America's Future Now

FBI Raiding Activists' Homes: Is being Anti War a Thought Crime?

Philip Palij — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:06:02 -0400

The FBI are doing things unnervingly similar to the Gestapo of NAZI Germany and KGB of the Communist Soviet Union.

A Senator is suggesting the transfer of budgetary powers to the President to solve the debt ceiling crisis, that is the constitutional power of Congress being transferred out to the president who already has extraordinary powers.

The two are related, there is an almost anarchic abuse of the constitution going on in the corridors of power and operational institutions of government - who is there to turn to?

Monsanto Herbicide: Why Is Damning Evidence ignored

Philip Palij — Sat, 14 May 2011 06:56:18 -0400

Dr. Don Huber did not seek fame when he quietly penned a confidential letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in January of this year, warning Vilsack of preliminary evidence of a microscopic organism that appears in high concentrations in genetically modified Roundup Ready corn and soybeans and "appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals and probably human beings." Huber, a retired Purdue University professor of plant pathology and U.S. Army colonel, requested the USDA's help in researching the matter and suggested Vilsack wait until the research was concluded before deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa. But about a month after it was sent, the letter was leaked, soon becoming an internet phenomenon.

American Capitalism Has To Change

Philip Palij — Wed, 04 May 2011 04:42:07 -0400

A COMMON START from The Butler Bros on Vimeo.

Julian Assange on Murdoch, Manning and the threat from China

Philip Palij — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:25:16 -0500

"I think what's emerging in the mainstream media is the awareness that if I can be indicted, other journalists can, too," says Assange. "Even the New York Times is worried. This used not to be the case. If a whistleblower was prosecuted, publishers and reporters were protected by the First Amendment, which journalists took for granted. That's being lost."

Inconvenient Spoof: Cables Reveal How US manipulated climate accord

Philip Palij — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:40:21 -0500

Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord

- WikiLeaks cables: Cancún climate talks doomed to fail, says EU president

The Unbearable Lightness of Reading Dana Milbank

Richard Eskow — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:55:08 -0400

Feel free to read Dana Milbank if that sort of thing appeals to you, but don't imagine for a minute that you're learning anything. That would be like studying the French Revolution by reading Marie Antoinette's cake recipes. The Milbank school of journalism - which at this point is American journalism -doesn't just fail to inform. Somehow it's able to subtract from a reader's overall body of information, as if by magic, leaving her or him even less informed than they were before.

That was made clear this week during the annual conference held by the Campaign for America's Future, the progressive organization where I am a Fellow (although I certainly don't speak for the organization). An objective reporter would have found much of substance to cover there, especially the widespread agreement that the progressive movement must lead the political debate rather than yielding that role to the Democratic Party establishment. In saner journalistic times, that's a heckuva story. But with newspaper readership down and cable news fueling an ADD-like journalistic tone, publishers have apparently decided to take a different tack: politics as gossip journalism.

That's not a new observation, of course, but the Milbank School takes the creeping Lindsey Lohanism of the American media to new heights. (Actually that's not fair to Lindsay, who is a surprisingly gifted actor in the right vehicle - I'm referring, of course, to her press coverage.) Politico is often credited with the celebretization of political journalism, but Milbank has an even longer history of practicing the craft. (And let us not overlook the First Czarina of the Gossip Empire, Maureen Dowd.) That's why the mournful cry often rises from information-hungry readers like ululations in a Sophocles tragedy: Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

The two-and-a-half day conference was punctuated by precisely twenty-three minutes of protest. That was the amount of time it took Speaker Nancy Pelosi to address the conference - a task she conducted heroically under challenging circumstances. Guess which twenty-three minutes Milbank chose to cover. We'll pause for a split-second to let you think ... Hey, you're right! Now guess what theme he chose ... right again! Liberal House Speaker heckled ... by liberals. How ironic! How droll! How celebrity-journalism-like!

How ... inaccurate. Actually, Pelosi was not heckled by liberals. She was shouted down - quite rudely - by a single-issue group that treated her even less respectfully than Kanye West treated Taylor Swift. They didn't even say "I'ma let you finish." The group apparently supports the Community Choice Act, a good bill that - ironically, for you Milbankian irony junkies - one that the Speaker reportedly supports. Memo to Dana: Single-issue advocates are not "liberals" or "conservatives," and the demonstrators expressed no political agenda. But "liberals heckle a liberal" is too juicy a tag to sacrifice just because it's inaccurate. Code Pink, which really is a progressive group, was also there and unfurled a sign about Israel policy, but they did not heckle the Speaker. They failed to provide Milbank with a catchy hook for his piece.

That means they failed to perform their patriotic duty. Don't these lefties want to save the newspaper industry? They should realize how much the country needs a medium that provides ledes like this one: "For 17 months, anger at President Obama and congressional Democrats has been pooling on the left. On Tuesday morning, it spilled onto the floor of an Omni Shoreham ballroom and splashed all over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi." Now that's great political prose! I. F. Stone, eat your heart out.

Consistency and logical coherence are optional in the Milbank school. You've already read his first sentence: Anger has been pooling on the Left for 17 months. Now read the opener to his second paragraph: "The celebrated San Francisco liberal took the stage to greet what should have been a friendly audience ..." (Note the use of the word "celebrated." In Milbank's world, celebrity rules.)

How can a competent writer or analyst say this "should have been a friendly audience" after he's just said that the same audience has been "angry" for a year and a half? That's incoherent. The Milbank School apparently believes that surprise, like irony and celebrity, helps sell newspapers. So forget logic - "move those units," baby!

Let's be clear: There is a sense of frustration with the White House and Congress, and it was expressed at the conference. But the sentiments expressed at the conference were not personal, and they included recognition that, given the right strategies, progressives can engage productively with a Democratic leadership that also has accomplished some meaningful things. But let's face it: That story isn't "splashy." "Liberals are mad at Daddy and Mommy" fits more closely to the Milbankian style. They don't permit him to write that the "San Francisco liberal" (get it? lattes and hippies?) was "eaten by her own."

The real discontent expressed at the conference stems from a number of unresolved problems which center around our ongoing economic crisis, and the sense that the government isn't doing enough to address them. This picture will help put the conference's themes into context:

That captures the urgency of one of the conference's key messages - we need jobs now. The blue lines show the Administration's expected unemployment rate with and without the stimulus, compare with today's reality: Our jobless rate is far worse with the stimulus than the White House thought it would be without it. Yet, instead of proposing more jobs-centered stimulus, the Administration's focusing on deficit reduction.

Milbank didn't address this issue or anything else of substance. Instead he used precious column inches to quote lyrics from a song played during the break, and to observe that "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" was one of the other tunes coming through the loudspeakers. His hurried scribbling of words from an old MTV hit may explain why he was unable to fit more substantive information in his notebook.

Poltico's coverage of the event looked like Pulitzer Prize material when compared to Milbank's vapid scribblings. Reporter Glenn Thrush's headline was "Left to Obama: We're Not Happy," which was certainly a major theme of the conference. His first quote was from Ilyse Hogue of MoveOn: ""We are not apathetic, we are not depressed -- we are willing to get out and fight for the people who fight for us." That captures of one the conference's themes. But the comment that "criticism of Obama during the lightly attended opening day was more visceral than issue specific" leaves the sneaking suspicion that Thrush only attended plenary presentations. If he had attended breakout sessions, chatted with the authors signing their books throughout the day, or interviewed the many policy experts and activists in attendance, he would have encountered a lot of specifics.

At least Politico's readers have some idea what took place. Milbank's will have come away with this impression: Liberals are eating their own, and their digestive process is leaving big splashy pools that some celebrity from San Francisco stepped in while speaking to people who were critical of her, although that was really some other people, and which in any case comes as a total surprise because they've only had a mounting sense of anger for the last 17 months, which means they should have been really friendly to her. People in wheelchairs suddenly became spokespeople for the liberal community rather than activists for the disabled, and they rode their wheelchairs right through those pools of boiling anger, and all those people were angry at Mommy and Daddy and probably at themselves, but the details don't really matter and I want to report this in a catchy, celebrity-driven way and besides hey Fatboy Slim and the Rolling Stones are on the radio and I love this song and my notebook's almost full and, and ...

And for God's sake, please buy this and save the American newspaper - because, after all, how would people stay informed without reporters like us?

Why This Ex-AIG Exec Is Protesting Treasury's Backdoor "AIG Bailout"

Richard Eskow — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:54:23 -0400

Life can only be understood backward, said Kierkegaard, but it has to be lived forward. That's the only explanation I can offer for the strange turn of events that led to me becoming an AIG executive, then a progressive writer/blogger, and to my plans to speak tomorrow at a Treasury Department protest organized by my friend Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks (Wednesday, 1:30 PM, 15th Street NW and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington).

What are we protesting? The government bailout of Goldman Sachs and other bankers that was orchestrated by Timothy Geithner's New York Federal Reserve and paid for by taxpayer money funneled through ... AIG.

TAKE ACTION
March on the Treasury Department, 15th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, from the America's Future NOW! Conference.
GET THERE: From the Omni Shoreham Hotel, Metro to Farragut North or Metro Center stations.

Cenk and I are here in Washington for the America's Future Now conference organized by Campaign for America's Future (where I am a Fellow), and CAF is supporting and participating in the demonstration. As for that AIG career ... it was something I didn't plan for or anticipate after having been a rock musician, a freelance journalist, a computer guy (there was no word for it back then, exactly), a financial and data analyst, and then a health care technical expert. But AIG bought the health care company I worked for in 1986, and soon I was designing benefit plans, managing nurses and doctors, and then consulting in health policy in the US and a number of foreign countries.

I'd always been a good progressive, and I was a technical expert when I was hired by AIG. I had worked in the HMO industry before that but - hard as it is to believe now - the HMO industry was filled with liberals and social idealists back then. They had genuinely believed that health maintenance organizations could be designed with incentives to keep people healthy through preventive care. That was before the financial guys took over.

My career at AIG was an exciting and gratifying one in many ways. It allowed me to help the US Agency for International Development in over 20 countries, sharpen my analytical skills, or work on interesting projects which touched on artificial intelligence and other new ideas. Most of our work involved workers' compensation, health policy, or risk management. The Financial Products division which later brought down the economy was only just being formed when I left. Years later I struck out on my own as a consultant and writer.

Life is a series of trade-offs, and my AIG career was an example of that: Hey, I even played lead guitar and sang in an all-Wall Street rock and roll band eventually. We got flown to great corporate events and had a lot of fun. That's the upside. The worst part was having to sing "Suspicious Minds" (a great song, but not cover-worthy). At least I thought that was the worst part ... until we wound up backing an Elvis impersonator for what seemed like an endless evening.

"I'm caught in a trap/I can't walk out ..."

Eventually I left the corporate life to become a writer and consultant. I began blogging and became friendly with Cenk. Now I even cohost The Young Turks sometimes, which is always a great pleasure, despite the fact that I'm neither young nor Turkish. (Cenk and the TYT gang clearly believe in diversity.)

But why did I say yes when Cenk asked me to speak there tomorrow (along with Cenk and Sam Seder, among others)? Here's why: first and foremost because I'm an American citizen. Goldman Sachs screwed us: They received $12.9 billion in taxpayer money as a "counterparty" for monies allegedly owed to them by AIG (more about that "allegedly" shortly.) They reported $13.4 billion in profits last year. See any connection between those figures?

Then they paid themselves fat, fat bonuses for having a banner year. And why not? They did have a banner year ... by playing us for suckers. Cenk's right: Treasury must demand that they give the money back.

They didn't earn it anyway, from what we can tell. AIG was "insuring" Goldman's deals, but the $12.9 billion assumes that Goldman claims of monies owed were valid. But they were never independently verified. And why shouldn't Goldman lose money if it gambled? They drove AIG ... and the country ... into the ground. The 'moral hazard' in this case is allowing them to gamble without paying the price. We've quoted Nicky from Casino before:

The taxpayers deserve their money back. And AIG still has some solid companies, which the taxpayer now owns and which could use some financial help so they can turn a better profit. Here's one scenario: Those companies could use $13 billion to shore up their operations so that they can be sold profitably and make a solid return on the taxpayers' investment. Prudential recently backed out of a deal to buy an AIG subsidiary called AIA . Could $13 billion have made that deal possible? Could it now be invested in other areas of the company to make them more profitable and/or more saleable?

There are two choices, really: Get the money back so that we can turn AIG's good divisions around and sell them. Or, get the money back and give it back to the Federal treasury. Where are all those self-described "deficit hawks" when we need them? Tell Pete Peterson to stop tinkering with Social Security, which is far more financially stable than most government projects, and get himself down to our demonstration to ask for the taxpayers' money back.

Now that's what I call fiscal conservatism.

He won't, however, and neither will any other so-called deficit hawk. But that's our money, not Goldman Sachs'. We should either invest it so that we can sell off AIG, or use it to feed some hungry families, or put it to some other productive use. Lloyd Blankfein and his cronies don't need it. We do. Let's tell them to give it back.

I hate writing too much about myself (that's blogging, not journalism), but that AIG history's the reason I'm speaking tomorrow. So that's that. See you tomorrow - along with Cenk, the TYT team, Sam Seder, the CAF folks, and one ex-AIG guy who occasionally looks backward in order to use what was once lived forward - but only when it's for a good cause.

Obama, Progressives, and Leadership: or, I've Been Doing Some Thinking About Us ...

Richard Eskow — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 02:22:51 -0400

I was getting ready to attend next week's America's Future Now conference, whose theme is that progressives must lead, and thinking about the relationship problems progressives are having with Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership. All the relationship books say that you need to be clear about what you need, so that you can communicate those needs to your partner in a healthy way. (At least that's what I imagine they say; I don't really know.)

The relationship between progressives and the Democratic leadership involves love, anger, and a lot of co-dependence. Some progressives seem to defend the President no matter what he does. Others have written him off as the hopelessly cynical tool (or manipulator) of a corrupt political system. Then there are those in the middle, the ones who get disillusioned and then fall in love all over again whenever he gives a great speech like he did yesterday. Political life must be a series of fifty first dates for them.

The first two groups periodically get angry at each other, while the third group probably alternates between ecstasy and heartache. It's a dysfunctional relationship, all excess and no balance. Here's an example of a middle way, inspired by this week's events: Progressives can congratulate the President when he speaks brilliantly about topics like the environment, while letting him know that he'll lose credibility if he doesn't back his words up with concrete action.

When I say "progressives," I mean people who care passionately about achieving a core group of goals - goals like universal healthcare, real financial reform, a renewing of the social contract with working people, an end to fruitless wars, and a commitment to caring for the poor, the elderly, and all children. I mean people who don't just support these ideals, but are engaged with them - as activists, organizers, bloggers, and/or as people who read and think about these issues on a daily basis.

In other words, I mean you guys - most of the people who are reading these words.

Some progressives think the only problem with Obama's performance so far is that people like - well, like me - don't give the guy a break. When I criticized Obama's continued use of Larry Summers to lead the financial reform charge, for example, this was a typical comment: "Sigh. Doesn't Obama get to do ANYTHING without being second-guessed?'" There were lots of others like this one, too, about the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute anyone in the AIG case: "... every politician, sooner than later, is but a paid stoodge (sic)."

Even Paul McCartney got in on the act on the pro-Obama side, when he said this week that the President's "a a great guy, so lay off him." Pace Paul, here's what I consider to be the right progressive response: The President seems to be a nice guy (though I have no idea if he is or not, and nobody's ever accused Rahm Emanuel of excessive niceness). But he's clearly responsive to political pressure, so we need to keep the pressure up from our side. If you're more comfortable putting it this way, let's say that we want to make a nice guy even nicer.

Other people will express their opinions at next week's event about how to lead in the age of Obama. (That's a session topic at next week's conference..) But here's my take: Don't support politicians - support results. Help politicians who are likely to achieve those results, oppose those who are likely to obstruct them, and pressure all of them to do the right thing whenever possible. (Note, for example, that a number of Republicans supported some meaningful financial reforms.) My view about politicians is respectful, but strictly utilitarian: They're tools for the greater good. I like some of them, but I reserve my deepest emotions for people in real need.

In some ways politicians - and make no mistake, they're all politicians - are like one-celled organisms. They'll respond to positive stimuli and avoid negative ones. So our role becomes a form of behavioral mod: reward them when they do the right thing and to degrade their quality of life when they don't. We should work to make sure that all politicians, from Obama on down, develop a splitting headache when they work against the progressive agenda. And we should work just as hard to help them to experience a warm and satisfying glow of satisfaction when they support our goals.

That means showering them with calls and letters of praise for their positive actions, followed by flowing cascades of donations, volunteers, and support. Believe me, that'll make any politician's cheeks turn rosy with afterglow. When they don't do the right thing? Stony silence, angry letters, lack of funds or volunteers - hey, maybe even a primary challenger. This needs to be tactically applied, of course - to have a Democrat replaced by an even worse Republican is usually a Pyrrhic victory. But Halter's primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln was an excellent example of the progressive movement's ability to punish anti-progressive behavior, which discourages it, while also pressuring pols to take better policy stands (like Lincoln's excellent amendment on derivatives.)

I've been disappointed at times with the behavior of some progressive colleagues during the health and financial reform debates, too. That includes activist organizations, progressive politicians, and liberal pundits that I respect and appreciate. Many of them are too eager to heap undeserved praise on a bill even before it's finished. When you do that you undercut yourself. Politics 101: If you're no longer a threat, you no longer have leverage.

Some colleagues were horrified at the criticism some of us directed toward the health bill as it was being defined, too. We were even called "traitors." One friend, for example, tweeted something like "Bernie Sanders likes the bill. Is he a liberal sell-out?" My answer was "No, but Bernie Sanders got $12 billion for primary care centers before he went along. What did you get?" Sanders' handling of health reform was a perfect example of bold, pragmatic, goal-oriented progressivism. Support the bill if it's a good one - but only after you've won every concession you can possibly win.

Progressives shouldn't follow leaders - they should exploit them. Politicians aren't heroes, they're tools to be used in a greater cause. So are we. We need to be unrelenting in their challenge of the right, whose ideology has demonstrably failed. We need to take that case to the people, even if - especially if - Democratic leaders won't. And we need to be much bolder in our vision, in our articulation of that vision, and in our willingness to lead instead of being led.

Action is a bitch. Leadership is a headache. Passionate involvement can mean a lot of sleepless nights. But take the reins anyway, progressives. It's your time. Let the politicians follow you for a change.

It can be done. We can do it. Let's start by telling our political "significant others" that it's time we had a little talk ... about us.

Come Shape The Next Phase Of The Progressive Movement At America's Future Now

Zach Carter — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:40:32 -0400

It's an interesting time to be a progressive in the United States. In many ways, the election of President Barack Obama represented a logical, if improbable, end to the era of phony Reaganomics and demonization politics. But the Obama presidency has been a serious test for the progressive movement. The leaders in Washington who were elected with progressive support have repeatedly settled for needlessly weak reforms while ignoring important progressive priorities. There's a critical lesson here: Progressive organizing doesn't start or stop at the voting booth. Grassroots activism from the blogosphere to the union hall is the force that moves both political power and public opinion. We have an opportunity to rekindle the progressive flame that reshaped Washington at the America's Future Now conference June 7 – 9. I hope you will join us.

We will be organizing around every key issue in the progressive pantheon, from the rise of the Tea Party to the future of health care. The contemporary political turmoil will be underscored by multiple in-depth discussions of economic issues—areas in which, I confess, I am deeply personally invested. In addition to working as AlterNet's economics editor, I'm a fellow at Campaign for America's Future, the group sponsoring the conference. On June 8, I will be speaking on a panel about bringing economic populism to Washington. It's a critical topic for my fellow bloggers and journalists, and I strongly encourage anybody reading this article to come and make their voice heard.

When the U.S. House of Representatives first shot down the bank bailout bill in the fall of 2008, I was working in a financial newsroom. Dozens of reporters and editors were crowded around a television, watching CNBC's coverage of the House floor, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average embedded in the corner of the screen, glowing green. When it became clear that the bill did not have the votes to pass, the room broke into a panic—people scrambling for the phones, clattering furiously at their keyboards, shouting across the room and pounding on desks, all while the green numbers on the television grew more ominous by the second. Much of the hubub was about the news: "Congress Rejects Bailout, Dow Crashes! That's your headline!" But the furor was intensified by an economic anxiety so intense that it was manifesting itself physically—raised voices, grinding teeth and sinking stomachs.

My coworkers at the time were well-intentioned, but as you might imagine, financial newsrooms are not hotbeds of progressive thought. My colleagues were facing an intellectual crisis. How could Wall Street possibly have screwed up this badly? How could Congress not come to the rescue? Am I going to have a job tomorrow?

To a great extent, this newsroom chaos reflected the nation at large. All but the most die-hard right-wingers found themselves drawn to progressive ideas. Ronald Reagan's worldview, which had dominated economic policy for nearly thirty years, was collapsing with the Dow. If anything, that worldview has been discredited even further by the events that have transpired since the Great Financial Crash of 2008. Unemployment has surged to double-digits, while corporate malfeasance has created the greatest environmental calamity in history in the Gulf of Mexico. The banking oligarchs have restored their bloated bonuses, even as the foreclosure crisis deepens unabated.

Nearly two years after The Crash, Obama and Congress are all-but-certain to enact Wall Street reform legislation. Like much of the Obama presidency, it is a bittersweet victory. Regulators will get real and necessary tools to fight financial excess, but without major and unexpected improvements, the bill will not meaningfully rein in the capital markets casino that wrecked the global economy. The bill's shortcomings ensure that our recovery will be weaker than necessary, and leave us vulnerable to another Great Crash in the near future.

America's Future Now will provide several opportunities for progressives to plan the next steps for our economy. What further reforms must Congress address next year? How can we press Congress to stand up for its non-corporate constituents? What are the most effective avenues for progressive activism? Some of today's most important economic thinkers will be presenting, from economists like Simon Johnson and Robert Johnson, to commentators like Robert Kuttner and Arianna Huffington, to labor leaders like Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, to activists like George Goehl and Heather McGhee, to Congressional stalwarts like Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Alan Grayson.

The progressive movement is capable of extraordinary things. With Corporate America allied against us, we forced Republicans out of Congressional control in 2006 and pushed them out of the White House in 2008. Today's fight is more complex, as the executive class strengthens its ties to the Democratic Party, and the Democratic leadership softens its tone on corporate abuses. That's what makes an event like America's Future Now so important. Today, the progressive movement faces a set of decisions more critical than any in its recent history. Please join us and help shape the future of that movement.

Senator Sherrod Brown at America's Future Now!

Jack Arlook — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:40:10 -0400

Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio) speaking at the America's Future Now Conference hosted by Campaign for America's Future.