For the Record(whatever Record that might be), I strongly support self
defense, protecting oneself and ones family and loved ones.
What I do not support is the concept that a violent revolution will
result in a peaceful government of, by and for the People.
It's a conundrum. The Ruling Class makes the rules and owns the
courts, and hordes the wealth, and pays the military. Since the
Ruling Class will not simply turn over their power, wealth and
military, the only course of action is violent overthrow. But violent
overthrow invariably leads to a new Ruling Class bent on reaping the
harvest and establishing their own laws. And even if a Movement
emerged proclaiming that they would set in place a government of the
people, by the people and for all of the people, there would be those
among their numbers who would plot to seize power. And the circle
would turn and turn and turn.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/21/20, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In part Miriam wrote: "What I believe is that every means should be
employed to protect people from harm and to prevent those who are
leaders from acquiring an
excess of power."
Okay, I agree with that. Every means includes the right to self defense.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen
yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much
evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you
give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an
invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to
accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to
require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/21/2020 3:37 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
There's going to be slaughter when people revolt unless they decide that
they will demonstrate peacefully and depend on existing legal procedures
for change. It's a question of how much slaughter takes place and on
whether or not the people who are leading the revolution, use violence for
self defense. If they decide to do that, then the nature of the revolution
will change. At least, that's what I think, given what I've read about
history and what I know about human nature. What I believe is that every
means should be employed to protect people from harm and to prevent those
who are leaders from acquiring an excess of power. Once they start using
violence as a tool of self defense, it will become natural for them to use
violence as a means of control over the people they lead.
Of course, this discussion that we're having is just theoretical. We're
just a few blind people, sitting at our computers, bullshitting about the
world. But the world that we are considering is incredibly complex and we
certainly have no control over what will happen. All we can do is observe
and comment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 3:24 PM
To: miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against Bernie
Sanders
Ghandi? Thousands of slaughtered Indians?
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen
yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much
evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you
give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an
invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to
accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to
require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/21/2020 3:21 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ghandi? Television cmeras?
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 3:18 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
It sure does seem to me that the historical record tells us that if you
are going to use passive resistance you had better be sure that there are
plenty of television cameras pointed at you when you do so.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen
yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much
evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you
give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an
invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to
accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to
require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/21/2020 12:39 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I think that the reason that Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi both
promoted passive resistance as a method to attain positive social change
is that they both looked at the historical record, at the results of
what happened when people fought back in their own self defense. It's
one thing for a woman to fight off a rapist, or a man to defend his home
against someone with a gun, threatening his children in order to steal
his money. But it's a very different matter when your organizing people
to demand a better life for themselves. If those people use violence to
counteract the violence used against them, the violence escalates and
the very thing they started out demanding, gets lost in the battle. That
seems to be what the historical record tells us.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 9:52 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
Well, if you disagree with the path to socialism that I describe it
would be helpful if you would try to understand it. It is not a matter
of revolutionaries feeling like they have to use violence to overthrow
the capitalists and then impose an authoritarian state. As I have said
time and time again, that is not what happens historically with all
revolutions. It is not a matter of those in power not wanting to give up
their power and so you have to take it from them by force. It is a
matter of their not being willing to give up their power and they will
not give it up by peaceful means. They strike out with the violence. I
certainly hope that you don't think that the targets of violence should
just lie down and let themselves get killed losing not only their lives
but also losing everything they have fought for up to that point. Self
defense means that you have to shoot back or you lose everything. As for
the authoritarian state, Again, all states are authoritarian. That is
what a state is. If you don't think so then try behaving as if it
doesn't exist. Just try doing something minor like picking up a loaf of
bread in a grocery store without paying for it and do it right in front
of a cop. Then at every turn try to reject state authority over you. It
will not take long until the situation escalates to the point that they
kill you. And then, suppose you engage in self defense and a
revolutionary war breaks out over the people in power refusing to give
up their power. Suppose you manage to get the upper hand over them and
you win. Then just what are you going to do with them? If you do not
exercise some authoritarian power over them then everything you have won
will be lost as they just step in to reestablish what they had and kill
you in the process. There is a big difference between wanting to
overthrow the ones in power by force and violence and being forced into
it. Again, read Socialism On Trial by James P. Cannon. He makes it very
clear that he and his comrades would very much prefer to achieve
socialism by peaceful means, but that he still defends the right to self
defense.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that
frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as
much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent
that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written
by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he
fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he
seems to require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/20/2020 4:21 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Roger,
I have a feeling that this is a discussion which, although we've had it
many times, will not be resolved.
First, and unrelated to the rest. People's usage of language is not
precise. It's often very inexact and it changes. Culture is fluid and
language, as part of culture, is also fluid. Another way to put it is
that it's idiomatic. For example, younger people use expressions that I
never used when I was their age. One new thing they've been saying when
they make a mistake is, "My bad". In their place, I would have said
something like, "Oh, I made a mistake" or perhaps, "I'm sorry. I got
that wrong." People say, "It's me" when the correct grammatical
statement is, "It is I". So in that same way, all of these people who
are supporting Bernie Sanders, have adopted his mis characterization,
as Paul Krugman describes it, of his position, and regardless of what
their precise political views are, they say they are socialists. And my
response is, even though you disapprove of it because you think it
hampers communication, "labels aren't all that important". What is
important to me is that they all want things to change for the better.
They are opposed to the extremes of financial inequality that have been
increasing in America for the past 40 or more years. They are opposed
to institutional racism. They want a more democratic society.
Now for the next part. This is why you and I keep running up against a
wall that appears to divide us. I have no problem with the goal that
you describe, although I think that European Democratic Socialism might
serve people equally well. My problem is with the path that you
describe, that people would need to follow in order to achieve the goal
because it is certainly true that the powerful elites will not easily
give up their power. So if revolutionaries feel that they need to use
physical force to take power from those who have it, and then create an
autocratic state in order to prevent the elites from taking back the
power, from my point of view, we, the people, have lost precisely what
it was that we were trying to get when force was used to overthrow the
system. We've seen this happen over and over again whenever people
have a vision about making life better and they wage war in order to
make that vision reality. The dream is corrupted, as are the people who
use it. If we put democracy and individual freedom and choice aside
temporarily, in order to make things better, we lose.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
If other people are not using words as precisely as I am then that is
as if we are speaking separate languages. That would mean that they are
only receiving vague impressions while I am talking about something
specific and if I started speaking only vaguely then I would not be
communicating what I am trying to communicate. I don't see what is so
difficult about learning one's own language including the vocabulary of
that language. It is not even necessary to read dictionaries. All you
have to do is to pay attention to how words are used and you learn the
meanings of those words. That's how I do it. A major interest of mine
is socialism and communism and so I read about it. Sometimes I will
read a book with a glossary, but I rarely need it. I can tell by
context what a word means and when the context consistently shows the
word to mean the same thing every time I have learned what a word
means. That means that when I come across the word again I have no need
to just interpret the word as a vague emotional impression. It is
really difficult for me to understand why other people do not do the
same thing. As for whether a socialist state is authoritarian or not,
that is something else that I have discussed on this list time and time
again. It depends on how the socialist state is achieved. As I have
explained before, we would prefer to just get our candidates elected
and to change the constitution and laws to legislate socialism. That is
what the social democrats started out to do, but there is an aphorism
that when you try to change the system from within the system it is not
the system that gets changed. It is you who will change. The social
democrats are a perfect example of that. When you give up trying to
abolish capitalism in favor of just regulating capitalism then you have
given up being socialist. But when the capitalists get to feeling
really threatened they lash out violently and because of exercising the
right to self defense a civil war is likely to result. Once the
capitalists are overthrown then in order to keep them from walking
right in and reestablishing their capitalist state then the new
socialist state has to be somewhat authoritarian to survive. It should
never be forgotten, however, that this is only temporary until there is
no chance that the capitalists can regain power. Furthermore, any state
is authoritarian. Again, the state is the apparatus by which one class
exercises power over other classes by violence or the threat of
violence. That is what police forces and standing armies are all about.
Like it or not, you are living in an authoritarian state. But once
everyone in society plays a role in maintaining society, that is, when
classes have been abolished, the state no longer has a reason to
continue to exist. The state apparatus can then be transformed into an
administrator of things rather than people. That is, there will still
have to be some kind of coordination to get products produced. Factory
committees will still have to meet to make plans for how they will
produce products and then there will still have to be an organized way
to distribute the products. So imagine people working together to do
all of this. On a small scale imagine a barn raising. That is a
practice from agrarian cultures that refers to a barn needing to be
built and so everyone in the community comes together and build a barn
without expectation of remuneration other than that the next time they
need a barn to be built the community will come together an build that
one too. Imagine a family that cooperates to bring in a household
income and to do the housework. The members of that family are working
for themselves, but not as individuals for their own personal needs.
They are working for the collective good of the family including
themselves as individuals. That is communism. Instead of being against
human nature as it is so often accused of, it is human nature. If you
look around you then you will see that mutual cooperation for mutual
benefit is one of the most prominent parts of human nature. I am sure
that you have cooperated with others many times throughout your
lifetime in ways that benefited yourself and the others too. Just
imagine that on a large scale and with no one forcing you to do it and
you can imagine communism.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that
frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as
much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent
that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was
written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for
eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the
universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/19/2020 9:34 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The problem is that most people are not using these words as precisely
as you are. Well, that's the first problem. You have a very sharp
mind. You read a lot and you use the abstract concepts that you read
about, in order to understand the world. And I'm sure that there are
other people who do that also. But the majority of us don't. I talked
about the kind of world I'd like to see. I was describing my values
and I was talking about how I would like life to be for people. I was
not talking about which system I thought would be best to arrive at my
goal because honestly, I don't know which system would be best and
that's why I don't like labels. My feeling is that human beings, with
all their fallibility, their need for power, their fears, the
individual psychology that drives them, will most probably mess up
any system we adopt.
The idea of the public owning the means of production sounds benign,
but it depends on what that word, "public" means or I guess, how this
is actually put into practice. Does it mean an authoritarian state or
does it mean that workers own their workplaces and run them
democratically. Somehow, it seems like bureaucracies inevitably become
rigid , unresponsive, and self perpetuating. I don't think that this
would be different under socialism than it is under capitalism. But
never having had first hand experience with socialism, I don't know.
About Communism, you said:
Communism is the situation in which the state itself has been
abolished. That is, the state has turned from an apparatus that
administers people into an apparatus that administers things, things
like commodities.
I honestly don't understand what that would look like in real life. I
guess it's too abstract for my brain, but I would appreciate it if
you could give me an example of what that might be like.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:06 PM
To: miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
Label is another name for noun. It is a part of speech and it is a
major part of speech. It lets you know what you are talking about. You
can say I walked across and picked up and took. But it makes a lot
more sense to say I walked across the floor and picked up a coffee cup
and took a sip of coffee. If you reject labels you cannot form a
coherent sentence. In stead of saying that you feel uncomfortable with
labels try learning what they mean and then it will be a lot easier to
discuss things. Now, I do not mean communism when I say socialism. If
I meant communism I would say communism. Lenin described socialism as
the lowest form of communism, but it is low enough that the two can be
easily distinguished. Socialism is a form of state. It is the
situation in which the means of production is under the ownership and
democratic control of the public. If someone advocates this situation
then he or she is a socialist. If a person does not advocate that then
no matter how much he or she calls him or herself a socialist he or
she is not a socialist. Socialism simply is not regulated capitalism.
Even the outright capitalists accept some amount of regulation by
their state.
Otherwise their profit system would collapse in the extreme
competition that would result without any restraint. If a capitalist
who is consumed with making profit accepts some regulation so as to
not be eaten alive by his or her competition then that does not make
that capitalist a socialist. Socialism is simply not any government
regulation or program that happens to exist. If you use socialism that
way then you render the word socialism completely meaningless.
Communism, on the other hand, is the situation in which the state
itself has been abolished. That is, the state has turned from an
apparatus that administers people into an apparatus that administers
things, things like commodities. If you would just drop your aversion
to labels you would know that and you would not have to get the
impression that I am talking about anything when I use a word like
socialism. You would simply know what I am talking about. And I do not
use words to give impressions anyway. I use words to communicate and I
use words to communicate specific ideas.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that
frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as
much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent
that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was
written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for
eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the
universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/19/2020 9:16 AM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I do have a lot of problems with all these labels, capitalism,
socialism, communism. I guess I don't care what you call it so long
as everyone has a comfortable home, good nutrition, good complete
health care, access to as much education as that person wants, and an
opportunity to work if he or she is willing and able. I think that
the world should be run for the welfare of people, not for profit,
and I think that there should be a ceiling on the income that any
individual family should have. But I'm not bound to a particular
political philosophy. I don't care how we get there. I believe that
you are advocating communism when you use the word "socialist", but
I'm not sure and it doesn't matter a whole lot. I do know that when a
lot of other people use the word, "socialism, they mean a variety of
things by it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War
Against Bernie Sanders
It remains that the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and no
social democrat government in those countries have made a move to
abolish capitalism. If you think you can just regulate capitalism
into being nice capitalism you are a pretty poor socialist.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that
frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require
as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the
extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed
was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for
eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the
universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/18/2020 9:35 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
There is really a difference between how the Scandanavian countries
function and the way the US does. It has to do with the fact that
citizens of those countries pay a much higher tax rate and the money
which those taxes raise, are used to provide many benefits to
families that Americans don't have. Universal medical care, child
care, paid family leave, a lot of vacation time, all sorts of
things that make life easier for working people. That's the kind of
thing that the Democratic Socialists here, or whatever label you
choose to assign to them want. In the US, the term, "liberal", has
come to mean progressive social values, as opposed to conservative
social values like being anti choice or anti gay. It isn't a
derogatory term. It's just that it doesn't necessarily mean that the
people whom you call liberal, understand the enormous exploitation
of working people and the incredible inequality. However, people
who are working for positive change, understand that you don't get
it by dividing people. You get it by showing them what they have in
common and helping them find ways to work together to reach goals.
Calling people "liberals" as a derogatory term, or "deplorables" or
"the uneducated masses" separates them. It's the kind of thing that
Trump does, only he uses other words.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 9:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bob Hachey (Redacted sender
bhachey for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
I think your BC professors were referring to the social democrats,
not socialism. It is really hard to distinguish between a liberal
and a social democrat. So they may as well just say liberalism
instead of socialism.
___
Sam Harris
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that
frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require
as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the
extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed
was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for
eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the
universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.”
― Sam Harris,
On 2/18/2020 8:00 PM, Bob Hachey (Redacted sender bhachey for DMARC)
wrote:
Hi Miriam,
Good article here. The more negative I see on Bernie, the more
likely I am to vote for him in the primary despite my fears that
he may not be electable. And, seems to me that more of the
negativity on Bernie now comes from the left rather than the right.
What a mess and a farce as well.
IF someone wants to argue that Bernie's policy positions may not
be supported by the majority of Americans I can live with that
as a possibly reasonable argument. What I hate most is the tired
old rant that "He's a socialist" and how awful that is. Also,
many trot out the lazy definition of socialism that appears on
dictionary.com which says socialism promotes ownership or
regulation of the means of production.
I was taught that it is communism that promotes ownership of the
means of production. Socialism promotes the regulation, not
ownership of the means of production according to my BC
professors.
Bob Hachey
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 3:16 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] The Escalating Class War Against
Bernie Sanders
The Escalating Class War Against Bernie Sanders By Norman
Solomon, Reader Supported News
18 February 20
More than ever, Bernie Sanders is public enemy number one for
power elites that thrive on economic injustice. The Bernie 2020
campaign is a direct threat to the undemocratic leverage that
extremely wealthy individuals and huge corporations constantly
exert on the political process. No wonder we're now seeing so
much anti-Bernie rage from leading corporate Democrats - eagerly
amplified by corporate media.
In American politics, hell hath no fury like corporate power
scorned.
Flagrant media biases against Sanders are routine in a wide
range of mainstream outlets. (The media watch group FAIR has
long documented the problem, illuminated by one piece after
another after another after another just this month.) In sharp
contrast, positivity toward Sanders in mass media spheres is
scarce.
The pattern is enmeshed with the corporatism that the Sanders
campaign seeks to replace with genuine democracy - disempowering
great wealth and corporate heft while empowering everyday people
to participate in a truly democratic process.
Big media are continually amplifying the voices of well-paid
reporters and pundits whose jobs involve acceptance of corporate
power, including the prerogatives of corporate owners and
sponsors.
And, in news coverage of politics, there's an inexhaustible
supply of former Democratic officeholders and appointees who've
been lucratively feeding from corporate troughs as lobbyists,
consultants and PR operatives. Their corporate ties usually go
unmentioned.
An important media headquarters for hostility toward the Sanders
campaign is MSNBC, owned by Comcast - a notoriously anti-labor
and anti-consumer corporation. "People need to remember," I
pointed out on Democracy Now! last week, "that if you, for
instance, don't trust Comcast, why would you trust a network that
is owned by Comcast?
These are class interests being worked out where the top strata
of ownership and investors hires the CEO, hires the managing
editors, hires the reporters. And so, what we're seeing, and not to
be rhetorical about it, but we really are seeing a class war
underway."
Routinely, the talking heads and go-to sources for mainline news
outlets are far removed from the economic pressures besetting so
many Americans. And so, media professionals with the most clout
and largest megaphones are quite distant from the Sanders base.
Voting patterns in the New Hampshire primary reflected whose
economic interests the Sanders campaign is promising to serve.
With
10 active candidates on the Democratic ballot, Sanders "won 4 in
10 of voters with household incomes under $50,000 and nearly 3
in
10 with incomes between
$50,00 and $99,000," The Washington Post reported.
Meanwhile, a trio of researchers associated with the Institute
for New Economic Thinking - Thomas Ferguson, Jie Chen and Paul
Jorgensen
- found that "the higher the town's income, the fewer votes cast"
for Sanders.
"Lower income towns in New Hampshire voted heavily for Sanders;
richer towns did the opposite."
The researchers saw in the data "further dramatic evidence of a
point we have made before: that the Democratic Party is now
sharply divided by social class."
It's a reality with media implications that are hidden in plain
sight.
The often-vitriolic and sometimes preposterous attacks on
Sanders via powerful national media outlets are almost always
coming from affluent or outright wealthy people. Meanwhile,
low-income Americans have virtually zero access to the TV studios
(other than providing after-hours janitorial services).
With very few exceptions, the loudest voices to be heard from
mass media are coming from individuals with wealth far above the
financial vicinity of average Americans. Virtually none of the
most widely read, seen and heard journalists are on the low end of
the nation's extreme income inequality.
Viewed in that light - and keeping in mind that corporate
ownership and advertising dominate mainstream media - it
shouldn't be surprising that few prominent journalists have much
good to say about a presidential campaign fiercely aligned with the
working class.
"If there is going to be class warfare in this country," Bernie
Sanders told the Iowa AFL-CIO convention last summer, "it's time
that the working class of this country won that war and not just
the corporate elite."
To the corporate elite, goals like that are unacceptable.
