Cindy Sheehan talks to President Chavez

Transcript of Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox Interview with President Hugo Chavez
You can also LISTEN to the interview HERE.

Transcribed by Regina Freitag | Original Translation by Eva Golinger

Interviewer: Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan: Welcome to this video and audio audition of Cindy Sheehan’s SoapBox.

Presidente Chavez, thank you for being on the show, thank you for this interview and thank you for allowing me to bring the truth about Venezuela and about you and about your revolution to the people of the United States.

Before the revolution, Venezuela was a nation that was ruled and used up by the oligarchy, the elite. How did your revolution begin, how did it manage to remain relatively peaceful?

Hugo Chavez: Thank you Cindy, for this interview, for your efforts, that are so honorable and notable, to try to find out our truth and to contribute to its diffusion. And we wish you much luck in your struggles, which are ours as well, against war, for peace, for freedom and equality and against imperialism. We accompany you in your struggles. You and the people of the United States. We love them the same. The bourgeoisie of Venezuela has always dominated the country, for more than a hundred years. And they dominated it with force, using violence, persecution, assassination and disappearances. Unfortunately, the Venezuelan history is a history full of a lot of violence, violence from the strong against the weak. In the 20^th century, Venezuela, which was dominated by the oligarchy and the bourgeois state, the rich, the wealthy, produced a reversed type of miracle, we could say. Venezuela was the first exporter of oil from the beginning of the 1920s until the 1970s. One of the largest producers of petroleum in the world throughout all the 20^th century. And when the 20^th century ended, with the domination of the bourgeoisie, despite all the wealth, Venezuela had more than 70% poverty and 40% extreme poverty, misery, misery, misery. So that generated an explosion, a violent one. All explosions are violent. An explosion of the poor, to liberate themselves. We were remembering just 2 days ago in Caracas. You were there with us, with our people. 21 years ago, the people woke, arose in a big explosion. And as military we were used by the bourgeoisie to massacre the people, children, women, and older people. And then that awoke something in the young military folks, a consciousness of pain and then we joined with the people. We had two rebellions, military rebellions, popular (inaudible ). A revolution isn’t exactly peaceful. As you said it was relatively peaceful.

Cindy Sheehan: Yes, relatively, yeah

Hugo Chavez: Just like all true revolutions.

Cindy Sheehan: But doesn’t the violence of revolutions sometimes come from the counter-revolution? And the Bolivarian revolution that has transferred power and wealth to the people is an inspiration and has remained relatively peaceful.

Hugo Chavez: Yes, we got the power in a peaceful way.

Cindy Sheehan: Right.

Hugo Chavez: Exactly, and we have been able to maintain it relatively peaceful. We’ve never used violence. They’ve used it against us. The counter-revolution. So the central strategy of our peaceful and socialist revolution is to transfer the power to the people. I’m sure you have been able to see some of it with your own eyes, in the neighborhoods of Caracas.

Cindy Sheehan: Yes I have.

Hugo Chavez: We have made efforts were to help the people to be sovereign. When we talk about power, what are we talking about, Cindy? The first power that we all have is knowledge. So we’ve made efforts first in education, against illiteracy, for the development of thinking, studying, analysis. In a way, that has never happened before. Today, Venezuela is a giant school, it’s all a school. From children of one year old until old age, all of us are studying and learning.

And then political power, the capacity to make decisions, the community councils, communes, the people’s power, the popular assemblies.

And then there is the economic power. Transferring economic power to the people, the wealth of the people distributed throughout the nation. I believe that is the principal force that precisely guarantees that the Bolivarian revolution continues to be peaceful.

Cindy Sheehan: Wonderful. In a speech the other day, you said that the United States demonizes you, demonizes Venezuela and the revolution. I of course have seen it with my own eyes and have been a defender of you and Venezuela and the revolution. Why do you think the Empire makes such a concerted effort to demonize you?

Hugo Chavez: I think for different reasons. But I came to the conclusion there is one particular strong reason, a big reason. They are afraid, the Empire is afraid. The Empire is afraid that the people of the United States might find out about the truth, they are afraid that something like that could erupt on their own territory. A Bolivarian movement. Or a Lincoln movement. A movement of citizens, conscious citizens with the goal to transform the system. Imperial fear killed Martin Luther King. The only way to stop him was to kill him and repressing the people of the United States. So, why do they demonize us? They know – those who direct the Empire – they know the truth. But they fear the truth. They fear the contagious effect. They fear a revolution in the United States. They fear an awakening of the people in the United States. And so that’s why they do everything they can. And they achieve it, relatively, that a lot of sectors in the United States see us as devils. No one wants to copy the devil.

Cindy Sheehan: Right.

Hugo Chavez: Unless they are devils too. And the people aren’t devils. The people are the voice of God.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, one of the biggest names they call you in the United States is dictator. Can you explain to my listeners and the people, for the benefit of this documentary why you are not a dictator?

Hugo Chavez: In the first place, personally, I am against dictatorships. I’m an anti-dictator. We are here in Uruguay, in Montevideo. You know how many dictatorships were in this country. The Guerilla army. I’m an anti-Guerilla. In addition to that, from a political point of view, I’ve been elected one, two, three, four times, by popular vote. In Venezuela, we have elections all the time. Every year, we have elections in Venezuela. One time, Lula, the president of Brazil… when he was in Europe, someone asked him “Why are you friends with that dictator Chavez?” And Lula said a big truth: “In Venezuela, there is an excess of democracy. Every year there are elections. And if there aren’t any, Chavez invents them. Referendums, popular consultations, elections for governors, mayors. Right now, soon we are starting national assembly elections, this year. In 2012 there is going to be a presidential election again. What dictator is elected so many times? What dictator convenes referendums? I’m an anti-dictator. I am a revolutionary. A democratic revolutionary.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, I have witnessed this revolution. I’ve witnessed the empowerment of the people of Venezuela, which is very inspiring, because the people in the United States don’t feel this empowerment. I even rode the Metrocable, and I’m afraid of heights. But I went out to San Augustin and then walked down the steps and saw how that so-called dictatorship has made the life of the people much better here in Venezuela. Also in the commemoration of the Caracazo you announced that you will again going to run for president in 2012. You’ve come a long way, but there is still a long way to go. What do you still think needs to be accomplished as far as infrastructure and the needs of the people in Venezuela?

Hugo Chavez: To tell you in a mathematical way, despite everything we’ve done in education, healthcare, infrastructure, housing, employment, social security, etc., mathematically, I believe, of everything we’ve done and we have to achieve for the people, we have achieved about 10%. It’s been 200 years of abandonment. The people have been abandoned. All the wealth of the country was in the hands of the elite. We talk about the bicentennial cycle, 2010 to 2030, we have to work really hard. In every aspect, infrastructure etc. I hope that you, in a few years, won’t just go up in the metrocable in San Augustin, but all of Caracas is going to have metrocables, and everywhere, every place, housing, reconstruction in poor neighborhoods, the construction of new cities for the people and dignified housing, there is still a lot to do, to achieve what Simon Bolivar said. Bolivar taught us…

(Pres. Evo Morales comes in)

Hugo Chavez: Oh look! Evo is here. Evo, come and sit down! Bolivar taught us that the best government is the one that gives the people the best amount of happiness. That’s our goal. The best, the largest amount of happiness.

My friend Evo, the president of Bolivia, who just got here, he is an indigenous leader! Brother how are you?

Evo Morales: Good, good.

Cindy Sheehan: Presidente Morales. Mucho gusto. So nice to meet you.

Hugo Chavez (introduces Cindy): Cindy Sheehan. She is a fighter for peace, against the war. She is a US citizen. One of her sons died in Iraq. So, she’s interviewing us. And maybe you want to answer a question.

Evo Morales: (gives Indian blessing)

Hugo Chavez: To live well. It’s a Mala Indian philosophy. To live well, a good live. To live well, spiritually, intellectually, physically, that’s what it’s about.

Cindy Sheehan: Thank you, that’s what it should be about. I have one final question.

Thank you for your generosity. This has been really wonderful. Maybe Presidente Morales could have some input about this too. We see your rise to power in Venezuela as kind of a grassroots movement that has been spreading and has helped President Morales in Bolivia, and we see people all over South America taking back the power. Because the power belongs in the hands of the people. A couple of weeks ago in the United States, a man flew his airplane into the tax building in Austin, Texas. Did you hear about that?

Evo Morales/ Hugo Chavez: Yes.

Cindy Sheehan: There is much frustration with the system. And there is a lot of that frustration in the United States. But instead of flying planes into buildings we should find each other and organize. In the United States of course, we are now a system that is also for the elite, ruled by the elite, it’s a “corporatocracy”, it’s for the corporate elite. Of course, in my opinion, I believe the United States need the same grassroots revolution, power back to the people, that you’ve all had here in South America. Can you give us some words of inspiration to encourage us, to give us the courage and heart for a true revolutionary change?

Hugo Chavez: We were the same, dominated, persecuted, and also there was a lot of desperation, just like that man who flew the plane into the building. There is a lot of that, of lot of those impulses, suicidal tendencies. Now, that’s NOT the path. The path is consciousness, a conscious awakening. Evo was persecuted, from very young, I met him when he was an Assembly member, and they threw him out of Congress, and they persecuted him, they jailed him, a lot of his fellow strugglers died. And us too, we had our own experiences. A lot of our brothers died as well, a lot of us went to prison. But consciousness. That’s why you’re doing the right thing. The path is not to fly a plane into a building. It’s to create consciousness. And then the rest will come on its own. I’d like to take this moment to say hello to people of the United States. And us here in the South, we have a lot of faith. And the people in the North are going to wake up. Just like you have woken. Just like many have had an awakening. You can do great changes in the United States, and in a peaceful way, I hope. Because, what happens in the United States, those changes in the United States depend a lot…the future of the world depends on that a lot.

(Pres. Chavez addresses Pres. Morales) Evo, would you like to say something?

Cindy Sheehan: Please!

Evo Morales: I just finished a meeting with Eduardo Galliano.

Cindy Sheehan: Oh, I know him.

Evo Morales: He’s so inspirational with the people, about nature. Galliano is also going to the inauguration of Pepe Mujica. (Pres. Morales and Pres. Chavez talk to each other.) And he’s going to bring some strategies, proposals, and we’re going to have a meeting with Galliano and the cocoa workers …

Cindy Sheehan: Oh. Very wonderful.

Evo Morales: To talk about equality and our experiences. The difficult things, how to unite us and to raise our consciousness. What you’re talking about. The power resides with the people. I was just with Commandante Borhez, Thomas Borhez from Nicaragua. We were talking about issues of consciousness in Peru, in Colombia, on how to build a big political movement. But the issue is unity. In my experience, first the (inaudible), the marginalized, we united first, the farmers and the indigenous. And from that it went on. Just like that unity, we need to do that with the political parties on the left and then the workers unite. Those are the forces that we have, the power that the people have. To get there is hard, you have to raise consciousness.

Cindy Sheehan: My documentary is called “We are all Americans”. It comes from when I was being interviewed on Fox News and Sean Hannity told me how could I meet with the anti-American dictator Hugo Chavez. And I said: ”But Sean, he is an American”. We are all Americans and that’s where the consciousness has to be raised and the unity has to come from in realizing that.

And so, it’s been my highest honor to sit with you, Presidente, thank you for your hospitality and that of Venezuela and to finally meet you. I was invited to Bolivia to help to support you for your recall, but I was running for Congress against Nazi policy in the United States. It was a bad time. I lost. (laughs) I didn’t win.

Hugo Chavez: But we will prevail.

Cindy Sheehan: We will be victorious. Thank you so much.

Hugo Chavez: We have to end, but I want to say something to you. Just about 5 days ago, we were in Cancun. We were on our way out from the hotel and the press was there, and there were some tourists – from California. So I went up to them and I said hi to a woman and her child and another woman. A lot of affection. It was spontaneous. And then I told my friends. I found tourists. I found US tourists. Older adults, young women, men, adolescents. I’ve met with them in Japan, Moscow, Beijing, in the Caribbean, everywhere in the world, in Buenos Aires. I’ve never felt one look of hate, but rather affection, so I think that despite everything, I believe the people of the United States in the depths of their hearts, they know how to appreciate where lies are and where the truth is. That’s why we have such hope. And here is my heart for those people of the United States. They call us anti-US-leaders, anti-American leaders, but we are not. We are anti-imperialist. But we love the people of the United States. We love humanity.

Cindy Sheehan: Muchas Gracias!

_

¶

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

______________________

OpEds/ Debate over Occupy tactics: an invented controversy

A PSL editorial / Liberation

(Newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation at LiberationNews.org)

Jan. 28, Oakland, Calif.

Photo: Krissana Limlamai

Chris Hedges’ recent articles starting with “The Cancer in Occupy” (Truthdig, Feb. 6) have created quite a controversy among supporters of the Occupy movement.

The article came out in the aftermath of an incident in late January when Oakland police attacked protesters who were trying to occupy an abandoned building to use as a community center and new space for the movement. Police kettled and arrested 400 demonstrators, and at various times used tear gas and rubber bullets. During one standoff, members of Occupy Oakland defended themselves with makeshift shields and tossed tear gas back at the police.

Hedges calls the Black Bloc tactic the “cancer” of the movement and “a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state.” The movement is tolerating wanton violence, according to Hedges, and in doing so is inviting repression and negative press attention, thereby failing to win over more people. His essay has touched off a wide-ranging debate about the philosophy of nonviolence and if violence has any potential legitimacy in the movement.

Making a non-issue

The problem is that this is largely a straw-man—it is inventing a controversy, and the Black Bloc tactic is far from the most pressing issue for Occupy. In fact, the Black Bloc tactic—in which groups of masked activists dress in black, and without announced plans, attempt to escalate marches, directly confront the police and destroy property, usually that of corporations—has been an extremely minor aspect of the Occupy movement as a whole.

What took place on Jan. 28 in Oakland was principally an act of collective self-defense against police repression. When protesters pulled down the fence surrounding the building they sought to occupy—or months earlier when New York marchers seized the orange nets the police used to box them in—these represented not purposeless and reckless Black Bloc violence but the maturation of street tactics. The same can be said in the instances in which groups of protesters, masked or not, have spontaneously intervened to pull those facing wrongful arrest out of the arms of the cops.

The rare use of the Black Bloc tactic in Occupy is not the cause of its problems, nor is it the main challenge. As Hedges admits, the “security and surveillance state” did just fine in repressing entirely nonviolent Occupy encampments from coast to coast.

This is not to say that the movement must now escalate towards violence—in fact, no one is arguing for this. But it shows that with or without Black Bloc tactics, the state will move aggressively to silence those who challenge its rule.

The same is true of the media, despite its initial coverage—and to some degree, promotion—of the Occupy movement. For Hedges, a properly nonviolent movement must “on some level embrace police brutality” because it makes for a better media clip to have people sustain injury instead of standing up for themselves.

While it is crucial that we seek and use positive media coverage whenever possible, the media in general belongs to the 1 percent. The media’s demonization of the movement is bound to increase as it becomes more anti-capitalist and more successful in challenging Wall Street.

To embrace police repression so that it leads to more outrage reduces these protests to a marketing campaign, in which participants are largely passive and defenseless. Our tactics become oriented towards being “media friendly,” as if the problem is how to conduct ourselves in front of the cameras, not the nature of the corporate-owned media itself. This tactical view reflects a broader strategy aimed at winning enough public sympathy until the government finally reforms.

The real issue: creating a strategy to move forward

Instead, it is better to view Occupy as part of a resurgent fight-back movement, which has the potential to inspire action and confrontation against capitalism on many different fronts, and ultimately aim for its overthrow. We are still a long way from there. That will require taking on the hard strategic questions: how to revive a fighting labor movement of organized and unorganized workers; how to build organization and leadership in the most oppressed communities; and how to take the “occupy” idea into the struggles at the workplace and against evictions and foreclosures, budget cuts and school closures.

In an article last year, Hedges told his readers to “not be afraid of the language of class warfare,” and called for people here to follow the Greek workers and youth who called a general strike and “shut down the city centers.”

Yes, but none of this happens without resistance. In fact, for such actions to take place, and this has been proven in Egypt, Greece and elsewhere, the people must also begin to lose their fear. That idea—that you can fight back and you do not have to run—might not always play perfectly for the cameras, but is a critical part of the process of building a revolutionary movement.

The Black Bloc tactic should be criticized when it is clearly being harmful to the Occupy movement. There is certainly room to critique it, especially when it is used offensively.

The action of a few is substituted for—or is even in direct confrontation with—the initiative and organization of the many. It can put people at risk who often have far more to lose from police repression. In its spontaneity, it is typically disconnected from a broader strategy. It often induces fear rather than confidence among those who are entering political life. It can provide an easy entry point for police provocateur activity—as we saw in March 2009, when several masked individuals posing as part of the Black Bloc helped disrupt an anti-war march on the Pentagon before discreetly walking behind police lines.

But all such actions—which, again, have not been seen broadly in the Occupy movement—must be distinguished clearly from self-defense, which is an inviolable right.

The debate about tactics should not revolve simplistically around interpreting the Civil Rights movement (often by omitting those who did ascribe to self-defense). While recognizing how the Occupy movement grew as a result of the heavy-handed police response to peaceful protest, the discussion should instead focus on when certain tactics are appropriate or not.

How do we plan protests that dramatize our cause, exert our rights to the streets and at the same time keep our participants safe? How do we occupy a site when there is a police fence in the way? How do we occupy an apartment building or a workplace when the landlords and capitalists call in the police to enforce their property rights? How do we do all these things in a way that take us forward, giving people more confidence to struggle?

Note: Content may be reprinted with credit to LiberationNews.org.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Adam Carolla Rails Against Occupy ‘Ass Douches’ In Rant: ‘F**king Self-Entitled Monsters’

by Jon Bershad | Mediaite, December 1st, 2011

His current celebrity could be seen as an advance from his ridiculously unfunny previous venue, The Man Show.

So, what was it that inspired the Occupy movement? Was it a growing realization that the privileged had been gaming the system, making transition between social classes nearly impossible? Was it annoyance at a corrupt collusion between politicians and banks, one that kept those responsible for ruining our economy for future generations out of prison? Or was it simply a feeling that, were no one to speak up, things would continue to get worse? Well, according to Adam Carolla, the blame lies squarely on one sinister culprit; participation medals. In a lengthy rant on his hugely popular podcast, Carolla explained just how growing up in a culture of entitlement had created a generation of, as he sees it, “ass douches.”

According to Carolla, the Occupiers weren’t born out of a hatred for corruption, greed, or white collar crime, but, rather, years of being told that they deserve a medal no matter what. He explained his Incredibles-esque view thusly:

“We’ve created a bunch of fucking self-entitled monsters. And this has become the pursuit of my life where people are so far out of it in what they expect and what they think realistic is and what the set of rules that pertains to them versus the other guys- Because that’s what the bottom line is. ‘I want my Most Valuable Player trophy.’ ‘Well, you’re the slowest, fattest guy on the team.’ Why should he get one and I don’t?’ ‘Because he busts his ass and he runs a 4.4 40. That’s why he gets one.’ ‘Well, this is bullshit.’ And then everyone gets involved and everyone gives everyone a participation trophy and then everyone feels good about themselves but it’s not based on anything. You should feel good about yourself because of your accomplishments. Not because someone yelled at you to feel good about yourself and you got a fake fucking piece of plastic that was sprayed gold and had your name on a plaque at the bottom. And, when these people become adults and enter the work place”

Carolla argued that we’ve been raising our children this way for 25 years and now “we’re getting the first wave of these douche bags.” It’s an interesting theory although it doesn’t entirely explain the Occupiers that weren’t born in the 80s but are instead in their 80s.

Over at Breitbart.tv, they characterized this rant as being the only one to truly “capture” how their readers feel about the protest movements and I think they’re probably right. There’s a reason Carolla’s show does so well and I think this is probably exactly how many folks view the movement; as a bunch of douche bags.

Still, the Occupiers shouldn’t feel too bad. He called them “ass douches” and, after all, isn’t their whole goal to flush out some bad crap that’s clogging a system. Listen to the rant that follows. Click on the player button. Remember, douche bags are hygienic products.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Syrians Overwhelmingly Approve New Constitution

by Stephen Lendman

Major media scoundrels can’t bear reporting good news they’d rather suppress, so they downplay and disparage it best they can. More on that below. On Sunday, Syria’s state TV showed huge pro-Assad crowds in Damascus’ Saba Bahrat Square. By national referendum, they were eager to support constitutional reforms. They also backed state security force efforts against Western-backed killer gangs.

Russian Eurasian Institution head Alexander Doglen also endorsed draft constitutional changes. Islamic scholar Abdul-Rahman Ali al-Dalaa said they boost human dignity and religious freedom.

On February 27, Syria’s Interior Ministry announced Sunday’s impressive results. From 7AM, 14,185 polling centers opened across Syria’s governorates, as well as at border crossings, airports, mobile desert areas, and other locations.

Syrians are enthusiastic for change. Despite opposition boycotts, threats, anti-Assad media campaigns, and turnout hampered in violence-torn areas, 89.4% of eligible voters approved it. Another 9% opposed, and 1.2% of ballots were invalid.

Overall, 57.4% of Syrians participated. The total was impressive, given the risks voters took to show up.

Raw numbers included 8,376,447 voting among 14,589,954 eligible. Those for totaled 7,490,319 compared to 753,208 against.

The Constitution includes 157 articles. From its initial draft, 14 are new, 37 were amended, and another 34 reformulated. Among other reforms, political pluralism was established for the first time, as well as presidential term limits, and press freedom.

Reporting it, The New York Times headlined, “Syrians Said to Approve New Charter as Battles Continue,” saying:

Fighting keeps raging. Critics called it “too little too late, and Western leaders labeled (it) a farce.”

“Even before the result was announced, after a morning of new shelling in the beleaguered city of Homs and elsewhere, some Western leaders had disparaged the vote as having no credibility.”

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said it “fooled nobody. To open polling stations but continue to open fire on the civilians of the country has no credibility in the eyes of the world.”

In fact, Western-backed insurgents bear most responsibility for violence and instability to impose regime change most Syrians oppose. Their impressive turnout showed it.

Huge crowds voted in Damascus and other less violent areas. Voting continued until 7PM, and in high turnout areas until 10PM. Only then were centers closed.

Downplaying an impressive day, The Times said “(s)ome polling places appeared deserted, and at others, the opinions were divided.”

Hillary Clinton called Sunday’s vote an empty gesture, saying:

“It’s a phony referendum that is going to be used by Assad to justify what he is doing to other Syrians. So it’s a cynical ploy to say the least.”

Anti-Assad Syrian National Council (SNC) member Bassma Kodmani said:

“It is not going to work because the repression is continuing. They are caught up in this cycle, and it is simply to late.”

AP buried referendum results paragraphs into an article headlined, “Red Cross delivers aid to Syrian city of Hama.” It stressed violence and opposition boycotts over impressive results downplayed dismissively.

At the same time, EU nations imposed new Syrian sanctions. They include freezing central bank assets and those of certain government officials. Importing precious metals, diamonds, and minerals were also banned. Moreover, cargo flights may no longer land in EU countries.

New measures build on last September’s oil embargo and other multiple rounds. They’re effective after publishing them in the EU’s Official Journal. It’s usually within 24 hours of imposition.

A joint EU foreign ministers statement said:

“The EU underlines that those responsible for the violence across Syria will be held responsible for their actions. The EU supports the Syrian opposition in its struggle for freedom, dignity, and democracy.”

In fact, rogue EU states, like America, won’t tolerate democracy at home or abroad. They wage wars to prevent it.

For his part, Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned about intervening against Syria and/or Iran “under cover of humanitarian slogans.” In fact, “tragic events (are) driven not by concern for human rights, but a desire by some (nations for regime change and) to redistribute markets.”

Russian news agencies quoted him saying nations need to “decide their own fate independently.” He added that Western nations backed Arab Spring revolts to advance their own regional interests.

They very much want Syria and Iran regime change to assure them there against majorities in both countries.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Too Much: Chronicles of Excess (2.27.12)

THIS WEEK
We’re all still feeling, four years later, the 2008 Wall Street crash that tanked the financial industry — and our economy. But an even deadlier 2008 crash in Manhattan has largely faded into obscurity. Last week, in a New York courtroom, memories of that forgotten tragedy edged back onto the public stage. This particular stage would be the manslaughter trial of multi-millionaire James Lomma, the owner of New York’s largest construction crane company. In May 2008, one of Lomma’s giant cranes crashed down on New York’s Upper East Side, killing two construction workers. These two men died, an assistant D.A. told a packed courtroom Tuesday, “because a wealthy man” cared about “the bottom line and nothing else.” The crashed crane, the D.A. noted, had suffered damage the year before. Lomma, the prosecutor charged, had refused to wait for a qualified repair firm. He cut corners instead to rush the damaged crane back into service. Lomma may beat this rap. Cases against big cheeses remain devilishly difficult to bring to trial, let alone win, one reason why no high-finance chief exec has yet gone to jail for the frauds behind Wall Street’s epic 2008 crash. But you don’t have to be a Wall Streeter in America today to dodge accountability. We have more, on that score, in this week’s Too Much.	About Too Much, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good Subscribe to Too Much Too Much online Inequality.org Join us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter
GREED AT A GLANCE
Cheerleaders for America’s ultra rich finally have a comedian they can call their own. Adam Carolla, a 47-year-old “radio personality,” captured right-wing hearts last fall with a profane rant against Occupy Wall Street. Carolla then burnished his friend-of-fortune credentials in an interview — with conservatism’s most prestigious magazine — where he bemoans “that the rich have to pretend they’re not wealthy.” Next up for the right: a search for a star rocker to offset the likes of Bruce Springsteen. That hunt may intensify next week after Springsteen’s latest album, entitled Wrecking Ball, appears. Rolling Stone is calling the album “a scathing indictment of Wall Street greed.” Springsteen himself is crediting Occupy Wall Street for the album’s inspiration. Before Occupy, he noted earlier this month, “nobody had talked about income inequality in America for decades.” They don’t make Republicans like Herman Andersen anymore. Andersen, a Minnesota congressman, opposed moves after World War II to cut income taxes by a fixed percent “across the board.” Such cuts, he charged, conceal big giveaways to America’s rich. To save workers $45 off their taxes, Andersen asked, why must we “give our million-dollar-income friend $90,000?” A good question for New Jersey governor Chris Christie. His new proposal to cut state income taxes 10 percent “across the board” will save households making $50,000 just $80. The savings for taxpayers making $1 million: $7,265. Christie’s pick in the GOP primaries, Mitt Romney, last week unveiled a plan to cut 20 percent, across the board, off federal income taxes. Average savings for taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent: $78. Savings for the top 0.1 percent: $239,000. Five years ago, France’s rich celebrated royally after conservative Nicolas Sarkozy won the French presidency and moved swiftly to slash inheritance taxes. But Sarkozy later raised taxes on the high-income set, and his main rival in this April’s upcoming French presidential election, Francois Hollande, is vowing to raise them even higher, from 41 to 45 percent on top-bracket income. The top current U.S. rate: 35 percent. French conservatives are predicting a massive rich people exodus to tax havens like Switzerland should Hollande be elected. But Charles-Marie Jottras, a luxury real estate firm CEO, sees “no major groundswell” among the rich for exiting France. One reason: Any massive deep-pocket exodus would flood the luxury home market with mansions up for sale — and depress the price departing mega millionaires could fetch for their properties.	Quote of the Week “Who do we want to be? Will we be a country where success is limited to a few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off.” Michelle Obama, Michelle Obama’s Pitch to The Rich, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 23, 2012 Like this Too Much? Email the issue to a friend
PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK
Billionaire David Koch is standing in the Moorish-tiled entry hall of his Florida manse, dressed in white pants and blue blazer. He’s grousing to a Palm Beach Post reporter. Fumes the 71-year-old: “They make me sound like a bully. Do I look like a bully?” No, David Koch doesn’t look like a bully. He just spends like one. David and his brother Charles, the New Yorker estimates, have spent over $200 million since 1998 on right-wing causes that range from denying climate science to busting unions. His latest cause: saving Wisconsin governor Scott Walker from recall. A Koch-funded group is currently blitzing Wisconsin with a $700,000 “It’s working” TV ad deluge on behalf of the Walker administration. But Wisconsin isn’t working. Under Walker, new stats show, the state now leads the Midwest in layoffs and jobless claims.	Stat of the Week Super PACs are just getting started. How far can they go? One sign of our times: The $2.6 million PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel has so far invested in GOP White House hopeful Ron Paul equals just 0.2 percent of the value of Thiel’s stake in Facebook.
inequality by the numbers
	Take Action on Inequality Common Security Clubs/Resilience Circles United for a Fair Economy Wealth for the Common Good OccupyWallStreet Occupy the Board Room Occupy Wall Street-Unions The Other 98% US Uncut
IN FOCUS
Too Big to Fail: An Executive Suite Story If a blunder** you committed cost your employer $4 million, how long would you stay employed? In America today, a CEO can cost his company $4 billion and still collect both a paycheck and a bonus. People in America get fired all the time. Break too many plates as a dishwasher, lose too many games as a coach, miss too many deadlines as a reporter, you’re going to be history. We need this accountability. We couldn’t function, as a healthy society, without it. But accountability has to be universal. To create and sustain excellence, no society can hold only some people accountable — and give others a free pass. Yet some societies — deeply unequal societies — do give out free passes. All the time. In these unequal societies, grand accumulations of wealth translate into grand accumulations of power. The powerful make their own rules. They rig daily life’s games. They come out winners no matter how poorly they play. Consider Randall Stephenson, the chief exec at telecom giant AT&T. Stephenson had a bad year in 2011. A really bad year. His decisions cost AT&T over $4 billion. What price did Stephenson pay for this debacle? Last week we learned that price — and much more about the dysfunction that defines us. Our story starts back last March when CEO Stephenson triumphantly announced that AT&T had just closed a deal to buy T-Mobile, the American wireless phone subsidiary of Germany’s Deutsche Telekom. Stephenson clearly wanted T-Mobile in the worst way. The $39 billion purchase price he agreed to pay for the wireless carrier amounted to almost double the $23.2 billion value that analysts on Wall Street had placed on the company the previous December. Stephenson also** agreed to pay Deutsche Telekom a $4.2 billion “break-up fee” should his deal for T-Mobile fail to gain the necessary antitrust approvals from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission. That fee amounted to a substantially greater share of the T-Mobile takeover price than the typical break-up fee in a major acquisition deal. Stephenson must have figured that AT&T couldn’t possibly fail to gain a green-light from regulators. His optimism did make a certain sense. AT&T had been working hard to tip the eventual regulatory decision. With a Capitol Hill lobbying army of over 90 power suits, including former GOP Senate leader Trent Lott, AT&T boasted what the Washington Post called one of the nation’s “most muscular” political operations. Stephenson had a line into the White House as well. Bill Daley, then White House chief of staff, had been both a top exec at a phone company that merged into AT&T and an executive with JPMorgan Chase, the Wall Street bank that stood to make hundred of millions in fees from brokering the T-Mobile takeover. That takeover, once approved, would instantly make AT&T by far the nation’s largest wireless carrier — and ensure Stephenson one of the largest payday windfalls in telecom history. But both the Justice Department and the FCC would balk at the takeover as public — and rival corporate — pressure against it mounted. This past December, Stephenson folded and took the takeover offer off the table. AT&T would swallow hard and pay out to Deutsche Telekom the $4.2 billion break-up charge. The enormity of “billions” can be difficult to comprehend. How much in real assets did Stephenson’s T-Mobile fiasco cost AT&T? Try this analogy. Imagine a terribly disgruntled AT&T employee out to inflict as much damage on the company as he possible could. This troubled employee picks up a sledgehammer and walks up and down the aisles of an AT&T mobile phone warehouse, smashing one $100 phone box after another. He can smash 10 boxes a minute, 600 an hour. After an eight-hour day, he has inflicted $480,000 worth of destruction. How long would this destructive demon have to keep that sledgehammer swinging to do as much damage to AT&T’s bottom line as CEO Randall Stephenson’s $4.2 billion T-Mobile merger break-up? Another 8,749 days. The disgruntled employee in this parable, needless to say, would be fired — and spend no small amount of time in prison. The actual penalty on Stephenson? Did he lose his job for costing AT&T all those billions? Not even close. Stephenson, AT&T corporate filings revealed Tuesday, didn’t even lose his bonus. AT&T paid the CEO, for his 2011 executive labors,$1.6 million in base salary, $3.8 billion in cash bonus “incentive award,” $12.7 million in stock compensation, and enough other goodies to value his total pay at $22 million. “AT&T is committed to paying for performance and the compensation reflects that,” the telecom’s McCall Butler told reporters last week after the release of Stephenson’s pay figures. How could a $22 million take-home reflect an appropriate reward for a “performance” that cost AT&T $4.2 billion? The AT&T board, company flacks explained, did absolutely penalize Stephenson for his performance. The board reduced his bonus $2.08 million from what the top exec could have received. Interesting penalty. Stephenson saw his pay drop less than 9 percent for an executive performance that dropped AT&T annual earnings by 52 percent. AT&T shareholders can’t be too happy about that. But other stakeholders in AT&T also have reason these days to feel a bit out of joint. Customers, for instance. In Connecticut last year, the state Department of Public Utility Control levied a $1.1 million fine against AT&T for poor customer service. Last fall, AT&T customers in Connecticut went up to six days without phone service after a “Nor’easter” blew through the state. Why the delay? Telephone workers had to be called up from the South to make the necessary repairs. AT&T in Connecticut, notes local AT&T union president Bill Henderson, has cut more than 2,500 positions over the last four years. AT&T layoffs have spread beyond Connecticut. In Georgia earlier this month, phone workers and Occupy Atlanta activists joined to stage a sit-in to protest 740 layoffs AT&T’s Atlanta office had announced in December. AT&T officials say the layoffs in Georgia — and elsewhere — simply reflect the falling market share of landline phones. CEO Stephenson had one of his vice presidents tell protesting Atlanta workers that “like any responsible business, we must work consistently to match our workforce to the needs of the business.” Workers, in short, must be accountable to the marketplace. The way of an unequal world. Somebody has to be accountable. Like this article? Subscribe and get Too Much in your email inbox every Monday.	Email this Too Much issue to a friend New Wisdom on Wealth Malte Luebker, A Tide of Inequality: What can Taxes and Transfers achieve? Social Europe Journal, February 16, 2012. Why globalization and technology do not doom nations to greater internal economic inequality. Bruce Bartlett, What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate? Tax Notes, February 20, 2012. The tax rate on America’s top income bracket can safely double from its current 35 percent, latest research suggests. Brian Miller, Uprooting Inequality and Its Ideological Underpinnings, Common Dreams, February 22, 2012. The story behind the forthcoming book, The Self-Made Myth. Thomas Schaller, An American recipe for class immobility, Bradenton Herald, February 24, 2012. A political scientist traces how the United States has become starkly more unequal and class-bound. John Lanchester, Why the super-rich love the UK, Guardian, February 24, 2012. A UK novelist muses on the societal impact of a super rich presence. Bill Boyarsky, Income Inequality Goes to School, TruthDig, February 24, 2012. An economic system tilted toward the rich creates pedagogical, not just pocketbook issues. Jonathan Baird, Income inequality deserves our attention, Concord Monitor, February 26, 2012. A jurist explains why shrinking the gap between the rich and everyone else would benefit all society.
In Review
Our Class War’s New Defense Establishment Jeffrey Winters, Oligarchy in the U.S.A. In These Times, March 2012. A half-century ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans against a “military-industrial complex” he saw dominating and distorting the national political scene. Northwestern University political scientist Jeffrey Winters sees a broader threat to our American democracy. We have, Winters argues in the cover story of the latest In These Times magazine, become an oligarchy. U.S. political analysts do from time to time write about oligarchs. But these oligarchs always seem to reside somewhere else — most notably in post-Soviet Russia. Winters turns the mirror back on ourselves. Down through history, Winters reminds us, oligarchs have been people “who command massive concentrations” of wealth they can deploy “to defend or enhance their own property and interests.” In medieval Europe, oligarchs “built castles and raised private armies.” Our contemporary American oligarchs — the ultra rich who rank in the top one-tenth of our richest 1 percent — have mercenaries, too. They hire, notes Winters, “skilled professionals, middle- and upper-class worker bees, to labor year-round as salaried, full-time political advocates and defenders of the oligarchy.” These well-paid “worker bees” make up what Winters calls our national “wealth defense industry,” a sort of super-sized military-industrial complex. “Oligarchic theory requires no conspiracies or backroom deals,” Winters takes pains to point out. “It is the minions oligarchs hire who provide structure and continuity in America’s civil oligarchy.” Oligarchic theory, Winters adds, doesn’t require us to dismiss American democracy as a total sham. We do at times operate democratically. On many matters, as Winters explains, “oligarchs have no shared interests.” They either cancel each other out on these issues or have no real impact. But on those issues where the richest of our rich do share common interests, the oligarchs dominate through “the unique power that comes with enormous wealth.” The antidote to oligarchy? In the past, Winters observes, “wars and revolutions have destroyed oligarchies by forcibly dispersing their wealth.” Can we do that dispersing today without social cataclysm? Winters ventures no ultimate answer. Democracy, he does suggest, can certainly “tame” oligarchy. To have any shot at doing that taming, Winters helps us understand, we first need to ask some “fundamental questions about how the oligarchic power of wealth distorts and outflanks the democratic power of participation.” This new work from Winters offers a good place to start that questioning process.	Inequality Links Inequality.org The Equality Trust Wealth for the Common Good New Economy Working Group Class Action Mind the Gap Tax Justice Network High Pay Commission Us Against Greed Make Wall Street Pay Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength WealthFacts video We Are the 99 Percent Occupy Design
About Too Much
Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies \| 1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 \| (202) 234-9382 \| Editor: Sam Pizzigati. \| E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org \| Unsubscribe.