They're actually old stereotypes based on bits of realities. All Jews are
bankers. Well, there were and are, some powerful Jewish bankers. All Jews
are socialists or Communists. Well, there was a portion of european Jewery
that was socialist. Jews are running the world. Well, bankers have a lot of
power and today in the US, the Israel lobby which is the Jewish 1%, does
have a lot of political power. If you don't like Jews and tend to accept
generalizations without examining them, then that's what you come up with,
the stereotypes that you've heard from all those well meaning Americans.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 3:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Blindsided by New York Times
Blackout
One more example of how successfully the Empire's propaganda machine works.
I know many people who trust the New York Times as their source of objective
news. Other friends of mine honestly believe the main media is infested by
Liberals. I even know people, not friends, who insist that the Media and
the New York Times, and indeed, all major papers, are controlled by either
Socialists or Jews.
When I ask them why they think Corporations would advertise in socialist or
Jewish owned papers or on radio or TV, they have no answer for the
socialists, but as for the Jews, many of them believe all corporations are
actually owned by Jews who are plotting to take over the world. I'm
thinking that if I press the subject, they will declare that all Jews are
socialists. So there is no rhyme or reason.
And I believe it is due to two factors. First is the deliberate smoke
screen spread by the Ruling Class, and second is the general disinterest
that this smoke screen generates among the Working Class.
For most of us, when things are confusing or do not make sense, we tend to
dismiss them or come up with irrational answers.
Rather than saying, "What the Hell's going on here?" we say, "Hey, how's
bout them Sea Hawks!"
Carl Jarvis
On 7/17/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is most horrifying about this is that the blackout of Bernieago.
Sanders is just one more example of the lack of ofjectivity and good
journalism at the New York Times. It has become a mouthpiece for
whatever administration is currently in power and for its financial
backers. And yet, there are people who still think it is a libeeral
newspaper and who call it "the paper of record".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 12:41 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Bernie Sanders Blindsided by New York Times
Blackout
When are the working class people going to get over the silly idea
that we have a voice in the American Empire? This article makes the
case that if you are not a dues paying member, you get no voice. A
dues paying member is someone who knows how to hold out their hand and
say, "Yes Master", to the Empire.
Some of us have had the experience of trying to enter a room where we
were not welcome. I recall having my glasses broken by a slamming door.
But at least I understood loud and clear that I was not welcome. Why
can't we get the message when the Empire slams its doors?
So what are we going to do after Bernie Sanders is flushed down the
Corporate Toilet?
Vote for Hilary? Go back in our hovels and shut the door until
someone comes along and takes it away from us? What's the plan?
Carl Jarvis
On 7/16/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Boardman writes: "The front page story is about such issues as 'work
force anxieties,' 'shrinking middle class,' 'stagnant wages,' and a
growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has
been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie
Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not
even mention Bernie Sanders."
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)
Bernie Sanders Blindsided by New York Times Blackout By William
Boardman, Reader Supported News
16 July 15
Media bias: sometimes it's invisible until you look for it
The front page story is about such issues as "work force anxieties,
"shrinking middle class," "stagnant wages," and a growing income gap
at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these
issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the
New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie
Sanders, although it mentions others with less credibility.
That is the level of intellectual dishonesty actually achieved by the
Times in its July 13 page one story headlined "Growth in the 'Gig
Economy' Fuels Work Force Anxieties." Two of the most relevant words
excluded from the 1700-word story are "Bernie Sanders," even though
it includes two Republican and Hillary Clinton.
It's intellectually dishonest to write about these issues without
mentioning the Independent senator from Vermont now running for the
Democratic nomination for president as a Democratic Socialist. It is
also deceitful and would be journalistic malpractice for anyone
purporting to practice actual journalism.
But the Times has long since ceased to be "the paper of record" in
this country, which no longer has a paper (or any media) of record.
The Times still serves, as it always has, as the voice of the
establishment. That explains the paper's "balanced" view here of the
"gig economy" and the two generations of economic suffering it
represents. Reporter Noam Scheiber's anecdote-ridden story shimmers
with an upper income bias, as befits any ambitious Times reporter
looking with disdainful sympathy at lesser earners driven
increasingly into jobs that are variously part-time, short-term,
temporary, or freelance but almost universally more insecure and
lower-paying than people could expect from the American economy 50 years
child labor.Hillary Clinton takes on "the vision thing" in a Bushlike manneron it.
Bernie Sanders has railed against such economic injustice for almost
as long, but Scheiber and/or his editors lack the integrity to
mention that, even when they quote a supporter of Hillary Clinton saying:
"People know things are changing. They don't feel like anyone has a
handle
There'smonths.
a yearning for a political vision that addresses that."
Well, yes, that seems to be true. That also seems to explain why
Bernie Sanders continues to surge in the polls since declaring for
president in May. Though Clinton still holds a formidable lead, it
has been shrinking, and her total support has been shrinking for
several
The Clinton supporter who spoke of vision, Neera Tanden of the Centerwages."
of American Progress, also demonstrated the essential deceit required
to turn Clinton into the desired visionary. She said, "Whether
America will be America or not hinges on whether we have a downward
spiral around
That sort of sounds good until you break it down. Then it's apparentrest of America.
it's a necessary lie for the Clinton campaign. It's a lie because it
suggests the "downward spiral" is a future threat, not a 50-year
reality. And it's a necessary Clinton campaign fiction because
Hillary Clinton has not been there for the 99% for most of her career
as she amassed a reported fortune of some $300 million. Clinton needs
to have an effective marketing campaign to persuade enough voters
that she has this imaginary "vision," as the Times noted obliquely:
On Monday [July 13], Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to give a speech
outlining her vision for improving the economic fortunes of the
middle class. Leading Republicans, like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio,
have framed their policy ideas as an attempt to solve economic
insecurity and the erosion of middle-class incomes.
Nice touch by the Times, using the "vision" language of the
candidate's sales pitch. As it turned out, Clinton's "economic
fortunes" speech was a tortured balancing act promising some help to
those with less while trying not to offend those with actual economic
fortunes. This was the perfect point for an honest reporter to
mention Bernie Sanders, who has spent his whole career deliberately
offending "millionaires and billionaires" while calling for economic
justice for the
In the Times, reality turns out to be a variable to be manipulatedthreat to the present oligarchic status quo.
But the contrast between Clinton and Sanders was apparently too stark
for the Times, and too unflattering to Clinton, who has no record
showing her having the courage of her convictions, or even of having
identifiable convictions. Instead, the Times refers to two
establishment-friendly Republicans whose economic views are less just
than Clinton's, but who have similar marketing campaigns for their
"visions." Bush and Rubio aren't even the current leading contenders
for the Republican nomination for president, even though they pose no
In recent polling published July 14, Bush was second with 14% andat 24%.
Rubio was fifth with 5% in a nine-candidate field. Tellingly, the
Times omitted the leader and two others ahead of Rubio. Running
first, with 17%, was Donald Trump. Scott Walker at 8% was third and
Ted Cruz at 6% was fourth. The Times bias among Republicans seems
pretty clear, albeit unstated.
The Times bias among Democrats is stark. The Times presents a picture
in which Clinton has no opposition, even though Sanders at 20% or
more is polling better in his chosen party than any Republican in the
Republican Party. In polling published July 10, Clinton is at 55%,
Sanders
Tiedway.
for third, with 8%, are Joe Biden and Undecided. Clinton still leads
by 30-plus points, but when Sanders entered the race on May 26, her
lead was 50-plus points.
Whatever those numbers may mean, and however they may change, they
were a present reality that the Times chose to ignore in order to
present a false reality.
In another slippery paragraph, Scheiber falsifies reality in a
subtler
Discussing the non-job jobs of the "gig economy," he writes:very different reality:
The decades-long shift to these more flexible workplace arrangements,
the venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and the labor leader David Rolf
argue in the latest issue of Democracy Journal, is a "transformation
that promises new efficiencies and greater flexibility for 'employers'
and 'employees' alike, but which threatens to undermine the very
foundation upon which middle-class America was built."
Is it an existential crisis if you're a millionaire or billionaire?
Then there's no more about this, despite the threat to "the very
foundation"
of once-basic American values. It's as if the Times is assuring its
readers:
never mind, these are just "flexible workplace arrangements," not a
half century business policy to take money and peace of mind from
millions of American families. You'd never know from the Times
reference that the article in Democracy Journal begins by describing
a
The American middle class is facing an existential crisis. For morethe Times will allow:
than three decades, declining wages, fraying benefits, and the rising
costs of education, housing, and other essentials have stressed and
squeezed middle-class Americans. But by far the biggest threat to
middle-class workers - and to our economy as a whole - comes from the
changing nature of employment itself.
Gone is the era of the lifetime career, let alone the lifelong job
and the economic security that came with it, having been replaced by
a new economy intent on recasting full-time employees into
contractors, vendors, and temporary workers. It is an economic
transformation that promises new efficiencies and greater flexibility
for "employers" and "employees" alike, but which threatens to
undermine the very foundation upon which middle-class America was
built. And if the American middle class crumbles, so will an American
economy that relies on consumer spending for 70 percent of its
activity, and on a diverse and inclusive workforce for 100 percent of
the innovation that drives all future prosperity.
The dilemma for the Times (and most mainstream media) is that if the
"existential crisis" is as real as the vast evidence supporting it,
then there's only one candidate in the race facing reality, and it's
not Hillary Clinton. It's Bernie Sanders. But he's an outsider
challenging longstanding establishment policy carried out with
remarkable consistency by both major parties for 50 years. Or, as
Hanauer and Rolf put it more clearly and bluntly than the mystifiers
at
This crisis is not unfolding in a vacuum. For more than 30 years, the
Democratic Party has suffered from a crisis of identity, leadership,
and vision on issues of political economy that has left it unable to
either articulate or defend the true interests of the middle class.
Democrats might tinker around the edges, arguing for more economic
justice and fairness, but for the most part they have largely
accepted, or at least failed to counter, the fictitious trickle-down
explanation of what growth is (higher profits) and where it comes
from (lower taxes and less regulation). And so, through Republican
and Democratic administrations alike, corporate America has seen less
regulation, lower taxes, and higher profits, while middle-class
America has gotten the shaft.
The rest of this long article is a devastating critique of the
present American economic order - or as many experience it, economic
disorder without reliable quality, accountability, or fairness. You
wouldn't know it from the Times, but the recommendations from Hanauer
and Rolf overlap significantly with the Sanders Economic Agenda
published December 2014. Nor would you know from the Times that Nick
Hanauer, a billionaire by way of Amazon.com, is at least a
philosophical supporter of Bernie Sanders. One of Hanauer's post
comments is: "The business lobby has been resisting labor standards since
any cure.Overtime is no different." (He posted the Times article with a"trickle down"
cryptic "Very interesting" comment.) Clinton bobs and weaves and
delivers ringing ambivalence On July 14, the Times covered Clinton's
economic speech on page 13, not page one, but still managed to give
it a pimping-for-Hillary headline: "Clinton Offers Her Vision of a
'Fairness Economy' to Close the Income Gap" even though the paper
reported no evidence of anything like an actual "vision."
In essence, Clinton said she'd like to see things stay pretty much
the same, just not quite so bad for so many.
According to Times reporter Amy Chozick, "incomes for the vast
majority of Americans whose wages have remained virtually stagnant
for
15 years," which gets the time-frame wrong by 35 years. This error is
consistent with her reporting the "widespread feeling that the
economic recovery has not benefited large parts of the population"
[emphasis added], which is not a feeling at all, but demonstrable
fact. Then Chozick offers this false choice as a central challenge
for the Clinton campaign: ". devising an agenda that addresses
income inequality without vilifying the wealthy.."
This is the Times elitist zeitgeist showing through. First, the issue
is not just "income inequality" but the staggering, growing "wealth
disparity" - which is best left unmentioned. As far as "income
inequality" goes, vilification is irrelevant. The simple solution is
to tax large incomes.
The
wealthy may "feel" that as vilification, but it's just economic
balancing.
And the Times approvingly, but falsely, quotes Nobel laureate
economist Joseph Stiglitz, who advises Clinton, saying: "the speech
showed a clear understanding that our economy is not working for most
Americans" and that "we need to fundamentally rewrite the rules." The
false part is that Clinton has never come close to seeking a
fundamentalrevision of any rules. Only Sanders does that. And the
Times made clear that Clinton "did not embrace the fiery populism of
Senator Bernie Sanders.. And she stopped short of endorsing policies
championed by Mr. Sanders and others in the liberal wing of the
party.."
Times sets up straw man argument, then defeats its own unreality Also
on July 14, on page 3, the Times ran a denigrating piece about
Sanders, in which Nate Cohn snidely and dismissively ridicules
Sanders' chances of winning anything. His argument centers on the
past losses of centrist liberals like Howard Dean and Bill Bradley.
At the same time, Cohn ignores the substance as well as the style of
the Sanders campaign, its apparent growing appeal to voters, and the
distinction that Sanders makes: that his democratic socialism in not
ideology but about class-based justice. As Sanders put it: " I'm not
a liberal. Never have been. I'm a progressive who mostly focuses on
the working and middle class."
Clinton criticized Republicans for their "trickle down" economic
theories, which is fine as far as it goes. With Clinton, it doesn't
seem to go very far. What is her touted "profit-sharing" but a form
of
economics? Sharing profits is a manageable shibboleth. It's not
sharing ownership.
Trickle down is also a way to describe the infusion of chemo
treatment to fight cancer. Current American economics are a form of
economic cancer for the majority of Americans. With human cancer, an
infusion is frequently blocked by an "upstream occlusion." Treatment
continues when the upstream occlusion is cleared. The American
economy has suffered from an upstream occlusion for half a century.
Clinton has benefitted greatly from this blockage of treatment for
the country's economic cancer. So far she has shown no sign of unblocking
ago.Bernie Sanders has always been all about serious treatment for a sick
economy. Bernie Sander is getting to be a bigger and bigger elephant
in the room where denial of the cancer remains powerful. Eventually
perhaps the Times and the rest of mainstream media will begin to talk
about him honestly. But they are all part of the cancerous system and
benefit from it.
So perhaps a more radical infusion will come through other channels.
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio,
TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the
Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of
America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine,
and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Bernie Sanders Blindsided by New York Times Blackout By William
Boardman, Reader Supported News
16 July 15
Media bias: sometimes it's invisible until you look for it he front
page story is about such issues as "work force anxieties, "shrinking
middle class," "stagnant wages," and a growing income gap at
pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these
issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the
New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie
Sanders, although it mentions others with less credibility.
That is the level of intellectual dishonesty actually achieved by the
Times in its July 13 page one story headlined "Growth in the 'Gig
Economy' Fuels Work Force Anxieties." Two of the most relevant words
excluded from the 1700-word story are "Bernie Sanders," even though
it includes two Republican and Hillary Clinton.
It's intellectually dishonest to write about these issues without
mentioning the Independent senator from Vermont now running for the
Democratic nomination for president as a Democratic Socialist. It is
also deceitful and would be journalistic malpractice for anyone
purporting to practice actual journalism.
But the Times has long since ceased to be "the paper of record" in
this country, which no longer has a paper (or any media) of record.
The Times still serves, as it always has, as the voice of the
establishment. That explains the paper's "balanced" view here of the
"gig economy" and the two generations of economic suffering it
represents. Reporter Noam Scheiber's anecdote-ridden story shimmers
with an upper income bias, as befits any ambitious Times reporter
looking with disdainful sympathy at lesser earners driven
increasingly into jobs that are variously part-time, short-term,
temporary, or freelance but almost universally more insecure and
lower-paying than people could expect from the American economy 50 years
child labor.Hillary Clinton takes on "the vision thing" in a Bushlike manneron it.
Bernie Sanders has railed against such economic injustice for almost
as long, but Scheiber and/or his editors lack the integrity to
mention that, even when they quote a supporter of Hillary Clinton saying:
"People know things are changing. They don't feel like anyone has a
handle
There'smonths.
a yearning for a political vision that addresses that."
Well, yes, that seems to be true. That also seems to explain why
Bernie Sanders continues to surge in the polls since declaring for
president in May. Though Clinton still holds a formidable lead, it
has been shrinking, and her total support has been shrinking for
several
The Clinton supporter who spoke of vision, Neera Tanden of the Centerwages."
of American Progress, also demonstrated the essential deceit required
to turn Clinton into the desired visionary. She said, "Whether
America will be America or not hinges on whether we have a downward
spiral around
That sort of sounds good until you break it down. Then it's apparentrest of America.
it's a necessary lie for the Clinton campaign. It's a lie because it
suggests the "downward spiral" is a future threat, not a 50-year
reality. And it's a necessary Clinton campaign fiction because
Hillary Clinton has not been there for the 99% for most of her career
as she amassed a reported fortune of some $300 million. Clinton needs
to have an effective marketing campaign to persuade enough voters
that she has this imaginary "vision," as the Times noted obliquely:
On Monday [July 13], Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to give a speech
outlining her vision for improving the economic fortunes of the
middle class. Leading Republicans, like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio,
have framed their policy ideas as an attempt to solve economic
insecurity and the erosion of middle-class incomes.
Nice touch by the Times, using the "vision" language of the
candidate's sales pitch. As it turned out, Clinton's "economic
fortunes" speech was a tortured balancing act promising some help to
those with less while trying not to offend those with actual economic
fortunes. This was the perfect point for an honest reporter to
mention Bernie Sanders, who has spent his whole career deliberately
offending "millionaires and billionaires" while calling for economic
justice for the
In the Times, reality turns out to be a variable to be manipulatedthreat to the present oligarchic status quo.
But the contrast between Clinton and Sanders was apparently too stark
for the Times, and too unflattering to Clinton, who has no record
showing her having the courage of her convictions, or even of having
identifiable convictions. Instead, the Times refers to two
establishment-friendly Republicans whose economic views are less just
than Clinton's, but who have similar marketing campaigns for their
"visions." Bush and Rubio aren't even the current leading contenders
for the Republican nomination for president, even though they pose no
In recent polling published July 14, Bush was second with 14% andat 24%.
Rubio was fifth with 5% in a nine-candidate field. Tellingly, the
Times omitted the leader and two others ahead of Rubio. Running
first, with 17%, was Donald Trump. Scott Walker at 8% was third and
Ted Cruz at 6% was fourth. The Times bias among Republicans seems
pretty clear, albeit unstated.
The Times bias among Democrats is stark. The Times presents a picture
in which Clinton has no opposition, even though Sanders at 20% or
more is polling better in his chosen party than any Republican in the
Republican Party. In polling published July 10, Clinton is at 55%,
Sanders
Tiedway.
for third, with 8%, are Joe Biden and Undecided. Clinton still leads
by 30-plus points, but when Sanders entered the race on May 26, her
lead was 50-plus points.
Whatever those numbers may mean, and however they may change, they
were a present reality that the Times chose to ignore in order to
present a false reality.
In another slippery paragraph, Scheiber falsifies reality in a
subtler
Discussing the non-job jobs of the "gig economy," he writes:very different reality:
The decades-long shift to these more flexible workplace arrangements,
the venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and the labor leader David Rolf
argue in the latest issue of Democracy Journal, is a "transformation
that promises new efficiencies and greater flexibility for 'employers'
and 'employees' alike, but which threatens to undermine the very
foundation upon which middle-class America was built."
Is it an existential crisis if you're a millionaire or billionaire?
Then there's no more about this, despite the threat to "the very
foundation"
of once-basic American values. It's as if the Times is assuring its
readers:
never mind, these are just "flexible workplace arrangements," not a
half century business policy to take money and peace of mind from
millions of American families. You'd never know from the Times
reference that the article in Democracy Journal begins by describing
a
The American middle class is facing an existential crisis. For morethe Times will allow:
than three decades, declining wages, fraying benefits, and the rising
costs of education, housing, and other essentials have stressed and
squeezed middle-class Americans. But by far the biggest threat to
middle-class workers - and to our economy as a whole - comes from the
changing nature of employment itself.
Gone is the era of the lifetime career, let alone the lifelong job
and the economic security that came with it, having been replaced by
a new economy intent on recasting full-time employees into
contractors, vendors, and temporary workers. It is an economic
transformation that promises new efficiencies and greater flexibility
for "employers" and "employees" alike, but which threatens to
undermine the very foundation upon which middle-class America was
built. And if the American middle class crumbles, so will an American
economy that relies on consumer spending for 70 percent of its
activity, and on a diverse and inclusive workforce for 100 percent of
the innovation that drives all future prosperity.
The dilemma for the Times (and most mainstream media) is that if the
"existential crisis" is as real as the vast evidence supporting it,
then there's only one candidate in the race facing reality, and it's
not Hillary Clinton. It's Bernie Sanders. But he's an outsider
challenging longstanding establishment policy carried out with
remarkable consistency by both major parties for 50 years. Or, as
Hanauer and Rolf put it more clearly and bluntly than the mystifiers
at
This crisis is not unfolding in a vacuum. For more than 30 years, the
Democratic Party has suffered from a crisis of identity, leadership,
and vision on issues of political economy that has left it unable to
either articulate or defend the true interests of the middle class.
Democrats might tinker around the edges, arguing for more economic
justice and fairness, but for the most part they have largely
accepted, or at least failed to counter, the fictitious trickle-down
explanation of what growth is (higher profits) and where it comes
from (lower taxes and less regulation). And so, through Republican
and Democratic administrations alike, corporate America has seen less
regulation, lower taxes, and higher profits, while middle-class
America has gotten the shaft.
The rest of this long article is a devastating critique of the
present American economic order - or as many experience it, economic
disorder without reliable quality, accountability, or fairness. You
wouldn't know it from the Times, but the recommendations from Hanauer
and Rolf overlap significantly with the Sanders Economic Agenda
published December 2014. Nor would you know from the Times that Nick
Hanauer, a billionaire by way of Amazon.com, is at least a
philosophical supporter of Bernie Sanders. One of Hanauer's post
comments is: "The business lobby has been resisting labor standards since
any cure.Overtime is no different." (He posted the Times article with a"trickle down"
cryptic "Very interesting" comment.) Clinton bobs and weaves and
delivers ringing ambivalence On July 14, the Times covered Clinton's
economic speech on page 13, not page one, but still managed to give
it a pimping-for-Hillary headline: "Clinton Offers Her Vision of a
'Fairness Economy' to Close the Income Gap" even though the paper
reported no evidence of anything like an actual "vision."
In essence, Clinton said she'd like to see things stay pretty much
the same, just not quite so bad for so many.
According to Times reporter Amy Chozick, "incomes for the vast
majority of Americans whose wages have remained virtually stagnant
for
15 years," which gets the time-frame wrong by 35 years. This error is
consistent with her reporting the "widespread feeling that the
economic recovery has not benefited large parts of the population"
[emphasis added], which is not a feeling at all, but demonstrable
fact. Then Chozick offers this false choice as a central challenge
for the Clinton campaign: ". devising an agenda that addresses income
inequality without vilifying the wealthy.."
This is the Times elitist zeitgeist showing through. First, the issue
is not just "income inequality" but the staggering, growing "wealth
disparity" - which is best left unmentioned. As far as "income
inequality" goes, vilification is irrelevant. The simple solution is
to tax large incomes.
The
wealthy may "feel" that as vilification, but it's just economic
balancing.
And the Times approvingly, but falsely, quotes Nobel laureate
economist Joseph Stiglitz, who advises Clinton, saying: "the speech
showed a clear understanding that our economy is not working for most
Americans" and that "we need to fundamentally rewrite the rules." The
false part is that Clinton has never come close to seeking a
fundamentalrevision of any rules. Only Sanders does that. And the
Times made clear that Clinton "did not embrace the fiery populism of
Senator Bernie Sanders.. And she stopped short of endorsing policies
championed by Mr. Sanders and others in the liberal wing of the
party.."
Times sets up straw man argument, then defeats its own unreality Also
on July 14, on page 3, the Times ran a denigrating piece about
Sanders, in which Nate Cohn snidely and dismissively ridicules
Sanders' chances of winning anything. His argument centers on the
past losses of centrist liberals like Howard Dean and Bill Bradley.
At the same time, Cohn ignores the substance as well as the style of
the Sanders campaign, its apparent growing appeal to voters, and the
distinction that Sanders makes: that his democratic socialism in not
ideology but about class-based justice. As Sanders put it: " I'm not
a liberal. Never have been. I'm a progressive who mostly focuses on
the working and middle class."
Clinton criticized Republicans for their "trickle down" economic
theories, which is fine as far as it goes. With Clinton, it doesn't
seem to go very far. What is her touted "profit-sharing" but a form
of
economics? Sharing profits is a manageable shibboleth. It's not
sharing ownership.
Trickle down is also a way to describe the infusion of chemo
treatment to fight cancer. Current American economics are a form of
economic cancer for the majority of Americans. With human cancer, an
infusion is frequently blocked by an "upstream occlusion." Treatment
continues when the upstream occlusion is cleared. The American
economy has suffered from an upstream occlusion for half a century.
Clinton has benefitted greatly from this blockage of treatment for
the country's economic cancer. So far she has shown no sign of unblocking
Bernie Sanders has always been all about serious treatment for a sick
economy. Bernie Sander is getting to be a bigger and bigger elephant
in the room where denial of the cancer remains powerful. Eventually
perhaps the Times and the rest of mainstream media will begin to talk
about him honestly. But they are all part of the cancerous system and
benefit from it.
So perhaps a more radical infusion will come through other channels.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio,
TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the
Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of
America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine,
and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
