Chris Hedges cuts through the crap and gets to the heart of the problem.
Of course, "Corporate Capitalism Is the Foundation of Police Brutality
and the Prison
State".
Did we really believe that the police were trained and put on the
streets to protect the Lower Classes? Police departments are
established to maintain Law and Order. And whose law and order are
they defending? They protect and defend those citizens who write the
laws and set them in place.
Those members of the Upper Class, the Ruling Class, draft the laws to
their benefit. Then they use our tax dollars to put in place the
police who will enforce those laws.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/6/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Corporate Capitalism Is the Foundation of Police Brutality and the Prison
State
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/corporate_capitalism_is_the_foundation_o
f_police_20150705/
Posted on Jul 5, 2015
By Chris Hedges
New Yorkers protest the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in a show of
solidarity at Union Square in April. (RTNJennings / MediaPunch / IPX)
Our national conversation on race and crime is based on a fiction. It is
the
fiction that the organs of internal security, especially the judiciary and
the police, can be adjusted, modernized or professionalized to make
possible
a post-racial America. We discuss issues of race while ignoring the
economic, bureaucratic and political systems of exploitation-all of it
legal
and built into the ruling apparatus-that are the true engines of racism and
white supremacy. No discussion of race is possible without a discussion of
capitalism and class. And until that discussion takes place, despite all
the
proposed reforms to the criminal justice system, the state will continue to
murder and imprison poor people of color with impunity.
More training, body cameras, community policing, the hiring of more
minorities as police officers, a better probation service and more
equitable
fines will not blunt the indiscriminate use of lethal force or reduce the
mass incarceration that destroys the lives of the poor. Our capitalist
system callously discards surplus labor, especially poor people of color,
employing lethal force and the largest prison system in the world to keep
them under control. This is by design. And until this predatory system of
capitalism is destroyed, the poor, especially people of color, will
continue
to be gunned down by police in the streets, as they have for decades, and
disproportionately locked in prison cages.
"The strength of 'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander is that, by
equating mass incarceration with Jim Crow, it makes it rhetorically
impossible to defend it," said Naomi Murakawa, author of "The First Civil
Right: How Liberals Built Prison America," when we met recently in
Princeton, N.J. "But, on the other hand, there is no 'new' Jim Crow, there
is just capitalist white supremacy in a state of constant
self-preservation."
"We should talk about what we are empowering police to do, not how they are
doing it, not whether they are being nice when they carry out arrests," she
said. "Reforms are oriented to making violence appear respectable and
courteous. But being arrested once can devastate someone's life. This is
the
violence we are not talking about. It does not matter if you are arrested
politely. Combating racism is not about combating bad ideas in the head or
hateful feelings. This idea is the perfect formula to preserve material
distributions in their exact configuration."
Murakawa, who teaches at Princeton University, laid out in her book that
liberals, in the name of pity, and conservatives, in the name of law and
order-or as Richard Nixon expressed it, the right to be safe and free of
fear-equally shared in the building of our carceral state. "Liberal racial
pity mirrored conservative racial contempt," she writes. These "competing
constructions of black criminality, one callous, another with a tenor of
sympathy and cowering paternalism," ensured that by the time these forces
were done, there was from 1968 to 2010 a septupling of people locked in the
prison system. "Counting probation and parole with jails and prisons is
even
more astonishing still," she writes. "This population grew from 780,000 in
1965 to seven million in 2010."
Racism in America will not be solved, she writes, by "teaching tolerance
and
creating colorblind institutions." The refusal to confront structural
racism, which in the 1930s and '40s among intellectuals "situated domestic
racism and colonialism abroad in an integrated critique of global
capitalism," led to a vapid racial liberalism that, as Penny Von Eschen
writes, conceived of racism as "an anachronistic prejudice and a personal
and psychological problem, rather than as a systemic problem rooted in
specific social practices and prevailing relations of political economy and
culture."
Police brutality will not be solved, Murakawa points out, by reforms that
mandate an "acceptable use of force." The state may have outlawed lynching
and mob violence-largely because of international outcry and damage to the
image of the United States abroad-but insisted that capital punishment
"could be fair with adequate legal defense for the poor, proper jury
instructions, and clear lists of mitigating and aggravating circumstances."
Racial violence was seen as an "administrative deficiency."
Murakawa goes on in the book:
Liberal lawmakers would come to evaluate fairness through finely honed,
step-by-step questions: Did legislators enact a sufficiently clear criminal
statute? Did police properly Mirandize? Did prosecutors follow protocol in
offering a plea bargain or filing charges? Did parole officers follow
administrative rules of revocation? And, in any single step, did a specific
actor deviate from the protocol or intentionally discriminate? As a
methodology for 'finding racism' in the criminal justice system, liberal
law-and-order reinforced the common sense that racism is a ghost in the
machine, some immaterial force detached from the institutional terrain of
racialized wealth inequality and the possessive investment in whiteness. At
the core of liberal law-and-order was the promise to move each individual
qua individual through a system of clear rules that allow little room for
individual bias. In effect, a lasting legacy of liberal law-and-order is
this: we evaluate the rightness of criminal justice through the
administrative quality by which each individual is searched, arrested,
warehoused, or put to death.
All penal reform, from President Truman's 1947 Committee on Civil Rights
report to the Safe Streets Act of 1968 to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
to contemporary calls for more professionalization, in effect only hand
more
power and resources to the police. It does nothing to blunt police abuse or
reverse mass incarceration. It does nothing to address the bias of white
supremacy.
"Truman's version of the civil rights agenda came through lynching,"
Murakawa said. "It illuminates how the rule of law and white supremacy
operate hand in hand. Lynching hurt U.S. credibility. It hurt its force
projection abroad. The concern over lynching was not a concern for black
lives. It was a concern that mob and state violence were too easily
conflated. The objective became to make a sharp difference between white
supremacist mob violence and white supremacist state violence. The
difference is not that one is white supremacist and one is not. The
difference is one [is] proceduralized, one is rights based, one is orderly,
bound by rule of law with ever more elaborate procedures. That is the only
thing that makes it different from the lynch mob."
The real crime-poverty, institutional racism and capitalist exploitation-is
rarely discussed. Therefore, the blame for crime is easily shifted to the
"pathology" of black families. The Moynihan report, for example, argues
that
black criminality results from dominant black mothers and absent black
fathers.
"You can perfect due process so it operates like a machine and have perfect
quality control," Murakawa said. "This is what the due-process-right
revolution was. You can have full adherence to the panoply of rights. And
yet you also have a machine that only grows. Everyone thought the Miranda
decision would stop the rate at which police arrest people. They thought it
would curtail the scale and scope of policing. Instead, Miranda rights are
used to protect police officers in civil litigation. Police officers say
they got the waiver. They say people were informed of their rights. Miranda
is used mostly to deflect lawsuits against police departments. These little
procedural interventions give the system a patina of legitimacy. If we are
processing at the same scale and at the same racial concentration, then the
machinery of death only gets bigger and bigger."
The more that "carceral machinery was rights-based and rule-bound, the more
racial disparity was isolatable to 'real' black criminality." In other
words, as liberals and conservatives became convinced that the machinery of
the judiciary and the police was largely impartial and fair, the onus for
punishment shifted to the victims. State-sponsored white violence remained
entrenched. Institutionalized murder remained acceptable. In the minds of
liberals and conservatives, those who were arrested, locked up or shot
deserved to be arrested, locked up or shot. Federal mandatory minimum
statutes tripled under President Bill Clinton, and this is one example
Murakawa points out of how "with each administrative layer to protect
African Americans from lawless racial violence, liberals propelled carceral
development that, through perverse turns, expanded lawful racial violence."
By 1993, she points out, "African Americans accounted for 88.3 percent of
all federal crack cocaine distribution convictions." And because the
judicial system is stacked against poor people of color, it does not
matter,
she said, if the arresting officers are also people of color.
"There is no evidence that having a minority police officer changes arrest
or use of force," she said. "The better evidence suggests that black police
officers tend to arrest everyone at higher rates across races. I interpret
this as black professionals having to over-perform in any number of
professions to get to comparable ranking. Maybe interpersonally, people
will
find it a little less offensive. But it does not diminish the violence."
By the Clinton administration, liberals and conservatives were competing
with each other to be "tough" on crime. Murakawa notes that between 1968
and
1976, no one was executed in the United States. But this changed under
Clinton. Democrats and Republicans proposed bill after bill until the
number
of crimes punishable by death leapt from one in 1974 to 66 in 1994. The two
parties engaged in "a death penalty bidding war." Then-Sen. Joe Biden was
one of the most enthusiastic proponents of expanding the death penalty-he
boasted that he had "added back to the Federal statutes over 50 death
penalties"-and the Democrats effectively "neutralized soft-on-crime
accusations with punitive outbidding." But while this may have been
politically advantageous to the Democrats, it was devastating to poor
people
of color and in particular blacks.
Change, Murakawa said, requires us to formulate a very different vision of
society.
"We should follow Angela Davis' call to ask the question: What is it we
have
to imagine if we abolish the social functions of police and prisons?" she
said. "What is it we have to build if we can no longer jail people who are
mentally ill or suffering from long-term addiction or homeless? We are
going
to have to build a lot."
But few people, and perhaps no one in the political establishment, are
asking these questions.
"These bipartisan coalitions are conjoined in the rhetoric of cost
cutting,"
Murakawa said, referencing Marie Gottschalk's book "Caught: The Prison
State
and the Lockdown of American Politics." "They may say there is bias, that
it
is not racially fair. They may attack prisons as big government, as
inefficient or as a bad investment. But once you follow the logic of
austerity, you push the cost of punishment on those who are punished. You
are not committed to building anything. The reason Portugal has been so
successful with drug legalization is because of the Portuguese National
Health Service. Fighting addiction requires pharmacological and medical
intervention, along with psychological and financial support.
"I worry that we are once again moving toward more professionalized police
who have had more training but still have the scope to arrest and issue
citations and summonses the same way they do now," Murakawa said. "Indeed,
there will probably be an increase in arrests, citations and summonses if
the police forces get bigger. Even with scaling back the war on drugs, I
worry that we will still have a massive number of people embroiled in the
criminal justice system. It will be death by a thousand cuts rather than
the
20-year mandatory minimums for drug conspiracy. Bipartisan coalitions that
are about cutting costs justify pushing the cost of punishment on punished
populations. I worry we are moving toward a population, mostly black and
poor, that is cycling through jail and effectively serving 20-year
sentences
but in stints of about 90 days at a time. With each jail stay they
accumulate more debt for room and board. A municipality in Missouri is
billing people for the Tasers used against them-$26 per Taser discharge.
Roughly half of all states are now charging people for the services of
indigent criminal defense. A 2013 Supreme Court decision said that extended
families could be held responsible for the debts of those incarcerated.
"There are 10 to 12 million arrests every year; about half will never be
processed because these arrests are for charges so trivial they are not
worth pursuing or there is no evidence," she said. "Maybe 5 percent of
these
arrests are for charges of violent crime and 15 percent for property
crimes.
"There is no reason why police on patrols should be armed," she went on.
"If
we were serious about stopping executions without trials, we would be
committed to the idea that all police have to call in special forces. What
we now see as regular police units would be SWAT patrols that have to be
specially called in to use lethal force. We have to diminish the scale of
everything. We have to wipe clean penal codes. Most arrests are for
misdemeanors, petty offenses like public drunkenness or loitering. These
are
things no state agent with a gun should be addressing. The only way to
reduce the scale of police brutality is to reduce the scale of policing.
People should not be arrested for not mowing their lawn or for selling
loosies.
"The idea we can put police officers through training to address their
implicit bias and then give them guns-the idea that two days of intensive
training will diminish the probability of shoot to kill-is absurd,"
Murakawa
said. "I have zero faith in this."
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
Corporate Capitalism Is the Foundation of Police Brutality and the Prison
State
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/corporate_capitalism_is_the_foundation_o
f_police_20150705/
Posted on Jul 5, 2015
By Chris Hedges
New Yorkers protest the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in a show of
solidarity at Union Square in April. (RTNJennings / MediaPunch / IPX)
Our national conversation on race and crime is based on a fiction. It is
the
fiction that the organs of internal security, especially the judiciary and
the police, can be adjusted, modernized or professionalized to make
possible
a post-racial America. We discuss issues of race while ignoring the
economic, bureaucratic and political systems of exploitation-all of it
legal
and built into the ruling apparatus-that are the true engines of racism and
white supremacy. No discussion of race is possible without a discussion of
capitalism and class. And until that discussion takes place, despite all
the
proposed reforms to the criminal justice system, the state will continue to
murder and imprison poor people of color with impunity.
More training, body cameras, community policing, the hiring of more
minorities as police officers, a better probation service and more
equitable
fines will not blunt the indiscriminate use of lethal force or reduce the
mass incarceration that destroys the lives of the poor. Our capitalist
system callously discards surplus labor, especially poor people of color,
employing lethal force and the largest prison system in the world to keep
them under control. This is by design. And until this predatory system of
capitalism is destroyed, the poor, especially people of color, will
continue
to be gunned down by police in the streets, as they have for decades, and
disproportionately locked in prison cages.
"The strength of 'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander is that, by
equating mass incarceration with Jim Crow, it makes it rhetorically
impossible to defend it," said Naomi Murakawa, author of "The First Civil
Right: How Liberals Built Prison America," when we met recently in
Princeton, N.J. "But, on the other hand, there is no 'new' Jim Crow, there
is just capitalist white supremacy in a state of constant
self-preservation."
"We should talk about what we are empowering police to do, not how they are
doing it, not whether they are being nice when they carry out arrests," she
said. "Reforms are oriented to making violence appear respectable and
courteous. But being arrested once can devastate someone's life. This is
the
violence we are not talking about. It does not matter if you are arrested
politely. Combating racism is not about combating bad ideas in the head or
hateful feelings. This idea is the perfect formula to preserve material
distributions in their exact configuration."
Murakawa, who teaches at Princeton University, laid out in her book that
liberals, in the name of pity, and conservatives, in the name of law and
order-or as Richard Nixon expressed it, the right to be safe and free of
fear-equally shared in the building of our carceral state. "Liberal racial
pity mirrored conservative racial contempt," she writes. These "competing
constructions of black criminality, one callous, another with a tenor of
sympathy and cowering paternalism," ensured that by the time these forces
were done, there was from 1968 to 2010 a septupling of people locked in the
prison system. "Counting probation and parole with jails and prisons is
even
more astonishing still," she writes. "This population grew from 780,000 in
1965 to seven million in 2010."
Racism in America will not be solved, she writes, by "teaching tolerance
and
creating colorblind institutions." The refusal to confront structural
racism, which in the 1930s and '40s among intellectuals "situated domestic
racism and colonialism abroad in an integrated critique of global
capitalism," led to a vapid racial liberalism that, as Penny Von Eschen
writes, conceived of racism as "an anachronistic prejudice and a personal
and psychological problem, rather than as a systemic problem rooted in
specific social practices and prevailing relations of political economy and
culture."
Police brutality will not be solved, Murakawa points out, by reforms that
mandate an "acceptable use of force." The state may have outlawed lynching
and mob violence-largely because of international outcry and damage to the
image of the United States abroad-but insisted that capital punishment
"could be fair with adequate legal defense for the poor, proper jury
instructions, and clear lists of mitigating and aggravating circumstances."
Racial violence was seen as an "administrative deficiency."
Murakawa goes on in the book:
Liberal lawmakers would come to evaluate fairness through finely honed,
step-by-step questions: Did legislators enact a sufficiently clear criminal
statute? Did police properly Mirandize? Did prosecutors follow protocol in
offering a plea bargain or filing charges? Did parole officers follow
administrative rules of revocation? And, in any single step, did a specific
actor deviate from the protocol or intentionally discriminate? As a
methodology for 'finding racism' in the criminal justice system, liberal
law-and-order reinforced the common sense that racism is a ghost in the
machine, some immaterial force detached from the institutional terrain of
racialized wealth inequality and the possessive investment in whiteness. At
the core of liberal law-and-order was the promise to move each individual
qua individual through a system of clear rules that allow little room for
individual bias. In effect, a lasting legacy of liberal law-and-order is
this: we evaluate the rightness of criminal justice through the
administrative quality by which each individual is searched, arrested,
warehoused, or put to death.
All penal reform, from President Truman's 1947 Committee on Civil Rights
report to the Safe Streets Act of 1968 to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
to contemporary calls for more professionalization, in effect only hand
more
power and resources to the police. It does nothing to blunt police abuse or
reverse mass incarceration. It does nothing to address the bias of white
supremacy.
"Truman's version of the civil rights agenda came through lynching,"
Murakawa said. "It illuminates how the rule of law and white supremacy
operate hand in hand. Lynching hurt U.S. credibility. It hurt its force
projection abroad. The concern over lynching was not a concern for black
lives. It was a concern that mob and state violence were too easily
conflated. The objective became to make a sharp difference between white
supremacist mob violence and white supremacist state violence. The
difference is not that one is white supremacist and one is not. The
difference is one [is] proceduralized, one is rights based, one is orderly,
bound by rule of law with ever more elaborate procedures. That is the only
thing that makes it different from the lynch mob."
The real crime-poverty, institutional racism and capitalist exploitation-is
rarely discussed. Therefore, the blame for crime is easily shifted to the
"pathology" of black families. The Moynihan report, for example, argues
that
black criminality results from dominant black mothers and absent black
fathers.
"You can perfect due process so it operates like a machine and have perfect
quality control," Murakawa said. "This is what the due-process-right
revolution was. You can have full adherence to the panoply of rights. And
yet you also have a machine that only grows. Everyone thought the Miranda
decision would stop the rate at which police arrest people. They thought it
would curtail the scale and scope of policing. Instead, Miranda rights are
used to protect police officers in civil litigation. Police officers say
they got the waiver. They say people were informed of their rights. Miranda
is used mostly to deflect lawsuits against police departments. These little
procedural interventions give the system a patina of legitimacy. If we are
processing at the same scale and at the same racial concentration, then the
machinery of death only gets bigger and bigger."
The more that "carceral machinery was rights-based and rule-bound, the more
racial disparity was isolatable to 'real' black criminality." In other
words, as liberals and conservatives became convinced that the machinery of
the judiciary and the police was largely impartial and fair, the onus for
punishment shifted to the victims. State-sponsored white violence remained
entrenched. Institutionalized murder remained acceptable. In the minds of
liberals and conservatives, those who were arrested, locked up or shot
deserved to be arrested, locked up or shot. Federal mandatory minimum
statutes tripled under President Bill Clinton, and this is one example
Murakawa points out of how "with each administrative layer to protect
African Americans from lawless racial violence, liberals propelled carceral
development that, through perverse turns, expanded lawful racial violence."
By 1993, she points out, "African Americans accounted for 88.3 percent of
all federal crack cocaine distribution convictions." And because the
judicial system is stacked against poor people of color, it does not
matter,
she said, if the arresting officers are also people of color.
"There is no evidence that having a minority police officer changes arrest
or use of force," she said. "The better evidence suggests that black police
officers tend to arrest everyone at higher rates across races. I interpret
this as black professionals having to over-perform in any number of
professions to get to comparable ranking. Maybe interpersonally, people
will
find it a little less offensive. But it does not diminish the violence."
By the Clinton administration, liberals and conservatives were competing
with each other to be "tough" on crime. Murakawa notes that between 1968
and
1976, no one was executed in the United States. But this changed under
Clinton. Democrats and Republicans proposed bill after bill until the
number
of crimes punishable by death leapt from one in 1974 to 66 in 1994. The two
parties engaged in "a death penalty bidding war." Then-Sen. Joe Biden was
one of the most enthusiastic proponents of expanding the death penalty-he
boasted that he had "added back to the Federal statutes over 50 death
penalties"-and the Democrats effectively "neutralized soft-on-crime
accusations with punitive outbidding." But while this may have been
politically advantageous to the Democrats, it was devastating to poor
people
of color and in particular blacks.
Change, Murakawa said, requires us to formulate a very different vision of
society.
"We should follow Angela Davis' call to ask the question: What is it we
have
to imagine if we abolish the social functions of police and prisons?" she
said. "What is it we have to build if we can no longer jail people who are
mentally ill or suffering from long-term addiction or homeless? We are
going
to have to build a lot."
But few people, and perhaps no one in the political establishment, are
asking these questions.
"These bipartisan coalitions are conjoined in the rhetoric of cost
cutting,"
Murakawa said, referencing Marie Gottschalk's book "Caught: The Prison
State
and the Lockdown of American Politics." "They may say there is bias, that
it
is not racially fair. They may attack prisons as big government, as
inefficient or as a bad investment. But once you follow the logic of
austerity, you push the cost of punishment on those who are punished. You
are not committed to building anything. The reason Portugal has been so
successful with drug legalization is because of the Portuguese National
Health Service. Fighting addiction requires pharmacological and medical
intervention, along with psychological and financial support.
"I worry that we are once again moving toward more professionalized police
who have had more training but still have the scope to arrest and issue
citations and summonses the same way they do now," Murakawa said. "Indeed,
there will probably be an increase in arrests, citations and summonses if
the police forces get bigger. Even with scaling back the war on drugs, I
worry that we will still have a massive number of people embroiled in the
criminal justice system. It will be death by a thousand cuts rather than
the
20-year mandatory minimums for drug conspiracy. Bipartisan coalitions that
are about cutting costs justify pushing the cost of punishment on punished
populations. I worry we are moving toward a population, mostly black and
poor, that is cycling through jail and effectively serving 20-year
sentences
but in stints of about 90 days at a time. With each jail stay they
accumulate more debt for room and board. A municipality in Missouri is
billing people for the Tasers used against them-$26 per Taser discharge.
Roughly half of all states are now charging people for the services of
indigent criminal defense. A 2013 Supreme Court decision said that extended
families could be held responsible for the debts of those incarcerated.
"There are 10 to 12 million arrests every year; about half will never be
processed because these arrests are for charges so trivial they are not
worth pursuing or there is no evidence," she said. "Maybe 5 percent of
these
arrests are for charges of violent crime and 15 percent for property
crimes.
"There is no reason why police on patrols should be armed," she went on.
"If
we were serious about stopping executions without trials, we would be
committed to the idea that all police have to call in special forces. What
we now see as regular police units would be SWAT patrols that have to be
specially called in to use lethal force. We have to diminish the scale of
everything. We have to wipe clean penal codes. Most arrests are for
misdemeanors, petty offenses like public drunkenness or loitering. These
are
things no state agent with a gun should be addressing. The only way to
reduce the scale of police brutality is to reduce the scale of policing.
People should not be arrested for not mowing their lawn or for selling
loosies.
"The idea we can put police officers through training to address their
implicit bias and then give them guns-the idea that two days of intensive
training will diminish the probability of shoot to kill-is absurd,"
Murakawa
said. "I have zero faith in this."
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/greek_finance_minister_yanis_var
oufakis_resigns_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/greek_finance_minister_yanis_var
oufakis_resigns_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/greek_finance_minister_yanis_var
oufakis_resigns_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_john_oliver_tries_explain_15_subj
ects_in_one_minute_but_tpp_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_john_oliver_tries_explain_15_subj
ects_in_one_minute_but_tpp_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_john_oliver_tries_explain_15_subj
ects_in_one_minute_but_tpp_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/deaths_mount_as_pakistan_heatwave_is_lin
ked_to_climate_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/deaths_mount_as_pakistan_heatwave_is_lin
ked_to_climate_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/deaths_mount_as_pakistan_heatwave_is_lin
ked_to_climate_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/will_we_allow_for_a_private_health_insur
ance_monopoly_single_payer_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/will_we_allow_for_a_private_health_insur
ance_monopoly_single_payer_20150706/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/will_we_allow_for_a_private_health_insur
ance_monopoly_single_payer_20150706/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/user_agreement/http://www.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.t
ruthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
