Ralph Nader on the Primaries

THE ABSURD TIMES

Not much point to even discussing the Republican Primaries, but here is a good comment on Trump:

Following the mounting criticism over Donald Trump's statements during and after a town hall meeting in New Hampshire Thursday, at which he did not contradict a question by one of his supporters about when the United States could "get rid of" Muslims, we speak with Ralph Nader about Donald Trump and xenophobia. "What if the man had said that about Jews instead of Muslims? About Christians instead of Muslims?" Ralph Nader asked.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. Our guest is Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, ran for president of the United States a number of times. Ralph, I want to start by asking you about the latest meeting yesterday, town hall meeting, Donald Trump held in New Hampshire. During the Q&A, the first person to stand up said President Obama is Muslim, not even American, and asked when the U.S. could get rid of Muslims. This is what the person said. He's called on by Donald Trump, who responds.

DONALD TRUMP: OK, this man. I like this guy.

TRUMP SUPPORTER: I'm from White Plains. Amen, OK? We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims. We know our current president is one.

DONALD TRUMP: Right.

TRUMP SUPPORTER: You know he's not even an American. Birth certificate, man.

DONALD TRUMP: We need this question; this is the first question.

TRUMP SUPPORTER: But anyway, we have training camps brewing where they want to kill us.

DONALD TRUMP: Mm-hmm.

TRUMP SUPPORTER: That's my question: When can we get rid of them?

DONALD TRUMP: We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. And, you know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Donald Trump. And I want to get to what he then said afterwards, what his—what his campaign said. They issued a statement to The Washington Post saying, "The media wants to make this issue about Obama. The bigger issue is that Obama is waging a war against Christians." So he certainly didn't back off his response or what his supporter said in this Q&A. Your response to this, Ralph? And then, overall, just talk about what we've witnessed this week with the Republican debate. But respond to Trump first. What should he have said?

RALPH NADER: Well, what would he have said if the man said Jews instead of Muslims? What would he have said if he said Christians instead of Muslims? So, obviously, Donald Trump is tone deaf about the rights of Muslims in this country. We have—supposed to have equal rights under the law. What kind of stereotype racism does he require in his audience before he stands up against it? Donald Trump—

AMY GOODMAN: Would you call him a racist?

RALPH NADER: Pardon?

AMY GOODMAN: Would you call him a racist?

RALPH NADER: Well, we'll let him answer that question. He certainly is not rejecting racist comments that are made, and that's the first sign that he—

AMY GOODMAN: What about his call for 11 million immigrants to be deported from this country?

RALPH NADER: Well, that is so absurd. But, you see, he gets away with absurdity. He has an immunity that would tank any other political candidate, because he's so outrageous, and the press thinks he's outrageous, so they give him a pass. It's really amazing. It's sort of like the way the media did with Ronald Reagan: They had such low expectation levels of him that when he exceeded them, you know, it was a surprise.

But Donald Trump is fulfilling some important functions, Amy. He's disrupting the slick corporatism of the other candidates. He, for example, has said, "Why do we, the big rich guys, why do we give money to politicians? Well, because then they do whatever we want them to do." That's a great quote. And he was asked, "Well, why did your companies go bankrupt four times?" He said, "Well, that's a competitive advantage. All the other companies do that." So, you know, he's exposing the fraud of bankruptcy law when it comes to corporations, compared to student loan defaults. And so he's making these statements which are very valuable.

Who knows where it's going to end up, but it's all a circus. He's the chief circus barker, clearly. And all these issues that you talk about on your program, and other serious programming, go by the wayside. I mean, we've trivialized the campaign to select the leader of the so-called greatest power in the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we just have a minute. We talked to you right after Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy for the president. Now he is ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls in New Hampshire and in a number of polls in Iowa. Your response to what this means?

RALPH NADER: Well, he's tapping in to what we all knew: There is a left-right coalition behind Main Street, against Wall Street. They don't like crony capitalism. They don't like violation of civil liberties. They want criminal justice reform, whether it's left or right. They're very worried about empire abroad and all the waste in the government, in the Pentagon and elsewhere. So he's tapping into it.

He now needs to broaden out. He's got to have a corporate crime policy, not just a Wall Street—anti-Wall Street policy. And he's got to deal with military and foreign policy. Everybody that I know of in the progressive world are waiting to see how he's going to take on Hillary Clinton, the master corporatist and the master militarist, the latest being the turmoil in Libya, spilling over Africa. That was Hillary's war, against the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Gates.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, I want to thank you for being with us.

McCain -- It Never Ends

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustration: From Keith Tucker at www.whatnowtoons.com: This illustration is right on target. McCain, the great Maverick (even James Garner should turn his head away), the "reform" candidate (never support any "reform") just announced his independence for getting rid of five lobbysts running his campaign. I never saw one of them carrying his briefcase. He is the one independent of "special interests."

McCain's spiritual supporter Hagee once said that Hitler was send by God to create the holocaust so the Jews would go back to Israel, and he was quoting the Bible to do so. McCain has not renounced him even yet. Of course, it is God's will, according to this bunch. See, you gotta have all the Jews in one place so they can be destroyed, "obliterated" to use a favorite of Hillary Clinton, and sent to hell during a great "rapture" that will mark Jesus' return, impossible without Hitler paving the way. So . . . um . . . as I have been led to understand, God works in mysterious ways. Um, how many lobbyists did Hitler have in the U.S.?

****************************************

I've come across two interesting articles. One on the cost of "free speech." We talk about that all the time, free speech, that is, but have all sorts of ways to make one pay for exercising it.

The other one is by Ralph Nader discussion a possibility than the internet, via Google, will be able to break the monopoly the Republicans and Democrats have on Presidential Debates.

***************************************

When Free Speech Doesnt Come Free

May 21, 2008 By *Remi Kanazi*

Remi Kanazi's ZSpace Page </zspace/remikanazi>

Join ZSpace <https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>

Free speech is not without consequence*.* In the United States, for
example, criticism of Israel is tantamount to heresy. Former US
President Jimmy* *Carter felt a societal backlash last year after the
release of his book,/ Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/, which condemned
Israel's apartheid-style policies in the occupied Palestinian
territories. Consequently, and without foundation, Carter was branded by
many in the American press as a one-sided, anti-Semitic propagandist.
Similarly, Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer were lambasted for a paper the two
co-authored that discussed the power of the Israel lobby and its adverse
effect on American policy. Additionally, Norman Finkelstein, an
esteemed professor at Depaul University and author of the bestselling
book, /The Holocaust Industry/, witnessed a McCarthyite-style campaign
mounted against him when he came up for tenure. Finkelstein, the son of
Holocaust survivors, has been an outspoken critic of Israel's human
rights abuses* *and of pro-Israel apologist and Harvard professor, Alan
Dershowitz. Predictably, it was Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure
campaign against him; ultimately, Finkelstein was not only denied
tenure, but he lost his job at Depaul. **

The attacks against Carter, Finkelstein, Walt and Mearsheimer serve as a
few well-known examples of the consequences writers and intellectuals
face when they breach the line and criticize Israel. Furthermore, the
condemnation writers and intellectuals of Arab descent face are
invariably higher than Jews of conscience, former presidents, and highly
regarded academics. As a result, many writers often acquiesce to the
demands of the mainstream. Their self-censorship usually appears in the
form of "toning down the message," be it to please editors or
critics—essentially to conform to the reality of purported pragmatism.
Yet, this "pragmatism" is a euphemism for acceptance of a repressive
status quo and is analogous to the "necessary" practical thinking that
silenced a multitude of commentators during the Oslo years—the supposed
time of peace. Unsurprisingly, untold Palestinian suffering followed as
a result of increased settlement expansion, land confiscation,
checkpoints and seizures, and the ultimate failure of Camp David 2000.

Shying away from perceived controversial matters may help to protect a
mainstream career, but the intent of a political analyst should not be
to produce works of fiction*. *The vast majority of Americans weren't
open to criticism of US policy during the run-up to the war on Iraq,
mainly due to the media's complicity in promoting the war, but criticism
was still the appropriate course of action based on the facts, and
Americans would have been better off for it today.**

* *

A man who combined principle, activism, and human appeal quite
masterfully was distinguished educator and commentator, Edward Said. In
the realm of academia and Middle East analysis, Said was by no means
viewed as the quintessential radical. Nonetheless, his positions were
radical when juxtaposed with "conventional wisdom": he was a proponent
of the one-state solution, an unwavering critic of the Israeli
government, and an ardent supporter of the ostensibly controversial
right of return. Said was still heavily criticized throughout his career
and endured incessant attacks by his detractors, yet his* *accessible
personality and articulate message kept him relevant.

Sadly, Said's relative acceptance has been the exception rather than the
rule. In recent years, there has been increased* *emphasis on putative
pragmatic dialogue. However, this accentuation on so-called rational and
balanced thinking has proven to be little more than a sinister means*
*to pressure the oppressed to accept the position of the oppressor. The
greatest leaders of the last hundred years didn't shy away from
controversy; they remained persistent, and saw their visions brought to
fruition; be they Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi.
Nevertheless, one cannot overlook that even paramount figures have been
castigated for "overstepping" their boundaries, namely Martin Luther
King who was chided for speaking out against the war in Vietnam,
imperialism, and social injustices that plagued the US.

This week, Palestinians across the US commemorated 60 years of
displacement. Yet, the lens the Palestinian people are expected to look
through under the pragmatist vision is one that sees a dispossessed
people as necessary victims for a righteous state to take form*.
*Unfortunately, waves of writers and commentators continue to adopt this
line in fear of retribution, in exchange for nicer houses and
comfortable livings, or a combination of both.* *That is their free
will. Free speech is not without consequence. Nonetheless, losing piece
of mind is the only repercussion a writer should fear.

Remi Kanazi is the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, /Poets
For Palestine/, which can be pre-ordered at www.PoetsForPalestine.com
<http://www.poetsforpalestine.com/>. Remi can be contacted at
remroum@gmail.com <mailto:remroum@gmail.com>.

***************************************************************************

Can the Company Break the Political Gridlock?

May 21, 2008 By *Ralph Nader*

Ralph Nader's ZSpace Page </zspace/ralphnader>

Join ZSpace <https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>

An invitation to visit Google's headquarters and meet some of the people
who made this ten year old giant that is giving Microsoft the nervies
has to start with wonder.

The "campus" keeps spreading with the growth of Google into more and
more fields, even though advertising revenue still comprises over 90
percent of its total revenues. The company wants to "change the world,"
make all information digital and accessible through Google. Its company
motto—is "Do No Evil," which comes under increasing scrutiny, especially
in the firm's business with the national security state in Washington,
D.C. and with the censors of Red China.

Google's two founders out of Stanford graduate school—Sergey Brin and
Larry Page—place the highest premium on hiring smart, motivated people
who provide their own edge and work their own hours.

We were given "the tour" before entering a large space to be asked and
answer questions before an audience of wunderkinds. E-mail traffic was
monitored worldwide with a variety of electronic globes with various
lights marking which countries were experiencing high or low traffic.
Africa was the least lit. One of our photographers started to take a
picture but was politely waved away with a few proprietary words. A new
breed of trade secrets.

I noticed all the places where food—free and nutritious—was available.
The guide said that food is no further than 150 feet from any workplace.
"How can they keep their weight down with all these tempting repasts?" I
asked.

"Wait," he said, leading us toward a large room where an almost eerie
silence surrounded dozens of exercising Googlelites going through their
solitary motions at 3:45 in the afternoon.

"How many hours do they work?" one of my colleagues asked.

"We don't really know. As long as they want to," came the response.

In the amphitheatre, the director of communications and I started a Q
and A, followed by more questions from the audience. It was followed by
a YouTube interview. You can see both of them on: (Q&A
<http://youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU>) and (Interview
<http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzUrUNhIj4c&feature=related>).

Google is a gigantic information means, bedecked with ever complex
software, to what end? Information ideally leads to knowledge, then to
judgment, then to wisdom and then to some action. As the ancient Chinese
proverb succinctly put it—"To know and not to do is not to know."

But what happens when a company is riding an ever rising crest of
digitized information avalanches without being able to catch its breath
and ask, "information for what?" I commented that we have had more
information available in the last twenty five years, though our country
and world seem to be getting worse overall; measured by indicators of
the human condition. With information being the "currency of democracy,"
conditions should be improving across the board.

"Knowledge for what?" I asked.

Well, for starters, Google is trying to figure out how to put on its own
Presidential debates, starting with one in New Orleans in the autumn.
Certainly it can deliver an internet audience of considerable size. But
will the major candidates balk if there are other candidates meeting
criteria such as a majority of Americans wanting them to participate?

The present Commission on Presidential Debates <http://opendebates.org/>
is a private nonprofit corporation created and controlled by the
Republican and Democratic Parties. They do not want other seats on the
stage and the television networks follow along with this exclusionary
format.

Google, with its own Foundation looking for creative applications that
produce results for the well-being of people, should hold regular public
hearings on the ground around the country for ideas. They may be
surprised by what people propose.

In any event, the examples of knowing but not doing are everywhere. More
people succumbed to tuberculosis in the world last year than ten years
ago. Medical scientists learned how to treat TB nearly fifty years ago.
Knowledge alone is not enough.

For years the technology to present the up-to-date voting record of each
member of Congress has been available. Yet only about a dozen
legislators do so, led by Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Chris Shays
(R-CT). Recalcitrant power blocks what people most want directly from
their lawmakers' website. Here Google can make the difference with
Capitol Hill, if it wants to connect information technology to informed
voters.

When the internet began, some of us thought that it would make it easy
and cheap for people to band together for bargaining and lobbying as
consumers. At last, the big banks, insurance companies, credit card
companies, automobile firms and so forth would have organized
countervailing consumer power with millions of members and ample full
time staffs. It has not happened.

Clearly technology and information by themselves do not produce
beneficial change. That depends on how decentralized political, economic
and social power is exercised in a corporate society where the few
decide for the many.

I left Google hoping for a more extensive follow-up conversation,
grounded in Marcus Cicero's assertion, over 2000 years ago, that
"Freedom is participation in power." That is what connects knowledge to
beneficial action, if people have that freedom.

I hope my discussions with the Google staff produced some food for
thought that percolates up the organization to Google's leaders.

*Ralph Nader* is running for president as an independent.