Hindsight is what they say?
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman Humel
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:32 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as
Undemocratic, Calls for New Elections
Maybe he realized exactly what had been unleashed?
On Aug 10, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Everyone praises Eisenhower for that speech. But he was involved in deposing
a democratic leader of Iran, and of one in Guatemala. He got us involved in
Vietnam. I can't even remember all the stuff he did. But then, when he was
retiring from the Presidency, he saw fit to warn us? Wasn't it a bit late
since he'd contributed mightily to the military industrial complex about
which he chose to warn us?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:20 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment
as Undemocratic, Calls for New Elections
What is that deafening sound coming from Washington D.C.? Oh, it's the loud
sound of silence. Is Bernie Sanders the first US Senator to publicly
declare the coup in Brazil to be exactly that, a coup?
Of course it might have carried more weight if Bernie had sounded the alarm
when the coup occurred. But that was not going to get any Brownie Points
for Bernie, who is, after all, still part of the Establishment. Bernie
found that if he were to have any exposure he would need to compromise. His
big compromise was to stay out of the nation's horrific foreign affairs.
Too bad, he might have come out in better shape if he's been as critical of
our world messes as he was about those within our borders. But Bernie was
just about as culpable as any other US Senator, including the former Senator
Hillary Clinton.
Speaking out is good. But speaking out when it might do some good is even
better. And, like that profound warning by outgoing president Eisenhower,
calling on us to watch out for the Industrial/Military Complex, Bernie's
declaration of a coup in Brazil comes as a weak, ineffectual after glow.
But don't blame old Bernie, or Ike, or even Barak Obama, the master
compromiser. They are/were all rendered impotent by the Ruling Class.
How many great causes have faded from view through compromising their basic
values?
Although it will make not one speck of difference, this is why I refuse to
"unite" with the Democratic Party and vote for Hillary Clinton. Promises
aside, she is totally owned by the Ruling Class.
And so is Donald Trump. He just hasn't figured it out yet. Claiming to be
a Billionaire, he thinks he is "one of the elite". But Donald Trump will
roll over, even if he is kicking and screaming, and do the bidding of his
Masters. It is not a case of the lesser of two Evils.
It is a question of, is there anyone out there who can lead us, the working
class?
Sadly, the horizon appears empty. No Knight in shining armor, no bugles
announcing the arrival of the Cavalry, no crash of thunder and a voice
crying out in the wilderness. We are on our own. Either we learn to look
out for one another or we will be picked off, one at a time. We must become
our own Savior if we are to take our place in the Sun.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Greenwald writes: "Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced
in harsh terms the impeachment of Brazil's democratically elected
president.
As
the Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month,
Sanders described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his
Senate site, as 'calling on the United States to take a definitive
stand against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
office.'"
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced in harsh terms the
impeachment of Brazil's democratically elected president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his Senate
site, as "calling on the United States to take a definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
office." He added: "To many Brazilians and observers the controversial
impeachment process more closely resembles a coup d'état."
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff's suspension and is
now trying to install themselves through 2018. "After suspending
Brazil's first female president on dubious grounds, without a mandate
to govern," he said, " the new interim government abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights" and "replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a cabinet made up
entirely of white men." They are now attempting to implement radical
policies that could never be democratically ratified:
"impose austerity, increase privatization and install a far right-wing
social agenda."
Sanders' statement comes as Brazil's elites - virtually unified in
favor of Dilma's impeachment - have taken extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the domestic public, and the
world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil's largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want Temer out and new
elections held and the paper's Ombudsman harshly criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of Temer's election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant fact that he's been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he violated election
law (they were forced to mention that last week when the São Paulo
prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake of a new media
movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when Brazilians realized he was
present).
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and at times forcibly
removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events for holding "Fora
Temer!"
(Temer Out) signs, creating international controversy; watching the
military use force to silence citizens criticizing an unelected
"president" is a jarring image in a country that suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in 1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional guarantee of free
expression).
Sanders' denunciation of Temer could not come at a worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht, told investigators
this week that Temer's Foreign Minister, José Serra, received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer's ministers have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also "told investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3 million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes, according to Veja, a
newsmagazine."
It's a bit difficult to justify the removal of democratically elected
President by citing corruption, when far more serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate's Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: "Dilma's impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds."
Sanders' denunciation of the attack on Brazilian democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the illegitimacy of Temer's
rule. Just two weeks ago, "40 Democratic members of the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter ... expressing 'deep concern' about
threats to democracy in Brazil." Similar denunciations of Dilma's
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil's first Pulitzer Prize winner.
So dubious is Temer's standing that, as AP reported last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders' statement is timing: why, after
months of silence on Brazil's political crisis, did he finally speak
out now? One of the significant flaws of his candidacy was that he
rarely addressed foreign policy at all, notwithstanding the fact that
his primary opponent is a war advocate and militarist who (even long
before Trump's
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support. He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions - some of his statements on
Israel and Palestine were among the best from any major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with red-baiting was
impressive - but by and large, Sanders avoided any foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is free to speak out in
ways that would not necessarily be politically beneficial in the eyes
of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition to Dilma's
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing, Sanders' statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S. Government to
"demand that this dispute be settled with democratic elections" - the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the country's
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be elected, vehemently
oppose.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounces
-brazi
ls-impeachment-as-undemocratic-calls-for-new-elections/https://theintercept.
com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounces-brazils-impeachment-
as-und
emocratic-calls-for-new-elections/
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
ermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced in harsh terms the
impeachment of Brazil's democratically elected president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his Senate
site, as "calling on the United States to take a definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
office." He added: "To many Brazilians and observers the controversial
impeachment process more closely resembles a coup d'état."
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff's suspension and is
now trying to install themselves through 2018. "After suspending
Brazil's first female president on dubious grounds, without a mandate
to govern," he said, " the new interim government abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights" and "replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a cabinet made up
entirely of white men." They are now attempting to implement radical
policies that could never be democratically ratified:
"impose austerity, increase privatization and install a far right-wing
social agenda."
Sanders' statement comes as Brazil's elites - virtually unified in
favor of Dilma's impeachment - have taken extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the domestic public, and the
world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil's largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want Temer out and new
elections held and the paper's Ombudsman harshly criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of Temer's election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant fact that he's been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he violated election
law (they were forced to mention that last week when the São Paulo
prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake of a new media
movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when Brazilians realized he was
present).
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and at times forcibly
removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events for holding "Fora
Temer!"
(Temer Out) signs, creating international controversy; watching the
military use force to silence citizens criticizing an unelected
"president" is a jarring image in a country that suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in 1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional guarantee of free
expression).
Sanders' denunciation of Temer could not come at a worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht, told investigators
this week that Temer's Foreign Minister, José Serra, received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer's ministers have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also "told investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3 million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes, according to Veja, a
newsmagazine."
It's a bit difficult to justify the removal of democratically elected
President by citing corruption, when far more serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate's Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: "Dilma's impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds."
Sanders' denunciation of the attack on Brazilian democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the illegitimacy of Temer's
rule. Just two weeks ago, "40 Democratic members of the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter ... expressing 'deep concern' about
threats to democracy in Brazil." Similar denunciations of Dilma's
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil's first Pulitzer Prize winner.
So dubious is Temer's standing that, as AP reported last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders' statement is timing: why, after
months of silence on Brazil's political crisis, did he finally speak
out now? One of the significant flaws of his candidacy was that he
rarely addressed foreign policy at all, notwithstanding the fact that
his primary opponent is a war advocate and militarist who (even long
before Trump's
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support. He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions - some of his statements on
Israel and Palestine were among the best from any major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with red-baiting was
impressive - but by and large, Sanders avoided any foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is free to speak out in
ways that would not necessarily be politically beneficial in the eyes
of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition to Dilma's
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing, Sanders' statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S. Government to
"demand that this dispute be settled with democratic elections" - the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the country's
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be elected, vehemently
oppose.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
