oysters. Lobsters, collected off the Florida coast near blooms, also have been found with high levels of BMAA.

Scientists around the world are investigating how the neurotoxin gets into the body and whether it contributes to disease.

“We don’t really know what exposure routes are most important,” Cox said.

New England’s ALS Hot Spots

In New Hampshire, Dartmouth neurologist Elijah Stommel noticed that several ALS patients came from the small town of Enfield in the central part of the state. When he mapped their addresses, he saw that nine of them lived near Lake Mascoma.

Around the lake, the incidence of sporadic ALS – cases for which genetics are not a likely cause – is approximately 10 to 25 times the expected rate for a town of that size.

“We had no idea why there appeared to be a cluster around the lake,” Stommel said.

Based on the link between ALS and the neurotoxin in other parts of the world, Stommel and his colleagues hypothesize that the lake’s cyanobacteria blooms could be a factor.

Across northern New England, the researchers have continued to identify ALS hot spots – a large one in Vermont near Lake Champlain and a smattering of smaller ones among coastal communities in New Hampshire and Maine.

Earlier this year, the researchers reported that poorer lake water quality increased the odds of living in a hot spot. Most strikingly, they discovered that living within 18 miles of a lake with high levels of dissolved nitrogen – a pollutant from fertilizer and sewage that feeds algae and cyanobacteria blooms – raised the odds of belonging to an ALS hot spot by 167 percent.

The findings, they wrote, “support the hypothesis that sporadic ALS can be triggered by environmental lake quality and lake conditions that promote harmful algal blooms and increases in cyanobacteria.”

How people in New England communities could be ingesting the neurotoxin remains largely a mystery. While fish in the lakes do contain it, not everyone in the Dartmouth studies eats fish.

“We’ve sent questionnaires to patients and there’s really no common thread in terms of diet or activities,” Stommel said. “The one common thing that everybody does is breathe.”

In other words, it’s possible that a boat, jet ski or even the wind could stir up tiny particles of cyanobacteria in the air, where people then breathe it in.

Testing the Air for a Neurotoxin

Last August, at Lake Attitash, Jim Haney, a University of New Hampshire biologist, waded knee-deep into swirling green water. Cyanobacteria were blooming at the small lake in the northeastern corner of Massachusetts. Haney had rigged up three vacuum-like devices with pipes, plastic funnels and paper to suck up and filter air near the lake’s surface.

2014.12.18.Konkel.1Scientist Jim Haney and a graduate student prepare to collect air samples at Lake Attitash. (Photo: Lindsey Konkel)He took the filter papers back to his laboratory and measured the cyanobacteria cells, BMAA and other toxins stuck to them.

“We want to know what level lake residents may be exposed to through airborne particles,” said Haney, who is sampling the air at Massachusetts and New Hampshire lakes in collaboration with the Dartmouth team.

Stommel said,“it’s very compelling to look at the filter paper and see it just coated with cyanobacteria.”

At this point, Haney and graduate students are trying to understand under what conditions the toxins might be coming out of the lake and whether the airborne particles are an important route of exposure. Preliminary findings suggest that BMAA and other cyanobacteria cells are being aerolized. “There is potentially a large quantity of cyanobacteria that could be inhaled,” Haney said. He noted, however, that the measurements were taken about eight inches above the water's surface, making it likely that concentrations would be much lower farther away.

While the toxins are likely to be most abundant in the air around lakes, they exist all over the planet, even in deserts.

In 2009, BMAA was even detected in the sands of Qatar. Crusts containing cyanobacteria may lie dormant in the soil for most of the year, but get kicked up during spring rainstorms. Cox and colleagues hypothesized that breathing in toxins from dust might be a trigger for a doubling of ALS incidence in military personnel after Operation Desert Storm.

Near Haney’s workstation at Lake Attitash, a child splashed in the shallow water off a dock. Haney scooped up a cupful of water. He peered at the tiny green particles in the cup that reflect the sunlight, making the mixture resemble a murky pea soup.

“We’ve developed this view of nature as idyllic, which is wonderful, but not everything in nature is benign,” he said. “Rattlesnakes are natural and you wouldn’t get too close to one of those.”

"Proximity Does Not Equal Causality"

The hypothesis that exposure to BMAA may trigger the disease in some people remains controversial.

Researchers have evidence that people living close to lakes with blooms may be at increased risk for ALS. They’ve even found BMAA in the diseased brain tissue of people who have died of neurodegenerative diseases. Nevertheless, “proximity does not equal causality,” said Deborah Mash, a neuroscientist at the University of Miami in Florida.

The big, unanswered question is whether the toxin can actually cause the disease. So far, there’s little evidence to show how it could induce the type of brain changes seen in people with ALS.

Tests of human cells have found that BMAA kills the motor neurons – nerve cells that control muscles – implicated in ALS. Primates fed high levels of BMAA in the 1980s showed signs of neurological and muscular weakness. But the toxin did not kill their motor neurons.

“What is lacking at this point is a clear animal model that demonstrates that BMAA exposure results in ALS-like neuropathy,” Cox said.

So what is a possible mechanism for how the toxin may lead to the disease? The body may mistake BMAA for the amino acid L-serine, a naturally occurring component of proteins. When the toxin is mistakenly inserted into proteins, they become “misfolded,” meaning they no longer function properly and can damage cells.

Cox and colleagues soon will test two drugs in FDA-approved clinical trials. They’re about to enter second-phase testing with L-serine. The idea, explained Sandra Banack, a researcher at the Institute for Ethnomedicine, is that large doses of L-serine may be able to “outcompete” low levels of BMAA in the body, preventing it from becoming incorporated into proteins.

For ALS patients like Gilmore, the research can’t come soon enough. “If they can figure out a cause, then hopefully they can find a cure,” Gilmore said.

News Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:28 -0500
SCOTUS Rules Workers Don't Need to Be Paid for All Their Time Working

Stories of the horrid conditions for workers in Amazon warehouses have been trickling out for years: The temperatures at the warehouses vary wildly, with some workers having to work in sub-zero conditions, others passing out from days where the temperature soared above 100 degrees, workers crying from not being able to keep up the brutal pace demanded, and then being threatened with termination for crying. And we can now add another indignity to the list, coming yesterday at the hands of the US Supreme Court, which ruled in a 9-0 decision that it is legal for Amazon warehouse workers not to be paid for a portion of their workday.

At the end of long, taxing shifts at warehouses, Amazon requires workers to go through security screenings to ensure that no one has stolen anything from the warehouse. Because Amazon does not hire enough security guards or stagger the quitting times of the workers, these screenings add an additional 25 minutes to each employee’s shift. These workers sued, arguing that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the staffing company that hired them to work in Amazon warehouses was required to pay them for the time spent in these security checks.

Writing for a unanimous court in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed. (Though the workers work at an Amazon warehouse, they are hired through the intermediary staffing company, Integrity Staffing Solutions.)

At issue was a provision that Congress placed in the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which amended the FLSA by excluding “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities.”  The courts have included in the definition of “principal activities” anything that is “integral and indispensable” to the principal activities. In other words, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which found in favor of the workers) stated, the test is whether the activity is necessary for the work being performed and done for the benefit of the employer.

Justice Thomas disagreed, turning to at least two dictionaries for clarity. Using the Oxford English Dictionary, Justice Thomas found that “integral” means “forming an intrinsic portion or element, as distinguished from an adjunct or appendage.” Using Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd Ed.), Justice Thomas found that “indispensable” means “a duty that cannot be dispensed with, remitted, set aside, disregarded or neglected.” So, he concluded, an activity is a “principal activity” only when it includes one that “is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.”

Using this tidy definition, Justice Thomas explains that the workers are not eligible for pay for the time they spend in the security screenings. The screenings are not the principal activity of Amazon because they were not hired to go through screenings, and they are not integral and indispensable because Amazon could have easily eliminated the screenings. The Court’s argument, then, is that because it is unnecessary for Amazon to execute long security screenings to conduct its business, it need not pay these workers for the required time they spend in these screenings.

By its own logic, the Supreme Court’s decision fails. The Court discussed other cases where workers’ preliminary time was compensable and tried to distinguish them. In one case, the Court held that employers had to pay meatpackers who had to sharpen their knives, “because dull knives would slow down production on the assembly line, affect the appearance of the meat as well as the quality of the hides, cause waste and lead to accidents.”

Amazon’s warehouses work off of extreme efficiency and knowledge of where every one of millions of items are at any given time. For Amazon, the possibility of worker theft would be even more damaging to its business than most retailers because Amazon uses a system of “chaotic storage.” Under this system, items are not shelved in categories, but rather in a seemingly random manner based on empty shelve space.

If an item cannot be found using a scanner (as a result of a theft, for example), there is no simple workaround, and Amazon’s famed efficiency would suffer. Amazon is thus concerned about theft not only because of the monetary loss of the stolen product, but also because theft slows down their warehouse efficiency—a cornerstone of their business model. So if theft is as big of a concern as the retailer has alleged (and a big enough concern to hire security guards to screen workers at the end of every shift), it would seriously impair Amazon’s efficiency at least as much as dull knives would slow down meatpacking productions.

Perhaps the Supreme Court’s decision is unsurprising. In opposition to these Amazon warehouse workers, who may occupy some of the worst jobs in America, was an alliance of some of the nation’s largest corporations and trade groups, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the United States Government.  

This alliance of business and government has now opened up the door for increased worker abuses and wage theft.  There is nothing stopping Amazon and other retailers from trying to save more money by laying off security staff that conduct screenings and make the workers wait longer. Now, after a long day of backbreaking labor, these workers may have to wait in hour-long lines for a security screening—a screening that everyone from Justice Clarence Thomas on down has agreed is inessential.

News Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:44:33 -0500
The Perils of Criminal Justice "Reform" and the Promise of Abolition

2014.12.18.Prison.main"We must question the entire enterprise known as 'criminal justice,' " says Nancy A. Heitzeg. (Image via Shutterstock)To read more stories like this, visit Smoke and Mirrors: Inside the New 'Bipartisan Prison Reform' Agenda.

In an interview with Democracy Now! in early 2014, Angela Davis reminded us again that there is power in struggle, there is opportunity in the moment, but warned us too of the potential pitfalls of “criminal justice reform.” Given all that has transpired this year, her words are well worth revisiting now as 2014 grinds to a close.

Well, yes. I think that this is a pivotal moment. There are openings. And I think it’s very important to point out that people have been struggling over these issues for years and for decades. This is also a problematic moment. And those of us who identify as prison abolitionists, as opposed to prison reformers, make the point that oftentimes reforms create situations where mass incarceration becomes even more entrenched; and so, therefore, we have to think about what in the long run will produce decarceration, fewer people behind bars, and hopefully, eventually, in the future, the possibility of imagining a landscape without prisons, where other means are used to address issues of harm, where social problems, such as illiteracy and poverty, do not lead vast numbers of people along a trajectory that leads to prison.

Prescient words. 2014 was a year of much Smoke and Mirrors. It was a year filled with Right on Crime and Justice Reinvestment Leadership Summits, Koch brothers funded panels where right-wing criminal justice “reform” was touted as a bipartisan “uniting of left and right,” and a flurry of proposed federal legislation (right-wing in origin but billed as bipartisan) that would purportedly tackle mandatory minimums for drug crimes, decriminalization  of marijuana, federal prison recidivism, and the militarization of the police.  With “criminal justice reform” now on the national radar, careful examination of the details of these proposals becomes more important than ever.  As James Kilgore observes in Prop 47, Immigration Reform and More: The Contradictory Road of “Reforming” Mass Incarceration:

Mass incarceration has landed on the political agenda at both the national and local levels. But sometimes separating real change from rhetoric and contradictory processes, depicted as “much-needed reforms,” poses major challenges. Moreover, at times, liberal observers and certain nonprofits may have an emotional or financial stake in presenting a picture far rosier – or more dismal – than reality.

The complexities of … policy changes remind us that to advance the struggle against mass incarceration further, the growth of a social movement capable of unpacking those complexities and mobilizing people into action remains the key to transformation of the criminal justice system.

Unpacking these complexities requires a look behind the veneer of buzzwords – sentencing reform! decriminalization! evidence-based! cost effective! community safety! – into the devilish details of proposed legislation. It requires too, the demand that the structural racism, classism and hetero-patriarchy at the heart of the mass incarceration machine be centered in all proposals for reform, hitherto ignored in the reformist agenda. Ultimately, it requires an interrogation of the “logic” of reform itself, and an eternal vigilance with regard to the question of whether the proposed reforms actually decrease those under correctional supervision, or instead, widen the net in both expected and unanticipated ways.

Consider the recent calls for “police reform” that have emerged in the wake of Ferguson. The killing of Mike Brown sparked renewed demands for police body camera in cities across the nation, including in Ferguson. In the wake of the non-indictment of Darren Wilson, President Obama proposed a program that would review how local police departments utilize military equipment, create a new commission to study police/community relations, and most immediately, seek $263 million in funding for fifty thousand police body cameras.

The use of body cameras is no panacea. Law enforcement agencies have no uniform policies for the use of body cameras or for collection, storage, and integrity of the recorded data. The few studies conducted on their use have produced mixed results, although it should be noted that the most glowing studies are industry funded by TASER International, the major producer of body cameras. TASER stands to make millions of dollars here, for another technology that is sold to us as protecting the public, but marketed to police as a tool for citizen surveillance. (Anyone who recalls the initial pitch for the arming of police with TASERS will recognize this ruse. It was argued that police would kill fewer citizens by relying on this “less than lethal” technology.  Instead, TASERS have been turned into torture devices and lethal weapons unto themselves resulting, on average, in at least one death per week. As for  a reduction in police killings by other means? We know all too well how that has worked out.)

Beyond this, the non-indictment of Daniel Pantaleo for the videotaped killing of Eric Garner via a choke-hold that had been banned for more than 20 years, ripped away again hope that the existence of body cam footage would hold police accountable. (In fact, the only indictment in the Garner case was that of Ramsey Orta, the man who videotaped the killing). As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor writes in No More Eric Garners:

The announcement from the White House barely had time to make a ripple before the non-indictment of Garner’s killer reduced the plan to a pile of junk. In one stroke, the idea that body cameras would make a decisive difference in whether a police officer would be held responsible for the death of an innocent and unarmed person collapsed — and with it, the centerpiece of Obama’s reforms.

The focus on body cameras assumes that the reason violent and brutal police aren’t punished is because of the absence of visual evidence or proof. But this has nothing to do with it, as the Garner case makes clear. Instead, violence in American policing goes unpunished because the criminalization of black people has legitimized brutality, humiliation, incarceration, and even murder as reasonable practices.

There it is. The proposed police reforms will actually enhance police power by providing them with more economic and technological resources  that can easily be turned against the public, all while failing to address the foundational issue of police as the avant-garde of white supremacy. (For future reference, please see Mariame Kaba’s list at Prison Culture: Police “Reforms” You Should Always Oppose)

Consider too recent movement towards “decriminalization,” most famously illustrated by California Proposition 47 but also in evidence elsewhere. Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act of 2014 reclassifies several drug and property crimes as misdemeanors and promises to reduce the state prison population. Another one of those right-rooted “bipartisan” efforts, Prop 47 was highly touted before passage with serious questions emerging only later. One major set of concerns is related to the funding that is supposed to support efforts to curb truancy and offer substance abuse and mental health treatment. Dispersal of the majority of funds, however, is the jurisdiction of the  Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), and it remains uncertain as to whether the funds might instead be allocated for police in schools, surveillance cameras, or expanded jails for privatized mental health “treatment.”

In addition, there are doubts as to the potential overall impact on the state’s incarceration rates given the shell game of Governor Brown’s realignment plan which has shifted inmates from state prisons to county jails and into private prisons. Even in lieu of Prop 47’s new measures, it is highly possible that misdeamants may still end up in jail. Decriminalization is not legalization. As illustrated in Community Corrections: Profiteering, Corruption and Widening the Net, the burden of fines and fees and for-profit companies still leaves the possibility of more extensive correctional control including probation and jail. In Opinion: Prop 47 empties prisons but opens a can of worms, Alexandra Natapoff echoes these concerns:

To understand the irony of a reform that seeks to make the system more fair but may actually make it less so, remember that decriminalization does not make conduct legal. It just changes the punishment — typically by eliminating incarceration… It turns out that people are still being punished for decriminalized offenses, often heavily, in ways that slip beneath the public radar. And because such offenses do not trigger the right to counsel, thousands of individuals are getting convicted — along with fines they might not be able to pay — without legal assistance or full information.

People are often surprised to learn that they can still be arrested for a decriminalized offense. Although such offenses are often lauded as “non-arrestable,” the label is misleading. The U.S. Supreme Court says that police can constitutionally arrest for non-arrestable or fine-only offenses, even when state law explicitly tells them not to. In many jurisdictions, police can choose between issuing a summons (a ticket) or making an arrest. To be sure, decriminalization often reduces arrest rates (it has in California), but it doesn’t have to (it hasn’t in Nebraska or in Chicago’s African American neighborhoods).

In fact, there is evidence that decriminalization does tend to magnify the already significant race and class gaps in arrest and incarceration. Blacks remain much more likely than whites to be arrested for  “low-level” offenses, and the poor remain most heavily burdened by fines. Ultimately Prop 47 and other reforms that are sold as measures to decrease incarceration, may provide new pathways to prison and the profiteering deeply connected to it. And, solidify too, the race/class/gender gulfs that characterize – and always have – the reality of policing and punishment.

As “criminal justice reform” continues to capture public attention, we must never stop asking the hard questions. And ask early and often, because once these measures are enacted, it may be too late.

It is easy to be suspicious of the explicit right-wing agendas that are thinly veiled appeals to private profiteering, a deregulated corporate free-for-all, a rejection of federal civil rights protections via an extreme states’ rights agenda, and an enhanced police/surveillance state. It is more difficult to uncover the reality of exactly what is included in so called “bipartisan” reform. What is being sold is often Right on Crime boiler-plate cosigned by a handful of neoliberal Democrats and large advocacy organizations/foundations. And claims of decarceration or decriminalization in places like Mississippi or California are either outright misrepresentations or are heavily contingent upon funding decisions over which voters have ceded control.

But as we traverse what Kilgore aptly calls the Contradictory Road of “Reforming” Mass Incarceration, let’s question, too, the legitimacy of  well-meaning classically liberal models of  “corrections” and “reform.”  These models can do their own sort of damage. Early this year  right about the time that Angela Davis issued her words of warning – I was reminded of this again at a panel hosted by the Minneapolis League of Women Voters, Interrupting the Prison Pipeline: Partnerships, Prevention, Advocacy, Intervention. The panel included a host of well-connected Minneapolis political, nonprofit and faith-based “leaders.” And despite the claims of “interrupting” in the title, the primary focus was in providing services to those already incarcerated or to ex-offenders in the form of increased employment opportunities via Ban the Box legislation, expanded voting rights for probationers, and more Second Chances.

And of course we are for that. But where was discussion about prevention, alternatives to the criminal legal system, dismantling the school to prison pipeline, and the impetus for the first chances?

Here’s the truth: Minnesota, a couple of anomalies not withstanding, is a Blue state. Minneapolis an even bluer city. The state has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the nation (with fewer people in prison in the entire state than the two largest maximum security prisons in the U.S.. combined), and a Department of Corrections that advertizes its’ “bold set of reforms that created one of the best correctional systems in the nation.” Still, the racial disparities are staggering, with Blacks and American Indians dramatically over-represented, and more than 100,000 on probation/community supervision, a rate, that while declining, is near the top of the nation.

So Minnesota runs a kinder gentler correctional industrial complex, where mostly “nice” white liberals  control vast percentages of select populations (read: Black, Latino, Hmong, East African and American Indian) through racial profiling, community supervision/probation, and by offering an array of “re-entry’ services to those released from our prisons. The entire endeavor is funded and blessed by a complex web that includes Hennepin County government services, the local nonprofit industrial complex, including an array of powerful statewide foundations, “socially responsible” corporations, interfaith coalitions, and elite research think tanks of the University of Minnesota.

It is an obvious improvement over mass incarceration or raw “Right on Crime” profiteering, but it is still a nearly impenetrable economic web that creates and sustains a huge employment sector. These interests insure that the system is always needed, and no issue is ever “solved”, that any grassroots groups that wants funding must jettison the more radical aspects of their agenda, and that innovative community-centered models, such as restorative justice, are immediately co-opted and institutionalized.

Ultimately, we must question this too, and in fact, question the entire enterprise known as “criminal justice.” If the “best” practices still produce an excessive and unnecessary vortex of raced, classed, gendered social control, then alternatives to this must be envisioned as well. We must ask again, with Angela Davis:

So, the question is: How does one address the needs of prisoners by instituting reforms that are not going to create a stronger prison system? Now there are something like two-and-a-half million people behind bars, if one counts all of the various aspects of what we call the prison-industrial complex, including military prisons, jails in Indian country, state and federal prisons, county jails, immigrant detention facilities—which constitute the fastest-growing sector of the prison-industrial complex. Yeah, so how—the question is: How do we respond to the needs of those who are inside, and at the same time begin a process of decarceration that will allow us to end this reliance on imprisonment as a default method of addressing—not addressing, really—major social problems?

And the answer – Abolition.


(This post is an updated and revised version of a post that originally appeared in the Criminal Injustice Series at Critical Mass Progress)

News Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:41:01 -0500
Little Progress in Lima Climate Talks

2014.12.18.COP20.mainLeaders at the Twentieth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Climate Change (COP20) in Lima, Peru, November 28, 2014. (Photo: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores / Flickr)

Truthout can only survive through reader support - click here to make a tax-deductible donation and help publish journalism with real integrity and independence!

With yet another United Nations-hosted climate change conference making very little real progress, a near miracle will be required if countries are to reach a meaningful and binding global agreement on carbon emissions in Paris next December.

The "Lima Call for Climate Action" document, agreed to on Sunday by 194 countries, is not a new "deal" for the climate. It is a 12-month work plan leading to COP (Conference of the Parties) 21 a year from now.

The major change - a victory for rich countries - expects countries with rising economies, such as China and India, to take action on climate change in much the same way rich countries will contribute.

A Gallup poll earlier this year showed that only 24 percent of Americans are worried a great deal about climate change. Twenty-five percent were worried a fair amount. And 51 percent were worried only a little or not at all.

In another setback, developing countries gave up on a 20-year disagreement that had caused considerable animosity between South and North. Rich countries will no longer be expected to carry the burden of cutting carbon emissions in the South with contributions of $10 billion a year to underdeveloped countries.

One of the very few moves forward was a promise that countries already seriously threatened by climate change - such as small islands being swallowed up by rising seas - will receive special compensation for their losses.

Following the meetings, which had to be extended by two days to reach any sort of an agreement, the European Union said "we are on track to agree to a global deal" at the Paris summit. Even so, officials admitted that decisions put off concerning a great many issues will lead to difficult discussions next year.

Many NGOs are angry over what they see as a lack of progress. A frustrated Sam Smith of the World Wildlife Fund said that "the text went from weak to weaker to weakest, and it's very weak indeed."

Rising Temperatures Still a Threat

NGOs warned the plan was not nearly strong enough to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels. Already more than 7 million people, mostly in developing countries, are dying prematurely each year from air pollution, closely coupled to climate change.

If the world is to have a meaningful climate change agreement 12 months from now, countries will need to overcome some enormous challenges.

It is hard to see how developing countries will be satisfied with what is likely to happen in Paris. The concessions they made in Peru means they face a larger share of responsibility for fighting climate change.

The South had been hoping to receive $10 billion a year from the North for 10 years for a total of $100 billion, but the commitment was removed from the table in Peru.

The new Peru document says only that wealthy nations will help developing countries fight climate change by investing in energy technology or offering climate aid.

Twenty or 30 years ago, the United States and European countries likely would have been willing to provide several billions a year to poor countries, but now practically every so-called rich country is broke. The United States has committed the largest amount, but only $3 billion.

Pressure on South Major Emitters

Northern countries reiterated in Peru they expect the South's major emitters to begin cutting back on carbon emissions. But this is unlikely to happen any time soon. China and India, the two biggest polluters in the South, say they will need to burn millions of tons of coal in the coming years so they can develop their economies.

The public interest group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) says that powerful multinational corporations played a big role in making sure that the conference did not meet the expectations of many people present. They say that companies and their lobby organizations convinced Western governments that if stronger emission controls were introduced, many thousands of jobs would be lost.

To the shock of many participants, Shell Oil was permitted to speak at the main session about its preferred way of fighting carbon emissions - carbon capture and storage (CCS), a still unproven technology. Another oil giant, Chevron, was permitted to sponsor side events inside the negotiations.

No wonder the energy giants want to block emission regulations. A well-researched study released in September 2013 found that just 50 corporations were responsible for 73 percent of the greenhouse gas emitted by the world's 500 largest companies. Of the carbon-polluting corporations, the most egregious offenders were within the energy sector, and, as a whole, these companies were doing little to change their ways.

NGOs Kept on the Sidelines

Eighty-two NGOs and one international NGO were accredited as observers at the conference. The various drafts of the agreement were negotiated in secret, and any party making a statement was kept to three minutes.

NGOs had so little status in Lima that they had to get approval from the UN for the slogans placed on their protest banners. Neither countries nor corporations were allowed to be named on the banners. A march by 10,000 protesters had no impact on the proceedings.

Several other broader issues contribute to the lack of progress in combatting carbon emissions.

Civil society in the United States is often a leader in the world, but the environmental movement appears to have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans.

The false claims of climate change skeptics have damaged the will of Americans to tackle climate chaos.

Another problem is that mainstream US media, instead of seeking out the truth about the dangers of carbon emissions, has confused the public by publishing articles expressing both points of view. But in Europe, where climate change is a bigger issue, The Guardian newspaper refuses to carry climate change denial material.

A Gallup poll earlier this year showed that only 24 percent of Americans are worried a great deal about climate change. Twenty-five percent were worried a fair amount. And 51 percent were worried only a little or not at all.

The weaknesses of the US protest movement means there is not nearly enough public pressure on the government to make it move.

Countries to Report by March

Looking ahead to next year, the Peru agreement calls on countries to show by March how they will cut carbon emissions, but there's no penalty if they fail to do so. If they receive enough detailed information, the UN will then see if the pledges will be enough to limit climate warming to 2C. But scientists are already saying projections will be above the 2C target.

Given the track record of most countries of holding back on climate change commitments, it's likely the UN and all 194 countries will be operating in crisis mode again next year.

For now, the delegates are returning home to get some well-deserved rest. But they can be expected to be back working hard within a few days in their effort to try and pull off a miracle 12 months from now.

News Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:52:45 -0500
The $7 Million University President

In a recent article about Shirley Jackson, the president since 1999 of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)―a private university located in Troy, New York―the Chronicle of Higher Education revealed that, in 2012 (the latest year for which statistics are available), she received over $7 million from that institution. Like many modern campus administrators, President Jackson was also given a large mansion, first class air travel, and a chauffeured luxury car to transport her around the campus.

Thanks to the fact that Jackson also serves on at least five corporate boards, including those of IBM and Marathon Oil, she supplements this income with more than a million dollars a year from these sources.

Despite repeated complaints about Jackson from faculty and students, RPI’s board of trustees has invariably expressed its total confidence in her. Indeed, the board chair recently declared that she is worth every penny of her substantial income. This unwavering support appears to be based not only upon Jackson’s fundraising prowess, but upon the corporate approach that she and the board share.

A key component of this corporate approach is embodied in Jackson’s development and implementation of the Rensselaer Plan, a venture that includes an enormous construction program at a staggering cost. Worried about their institution falling behind rivals in the race to build a high-powered, modern campus, trustees found this university expansion deeply satisfying. But it also meant that RPI ran up its debt to $828 million―over six times its level when Jackson took office. As a result, Moody’s downgraded RPI’s credit rating twice, and describes the financial outlook for RPI as “negative.”

Of course, when operating as a business, there are many ways to pay a top executive’s hefty salary and recoup huge financial losses. As is the practice on other campuses, RPI employs a considerable number of adjunct faculty members―part-timers paid by the course, with pitiful salaries, no benefits, and no guarantee of employment beyond the semester in which they are teaching. One of these adjuncts, Elizabeth Gordon, was paid $4,000 a course―about $10 an hour by her estimates. “Because the pay was so low,” she recalled, “it was like being a volunteer serving the community.” But, as the size of her RPI writing classes grew, she became concerned that the pace of grading, student meetings, and course preparation was undermining her health, which she lacked the insurance to cover. So she quit. Many other adjuncts, however, are still at RPI, scraping by on poverty-level wages and enriching President Jackson.

RPI’s adjuncts once had a voice on campus, as some of them served on RPI’s Faculty Senate. But that came to an end in 2007, when Jackson abolished that entity. From the administration’s standpoint, the abolition of the Senate had the welcome effect of not only depriving adjuncts of their minimal influence, but of crippling the power of regular faculty, as well. The previous year, a faculty vote of no confidence in Jackson’s leadership had been only narrowly defeated. Thus, the administration’s abolition of the Faculty Senate served as a pre-emptive strike. Asked by irate faculty to investigate the situation, the American Association of University Professors condemned the administration’s action as violating the basic principles of shared governance. The administration responded that RPI “has never recognized the role of the AAUP in what we regard as an internal issue.” Ultimately, faculty resistance collapsed, leaving faculty powerlessness and demoralization in its wake.

The Jackson administration, using what union organizers charged were tactics of intimidation, also succeeded in defeating efforts to unionize RPI’s downtrodden campus janitors and cafeteria workers. During one union campaign among janitors, the lead organizer recalled, security guards threw him off campus and the administration fired a janitor on the organizing committee.

In a further effort to cover the administration’s costly priorities, student tuition was raised substantially during the Jackson years. In 2013-14, it reached $45,100―$25,608 above the average tuition at New York’s four-year colleges. Of course, beyond tuition, there are expenses for college fees, room, board, and books, placing RPI’s own estimate of student costs for attendance in 2014-2015 at $64,194. Perhaps to soften the blow to students of this enormous price tag or to signal them about what type of school this is, the RPI web page remarks helpfully that “many of our professors have close ties with top global corporations.”

Having created the very model of an undemocratic, corporate university, President Jackson is appropriately imperious. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, she has a series of rules that are clear to everyone. These include: 1) Only she is authorized to set the temperature in conference rooms; 2) Cabinet members all rise when she enters the room; 3) If food is served at a meeting, vice presidents clear her plate; and 4) She is always to be publicly introduced as “The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson.” Falling into rages on occasion, she publicly abuses her staff and frequently remarks: “You know, I could fire you all.” In 2011, RPI’s Student Senate passed a resolution criticizing her “abrasive style,” “top-down leadership,” and the climate of “fear” she had instilled among administrators and staff. It even called upon RPI’s board of trustees to consider Jackson’s removal from office. But, once again, the board merely rallied in her defense.

Perhaps, though, the response of the board of trustees is not surprising. After all, developments at RPI are very much in line with trends at institutions of higher education: inflating administration salaries; exploiting adjunct faculty, regular faculty, and other workers; strengthening administration power; raising tuition to astronomical heights; and, above all, running colleges and universities like modern business enterprises. RPI actually presents us with a glimpse of the future of higher education―a future that we might not like very much.

News Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:13:03 -0500
Democrats Bow Down to Wall Street

John R. MacArthur of Harper’s Magazine says that Republicans and Democrats alike are abandoning the republic in pursuit of big bucks.

Negotiators from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are in Washington this week for a new round of talks which they hope will lead them closer to agreement on the trade deal. President Obama has called passage of TPP a “high priority.”

This week, Bill speaks with outspoken veteran journalist John R. MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper’s Magazine, about the problems with TPP, which is being negotiated in secret, behind closed doors. MacArthur says that the “free trade” agreement will take jobs away from Americans: “I guarantee you, this is a way to send more jobs [abroad], particularly to Vietnam and Malaysia.”

Obama’s commitment to trade is just another example of his indebtedness to Wall Street for massive campaign contributions. Hillary Clinton, who MacArthur describes as to the right of Americans’ political beliefs, may be scaring off progressives looking to run in 2016 as she is “very much in harmony” with Wall Street.

“There are a lot of people who would make good candidates, but they’re intimidated by the Clinton fundraising machine.”


BILL MOYERS: Welcome. Trade, money and politics are our issues this week and my guest is the outspoken journalist who runs the iconic Harper’s Magazine, which for 164 years now has thrown open its pages to some of the most ferociously independent voices in American letters, from Mark Twain, Jack London and Herman Melville to William Styron, Joyce Carol Oates and David Foster Wallace.   As the president and publisher of Harper’s for the last 31 years, John R. “Rick” MacArthur has been as ferocious a champion of democracy and journalism as any of those illustrious bylines that have appeared in its pages. I’ve never known him to pull his punches, whether he’s writing in Harper’s, or in his newspaper columns, or in such books as “The Selling of ‘Free Trade,’” an exposé of bipartisan collusion to enact NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and this one, “The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America.” MacArthur’s fierce arrows of outrage are aimed at both political parties, but recently he’s been especially incensed by Democrats for abandoning their progressive roots to serve Wall Street, K Street, and crony capitalists.   Rick MacArthur, welcome.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Thank you for having me, Bill.

BILL MOYERS: You have opposed these so-called free trade agreements for as long as I have known you. Why isn't anyone listening?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, because the big money doesn't want them to listen. And the editorial pages of most American newspapers are pro-"free trade” quote-unquote. They don't know, or they don't pay attention to what the costs are. Obama himself, in the 2008 campaign, said that NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, had cost the country a million jobs.

But in order to understand what's happening, you got to go to these cities that are being hollowed out and destroyed, like Fostoria, Ohio. I did a big piece about three years ago, for a foreign newspaper, because nobody wants to read it here, about the closure and the moving of the Autolite spark plug plant to Mexicali, Mexico. These--

BILL MOYERS: From Fostoria.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: From Fostoria, Ohio.

BILL MOYERS: By the way, it was in Ohio that Obama, during the campaign of 2008, made one speech in which he claimed that NAFTA had cost a million jobs, 50,000 of them in Ohio.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Right. He did it to hurt Hilary Clinton. Because he wanted to hang NAFTA on the Clintons, on the Clinton couple.

BILL MOYERS: Because President Clinton, Bill Clinton--

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Bill Clinton.

BILL MOYERS: --had sponsored it with the Republicans in 1993.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Because he made a tactical political decision that it would be a great thing to move the Democratic Party to the center, I would call it move it to the right, on matters concerning the working class. The working class today, thanks to what Bill Clinton did on NAFTA, is now becoming, I would call it, the lower class. And--

BILL MOYERS: So you went to this town

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: I went to this town more recently--

BILL MOYERS: Why did you pick Fostoria?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, because Larry Bossidy, who was the CEO of AlliedSignal, which owned Autolite in those days--

BILL MOYERS: Autolite makes spark plugs.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Autolite makes spark plugs. I actually have a spark plug that I took from the plant here.

It's one of the last ones made there. And Bossidy said, famously, in a debate on CNN that, he held up a spark plug and said--

LARRY BOSSIDY on CNN: The NAFTA Debate, December 1996: Right now, you can’t sell these in Mexico because there’s a 15 percent tariff. If we can, if this NAFTA’s passed and that tariff is removed, we’ll make these in Fostoria, Ohio. We won’t have 1,100 jobs, we’ll have more jobs.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: And of course in 2007, the factory was moved to Mexicali under the ownership of Honeywell Corporation, which had merged with AlliedSignal. And Barack Obama was soon seen after that with Dave Cote, the chairman of Honeywell, promoting his business stimulus program. Barack Obama is not going to say to Dave Cote, what are you shutting down the Autolite spark plug plant for? Why are you putting Allyson Murray and Peggy Gillig and Jerry Faeth, these are people I interviewed who were production line workers, who raised their families and sent their kids to school. Jerry Faeth is a particular favorite of mine, because he got two of his daughters through college paying most of their tuition as an auto worker.

BILL MOYERS: Working--

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: --as an auto worker--

BILL MOYERS: Auto worker, right.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: --because he was making enough money. These people are being wiped out. The statistics that you hear about, where the country is economically, don't reflect the devastation to these individuals. But the Democratic Party's not interested in those people. They don't contribute to campaigns.

BILL MOYERS: How does our political class get away with ignoring those realities?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, again, to some extent, I blame the media. They don't report on it. But in the larger political scheme, the Democratic Party, it is split. There are still a few democrats who care about the working lower class. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton see it in their political interest to ally themselves with Wall Street. Wall Street, because they can raise money from Wall Street. Wall Street loves "free trade," quote-unquote, because it equals cheap labor. All these trade agreements, and NAFTA in particular, are investment agreements that make it safer for American corporations to set up shop in cheap labor locales. Wall Street thinks that's great. It's great for the shareholders. And it's great for the corporations. The profits go up. So as long as the cash keeps coming to both parties from those interested parties, short of a revolution, short of an uprising among the working poor, you're not going to see any change.

BILL MOYERS: In 2008, Obama, he used NAFTA against Hilary Clinton, as you said, because Bill Clinton had sponsored it in 1993. And he promised that he would reform NAFTA.



JOHN R. MACARTHUR: No. As soon as he got into office, he announced, we really don't need to reform NAFTA. We'll find other ways to help people who've been hurt by NAFTA, which they, and of course, they've done nothing. In fact, he's pushed more free trade deals, Korea, Colombia, et cetera, you know, he keeps pushing, and now, the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, which will make things even worse.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah. You say if he wins the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he'll be giving away big chunks of our remaining manufacturing base to Japan and Vietnam and other Pacific Rim countries. Why does he want to do that?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Because he's the fundraiser in chief. And again, this goes back to Bill Clinton. Because Obama's really just imitating Bill Clinton. Clinton made an alliance with the Daley machine in Chicago, which Obama, he's inherited that alliance with the two Daley brothers. The people who were thriving are the people in power. Rahm Emanuel is now mayor of Chicago. Bill Daley and Rahm Emanuel were the chief lobbyists for passing NAFTA under Clinton. They're the ones who rounded up the votes. They're the ones who made the deals with the recalcitrant Democrats and Republicans who didn't want to vote for it. These people are in the saddle. They succeeded each other as--

BILL MOYERS: They're Democrats, too.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Democrats. But Daley succeeded Rahm Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff. These are the people Obama talks to all the time. And they're saying, free trade, great. We don't know about factories closing. But it's a great way to raise money.

BILL MOYERS: Senator Mitch McConnell, who will soon be the Senate majority leader, said that new trade agreements are one of his top priorities. Are we about to see some bipartisan cooperation between the Republicans in the Senate and Obama in the White House on passing this new trade agreement?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Absolutely. They've already announced that they're going to try to work together. And if history is repeated, you will see fast track passed.

BILL MOYERS: Which means…

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Which means you give the president, you give the executive branch, the authority to negotiate the trade agreement in secret. That's what Congress gives away, which I think is unconstitutional. Because the Senate is supposed to advise and consent, right? But so far, nobody has challenged it on constitutional grounds. You give fast track authority to the president. They negotiate the deal. At the end of it, a gigantic bill, very complex, because I've read the NAFTA agreement, it's very complex language. You give it to Congress. And you say, okay, vote for it, yes or no, up or down.

No amendments allowed, no amendments allowed. And so that's when the heavy lobbying starts. And most times, at least in the past with PNTR, that's permanent normal trade relations with China, and NAFTA, the big money wins. And this is what's going to happen again with TPP if people don't stop it before it gets to the fast track stage. And I guarantee you, this is a way to send more jobs, particularly to Vietnam and Malaysia. What's happening now is that labor rates are going up slightly in China. This panics the corporations. They want other places to go. Vietnam's an even cheaper labor platform than China. And so it's cheap labor coupled with really minimal environmental protection. You can do just about anything you want to.

BILL MOYERS: I brought two headlines from the same day's edition of the “Washington Post.” One says, "Obama, looking to mend fences with Congress, is reaching out. To Democrats. " The other one, in the same edition of the Washington Post, says, "Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership." What do you make of that?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, it's the typical Obama. You know, during the big, it goes back. Early in his political career, there was a big fight in Chicago in 2006. The city council voted to pass a big box minimum wage bill, $13 an hour. They said there's no factory work left, thanks to NAFTA and PNTR. So if Wal-Mart wants to move into Chicago, we're going to force them to pay a living wage.

And they came up with $13 an hour, with benefits, some kind of health benefits. Mayor Daley vetoed the bill. Because he didn't want to offend his friends in business in Chicago. He was also, I think, personally offended that democracy had broken out in the City Council. You know, it's like the Soviet Union in Chicago, 49 Democrats, 1 Republican.

And so they passed the law. He vetoes it. And there's a big fight to try to override his veto. What do you think Obama does when he's a State Senator and then a Senate candidate, U.S. Senate candidate, then Senator, he kept absolutely mum on it. He didn't say a word. And nobody asked him to say anything. Because they didn't want to compromise him with Mayor Daley. They didn't want to get him in trouble with Daley and force him to make a choice.

Same thing happened at the get go in first two years of administration. That was the time to raise the minimum wage. He had a big majority in both houses. People were panicked. It would’ve put more money in the hands of desperate people who had lost a lot of income.

He didn't propose an increase in the minimum wage in 2009 and 2010, not again in 2011 or 2012, when his own caucus was pushing for one. He had no interest in raising the minimum wage at that point. Because it didn't conform with his fundraising and his pro-business, pro-Wall Street goals.

BILL MOYERS: President Obama appointed a new trade representative, Michael Froman, who's a disciple of Robert Rubin who's the Wall Street insider who pushed for free trade and deregulation when he was Bill Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and then went back to Wall Street and cashed in big from deregulation and is, today, Robert Rubin, a big influence in the Hillary Clinton camp. What does that tell you?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, what it tells me is they view Obama's presidency as a success. In other words, Wall Street thinks Obama's done right by them. And if they could get Hilary Clinton in, things will stay right.

BILL MOYERS: That was a bold cover story you had recently: "Stop Hillary."

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Yeah, well, we were, it was our effort to force a debate. And we did. I'm actually quite pleased with the outcome that all our competitors were then forced to do cover stories and commentaries on other candidates who might come into the race: Elizabeth Warren, Jim Webb has already announced an exploratory committee, Bernie Sanders, I wish that Sherrod Brown from Ohio would run. There are a lot of people who would make good candidates, but they're intimidated by the Clinton fundraising machine.

BILL MOYERS: But would she raise a big tent for a lot of Democrats to get under and reverse the Republican wave of the midterm elections?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: There's absolutely no room, there's no tent that can hold the working class, the poor, the lower class that I'm talking about, and the Steven Rattners of Wall Street, who go around saying, oh, don't you love us? We're social liberals. We're for civil rights. We're for all the rights that you care about. We're for tolerance, and so on and so forth.

But what they're not for is worker rights. It doesn't matter if you're gay or black or an impoverished white former factory worker. You all have worker rights in common. That's the commonality. Citizens' rights, I would say also, but worker rights. They never talk about worker rights. They just talk about cultural liberalism. That's what they're interested in.

BILL MOYERS: Here's a quote from Steven Rattner, whom you mentioned. It has to do with the Obama nomination of Antonio Weiss, prominent investment banker who worked on the auto industry bailout during Obama's first term, as Steven Rattner did.

This whole thing, this opposition by Elizabeth Warren and others to Antonio Weiss, “is part of a much broader narrative of the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party and whether so-called progressives are going to capture that or whether more mainstream Democrats, who are equally progressive in their own way, are going to retain it." He said if the Weiss nomination goes down, “it will be a long time before anyone else with Wall Street experience volunteers for this kind of job."

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Boy, what a threat. Wouldn't that be a great thing, if those people from Wall Street stopped volunteering? They don't want to stop volunteering. But that is the central problem in the Democratic Party today. Rattner speaks for a faction, a minority of people but a majority of money.

The other people that I'm referring to, I hope it's Elizabeth Warren or that she hangs in there, and people like Jim Webb are speaking for the majority. But the majority has much less money than this small minority of so-called social liberals on Wall Street.

BILL MOYERS: Elizabeth Warren, Senator Warren, made a speech this week in which she said that the fight is much more than about this nominee for the Treasury Department.

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN on December 9, 2014: Democratic administrations have filled an enormous number of senior economic policy positions with people who have close ties to Wall Street. Starting with Robert Rubin, a former Citigroup CEO, three of the last four Treasury secretaries under Democratic presidents have had Citigroup affiliations before or after their Treasury service […] Weiss defenders are all in, loudly defending the revolving door and telling America how lucky we are that Wall Street is willing to run the economy and the government. In fact, Weiss supporters even defend the golden parachutes like the $20 million payment that Weiss will receive from Lazard to take this government job. Why? They say it is an important tool in making sure Wall Street executives will continue to be willing to run government policy making.

BILL MOYERS: She's really hitting at the very thing you have been writing about, talking about, and advocating. But nothing is going to change--


BILL MOYERS: --as you yourself have said and written--


BILL MOYERS: --unless the grip of the moneyed interest on our parties and on democracy is broken? How can you fight that much power? That--


BILL MOYERS: --much money?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: You have to run primary campaigns, cheap primary campaigns against incumbents, like the Tea Party, in the Democratic Party, like the Tea Party does against incumbent Republicans.

You got to actually take political action and present candidates with an alternative point of view. But you also have to go to Fostoria and then come back and tell me and tell your colleagues, that their town is falling apart, they can't send their kids to school anymore. They've got to work in a fast-food place. Do you know that today there are more part-time workers than there were before the recession, before the great recession?

I think it's about seven million part-time workers. Median household income has dropped about $5,000 in the last five or six years. Where are the economists getting their information? You really have to look at the human cost.

There's a social element to this that somehow doesn't get talked about. We talk about incomes dropping, income disparity. We don't talk about the demoralization of the American lower and middle class. It's demoralizing to lose your job. It's demoralizing to feel like there's no future, that you can't pay to send your kids to college.

Things have gotten really bad in the country. There is no relief for these people who have lost their jobs. The deindustrialization of the country continues rapidly.

And every time one of these factories closes, another town drops a couple of notches sociologically. It gets poorer, you can't fund the Little League, you can't fund the public schools, you can't fund local community colleges, nobody's got work, nobody's got any hope. It gets worse and worse and worse. You can't just keep farming the laborer, the jobs out to Vietnam and China and expect things to get better at any point.

BILL MOYERS: Hillary Clinton was recently quoted as saying, quote, "I think our country kind of moves in pendulum swings. We go maybe a little bit too far in one way, and then we swing back. We are most comfortable when we have that balance in the vital center. And we are, I think, in need of getting back to that." What does that say to you?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Getting back to that? The vital center has moved so far right that it can't be called the "center" anymore. You might call it the "center right"-- but it's far from anything I would call the "center."

BILL MOYERS: Hardly has she said that, than NBC News and the Wall Street Journal published a poll showing the public trends left on one issue after another; raising the minimum wage, spending more for infrastructure, helping students pay off their college loans, addressing climate change and global warming. I mean, Hillary Clinton, by this account, is to the right of the American public, and particularly of the Democratic constituency.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Right, but more important for Hillary Clinton, she's not to the right of Steven Rattner or the Daley brothers--

BILL MOYERS: The Wall Street--

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: --or Rahm Emanuel. The Wall Street and the Chicago political machine types. She's very much in harmony with them.

BILL MOYERS: So where does a Sherrod Brown, a Jim Webb, an Elizabeth Warren, get the money to run against people who are backed by the deepest pockets in America?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: I'm glad you asked me that because I was fascinated with the Howard Dean candidacy. I think Howard Dean was probably the best hope we had in a long time.

But whatever you thought of his politics or his, you know, his demeanor, or where he came from, and remember, he's a son of Wall Street. His meet-ups, where people would, through the internet, donate $100, scared the hell out of the Democratic and Republican Party establishments.

And I think I make a convincing case in the book that they colluded in the Iowa primaries to knock him out. 527 committees were formed, we didn't know where the money was coming from, but they were coming from Democratic money and Republican money to knock out this dissident who'd figured out how to beat the system. Lots of $100 contributions could compete with a few $100,000 contributions.

So in order to compete, you've got to rally the people and get lots of small donations. And Dean did that and he paid the price. You see, he didn't even last as Democratic National Committee chairman, because Rahm Emanuel saw him as a threat. They got rid of him as soon as they could.

BILL MOYERS: What if it's too late to change a system that is so in place, so entrenched, and so well-funded?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, there's two things can happen. You could have revolt, you could have rioting. I guess you could have open revolt in the streets. Or you could have a demoralized, lower two-thirds of the American population that doesn't benefit from the advantages of the top third or the top fifth. And people just get used to it.

I mean, up to a point, people get used to these things. They do in other countries, where things are even more inegalitarian. We in America have a higher opinion of ourselves than maybe we deserve. We've always believed that we're Democrats, we're fundamentally egalitarian. Whether or not there's inequality in society, that there's an egalitarian impulse in America that will always save us.

But I see that egalitarian impulse disappearing. I see it either being numbed or actually snuffed out. I take umbrage with the liberal elite in this country that I think has also abandoned the white, black, gay, working class across the board.

They just don't care about them anymore. They think, well, we're doing all right here in our bubble. And we're, you know, we're not going to threaten our position in society or offend certain people because on behalf of people who don't have anything. For there to be a change, the progressive elite, I guess I would call them, have got to say, we don't care what these people say about us anymore. We're breaking with them. We're going to start, we're going to join the opposition.

BILL MOYERS: Let’s continue this discussion online.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: I’ll be delighted to.

BILL MOYERS: Rick MacArthur, thank you for being with me.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Thank you for having me.

BILL MOYERS: At our website, my conversation with Rick MacArthur continues, and you can read more about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and another trade deal that both President Obama and members of Congress are trying to fast track – and fast talk – into law.

That’s all at I’ll see you there and I’ll see you here, next time.

News Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:13:17 -0500