Saturday, June 23, 2012

ÄGYPTEN, Realität und Corporate Media

ÄGYPTEN, Realität und Corporate Media

Unsere Medien war ungewöhnlich präzise mit der arabischen Frühlings in Ägypten, bevor die Unternehmen 'Denker' involviert wurde. Warum hatten sie sogar "Sandman", die Twitter Toast, auf CNN. Jetzt aber können sie nicht einmal immer richtig.Wir können sehen, was sie bewegt das Militär hat bereits gemacht, aber nicht durch, dass täuschen. Ägypten hat endlich die gleiche Art von "Demokratie" wir hier erreicht haben. Das heißt, egal, für wen sie stimmen, wird es kein Unterschied sein.Ich hatte gedacht, dass es möglich war, einen klaren Kopf Politiker gewählt zu werden, aber einige von ihnen liefen und wurden somit eliminiert, zunichte sich gegenseitig die Stimmen. Es ist so etwas wie den Vorwahlen der Demokraten hier, wenn Dennis Kucinich theoretisch gewählt worden sein könnte.Nun, dies ist nicht, um die Bruderschaft zu verunglimpfen. Sie haben wirklich sehr viel für die Menschen in Ägypten getan. Einer sogar aus der Partei zu laufen und dann die Bruderschaft durfte einen Politiker laufen und er ist so etwas wie einen Obama hier. Sie wird über andere Kerl aus der Mubarak-Regime verlassen und ist wie eine Art Bush hier.Nun, was ist los mit der Bruderschaft Kandidat? Nun, es mag Sie überraschen zu erfahren (wenn auch nicht so viel wie das ägyptische Volk, so scheint es), dass er für die NASA gearbeitet. In den meisten Fällen muss jeder, der für die NASA arbeitet ein amerikanischer Staatsbürger sein. Hillary hat schön mit ihm. Was willst du?Die Ergebnisse werden am Sonntag (sagt man uns) bekannt gegeben, aber nicht den Atem anhalten. Auch hat das Militär bereits dafür gesorgt, dass er nicht in der Lage, etwas zu tun. Das Militär betreibt auch die Tourismusbranche und andere Dinge. Dow, die klingen wie dem militärisch-industriellen Komplex für Sie? Hrm.Selbst "Liberalen" hier fragen, ob Hilfe abgeschnitten werden und andere Geschwätz. Glauben Sie mir, haben die USA und das ägyptische Militär bereits dafür gesorgt, dass diese Wahl sinnlos ist.Ein Interview:Mittwoch, 20 Juni, 2012Ein Coup in Kairo: Als Muslim-Bruderschaft Ansprüche Wahlsieg Military Strips President of PowerSharif Abdel Kouddous Berichte aus Ägypten auf dem Land, das wachsende politische Krise. Der ehemalige Präsident Hosni Mubarak ist am Leben, behaupten beide Kandidaten zu gewinnen vergangenen Wochenende die Wahl haben, und die regierende Militärrat hat mehr Macht an sich gerissen. Offizielle Präsidentschaftswahl Ergebnisse werden nicht erwartet, dass sie erst am Donnerstag bekannt gegeben. Zehntausende Ägypter protestierten am Dienstagabend in Kairo Tahrir-Platz in einer Rallye durch die Muslim-Bruderschaft genannt und drückt Empörung über die Armee das Dekret späten Sonntagabend, daß sie alle legislativen Befugnisse zu nutzen. "Im Moment das Land keine Verfassung, kein Parlament und eine neue Präsident, die kaum Macht haben wird hat", sagt Kouddous. "Also, wirklich, ist das Militär Rat Steuerung der wichtigsten Zweige der Staat .... [Es ist] vielleicht ein passender Abschluss für dieses unsinnige Übergang dass wir in den letzten 16 Monaten gesehen." [Transkript umfasst Ansturm]Filed under ÄgyptenGast:Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! Korrespondent berichtet aus KairoRelated· Eine gerichtliche Coup in Ägypten: Muslimbrüder-kontrollierte Parlament aufgelöst, Militär Macht gewinnt 15. Juni 2012 | Geschichte· Mubarak zu lebenslänglich in Ägypten verurteilt, aber Proteste Erupt als Sons, Aides Vermeiden Verurteilungen 4. Juni 2012 | Geschichte· Jimmy Carter über die Kontrolle ägyptischen Wahlen, US-Ägypten Relations, Zukunft des Camp David 29. Mai 2012 | Geschichte· Bericht aus Kairo: Proteste in Ägypten Erupt als Mubaraks Ex-PM Sichert Spot in Stichwahl um das Präsidentenamt 29. Mai 2012 | Geschichte· Wahl Ägypten: Muslimbrüder Kandidat könnte Mubaraks Ex-Ministerpräsident des Abflusses 25. Mai Angesicht, 2012 | GeschichteLinks· Lesen Sharif Abdel Kouddous 'Artikel in der Zeitschrift Nation· Folgen Sie Sharif Abdel Kouddous auf TwitterÜberstürzen TranscriptDieses Transkript ist kostenlos erhältlich. Allerdings helfen uns Spenden bieten Untertitelung für Gehörlose und Schwerhörige auf unserer Fernsehsendung. Vielen Dank für Ihre großzügige contribution.Donate>AbschriftNermeen Shaikh: Wir beginnen die heutige Show auf der politischen Krise in Ägypten. Der ehemalige Präsident Hosni Mubarak ist aus dem Gefängnis wurde zu einem Lazarett in Kairo, wo er ist angeblich bewusstlos und am Leben bewegt. Das Militär Strongman regierte das Land 30 Jahre lang, bis er von der Macht während der letztjährigen Aufstand gestürzt. Anfang dieses Monats wurde er zu lebenslanger Haft für seine Rolle in den Tod von Demonstranten verurteilt. Hohe Offiziere haben sich verschiedene Konten des 84-jährigen Mubarak Bedingung gegeben, aber sie verweigert Berichten war er, Zitat, "klinisch tot", so kurz von der staatlichen Nachrichtenagentur berichtet.Die Nachricht kommt inmitten hoher Spannung über die Ergebnisse vom letzten Wochenende der Präsidentschaftswahl, die Mubaraks ehemaligen Premierminister, Ahmed Shafik, gegen Mohamed Morsi von der Muslimbruderschaft ausgespielt. Offizielle Ergebnisse werden nicht erwartet, dass sie erst am Donnerstag bekannt gegeben, aber beide Seiten haben bereits den Sieg behauptet.Unterdessen zeigte wenig Sympathie Ägypter Neuigkeiten über sich verschlechternden Gesundheitszustand Mubaraks.ADEL Morad: [übersetzt] Wir brauchen nichts von ihm oder seiner Familie. Wir wollen, dass sie uns in Ruhe lassen, weil wir müde geworden von ihnen habe. Wir freuen uns für gute Menschen, die uns regieren. Wir brauchen nichts von seiner Familie. Wir wollen leben. Wir brauchen Sicherheit. Wir brauchen ein menschenwürdiges Leben. Wir brauchen Freiheit. Und wir müssen unsere Würde abzurufen.Amy Goodman: Zehntausende Ägypter protestierten am Dienstagabend in Kairo Tahrir-Platz in einer Rallye durch die Muslim-Bruderschaft genannt. Andere protestierten außerhalb Ägyptens Parlament. Sie äußerten Empörung über die Armee das Dekret späten Sonntagabend, daß sie alle legislativen Befugnisse zu nutzen. Einige haben diesen Schritt als eine beschrieben "Militärputsch". Dies ist Mitglied ägyptischen Parlament, Mhamed Uof.Mhamed UOF: [übersetzt] Wir sollten uns auf die Straße zu streamen. Ich bin auf alle freien Menschen von der Armee, Polizei, alle Landesverbände fordern, und alle Ägypter, die tapferen und freien Menschen sind, zu kommen, um Tahrir-Platz zu protestieren. Hosni Mubarak trat nach nur 18 Tagen. Aber die militärische Macht Rat wird nur während neun Tagen zu verlassen. Wir werden Verkehr behindern, in der Nähe Straßen. Wir werden alles tun, um unsere Forderungen zu erreichen dauert. Es wird ein Zivil-, friedlichen Ungehorsam sein.Amy Goodman: Für mehr über die Lage in Ägypten, wir nach Kairo, wo wir von Demokratie beigetreten sind jetzt gehen! Korrespondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous.Sharif, können Sie uns sagen, was geschieht, aus, was mit Mubarak passiert jetzt, berichtete-Berichten zufolge im Koma liegt, zu dem, was in den Straßen, die Berichte über einen Militärputsch passiert?Sharif Abdel Kouddous: Nun, kam diese Nachricht von Mubaraks Gesundheitszustand gestern Abend erst spät, der staatlichen Nachrichtenagentur, wie man berichtet, sagte, dass er klinisch tot war. Dies verursacht natürlich eine große Wirbel in den Medien. Aber schnell, diese Berichte von seinem Anwalt verweigert wurde, hochrangige Mitglieder des militärischen Rates, wer er war nicht klinisch tot, dass er einen Schlaganfall erlitten hatte oder er hatte eine Art an einem Herzinfarkt erlitten sagte, hatte sein Herz aufgehört. Es gibt unterschiedliche Berichte. Was wir wissen ist, dass er wurde aus dem Gefängnis, wo er stattgefunden hat, da er seine lebenslange Haftstrafe erhielt Anfang des Monats übertragen. Er ist jetzt in einem Lazarett. Die Nachricht war, ehrlich gesagt, behandelt mit einer gewissen Skepsis unter den ägyptischen Öffentlichkeit hier. Ich meine, haben Mubaraks Gesundheit und Berichte über seinen Tod in den Medien wirbelnden seit Beginn dieser Revolution, zumal er in Gewahrsam genommen wurde im vergangenen Jahr. Wir hören immer wieder Gerüchte, dass er starb. Und auch, besonders wenn er ins Gefängnis verlegt wurde Anfang dieses Monats, sofort gab es Gerüchte, dass er zusammengebrochen war, dass er Probleme beim Atmen. Aber jetzt ist er aus dem Tora-Gefängnis verlegt. Einige denken, dass dies alles war, nur um ihn aus dem Gefängnis zu bekommen und wieder in ein Krankenhaus. Also, das ist, wo-das ist, wo steht, dass gerade jetzt.Aber es kommt zu einem sehr, sehr sensible Zeit. Morgen werden wir erfahren, wer der Gewinner des ersten Pflichtspiel-wohl wettbewerbsfähig Präsidentschafts-Wahlen in Ägypten sein wird. Beide Seiten haben den Sieg in der Umfrage behauptet. Der Muslim-Bruderschaft Mohamed Morsi hat gesagt, dass sie mit 52 Prozent der Stimmen gewonnen zu 48 Prozent von Ahmed Shafik. Sie haben diese gesichert mit sehr detaillierten Unterlagen von jedem Wahllokal im ganzen Land, die geprägt sind. Und ihre Tally scheint mit den meisten unabhängigen Berichten und von den meisten lokalen Medien zusammen. Die Shafik Kampagne hat bestritten, dass er, anstatt zu sagen, dass verloren ihr Kandidat gewonnen. Aber wir werden herausfinden, dass für morgen.Darüber hinaus dafür ist, dass, was genau-was Kräfte wird dieses Präsidenten zu haben, und dass dies wirklich der Macht, die für 30. Juni geplant war, ist wirklich bedeutungslos geworden, um die verfassungsmäßige Erklärung, die Regelung hat das Land durch eine geschwungene Reihe von Änderungen Übergabe seit März 2011. Diese Änderungen wurden einseitig von der Obersten Rates der Streitkräfte ausgestellt und öffentlich bekannt gemacht Minuten nach der Wahllokale am Sonntagabend. Und wirklich, verschanzen sie die Macht des Militärs, und sie schneidet den künftigen Präsidenten über alle bedeutsamen Stelle. Und, natürlich, wir uns daran erinnern, dass diese Änderungen nur drei Tage nach des Landes Top-Gericht kommen müssen, das Oberste Verfassungsgericht, das vom Volk gewählte Parlament aufgelöst und auch nach einem Erlass des Justizministeriums, die wirklich zurück Elemente des Kriegsrechts zu Ägypten und ermöglicht die militärischen Kräfte der weit verbreiteten Festnahme und Inhaftierung von Zivilisten.Also, am deutlichsten vielleicht, dieser Verfassungsänderungen ist, dass es der Präsident seine Rolle als Commander-in-Chief der Streitkräfte entfernt. Es gibt, dass der Kopf des Obersten Rates, der Feldmarschall Hussein Tantawi ist, effektiv und gibt dem Militär die vollständige Kontrolle über seine eigenen Angelegenheiten. Also, was dies tut, wirklich, schafft den Obersten Rat der Streitkräfte als vierter Zweig der Staat, der verfassungsrechtlich getrennt von der Präsidentschaft, dem Parlament und der Justiz ist. Auch-die Änderungen auch schirmen das Militär von jeglicher öffentlichen Kontrolle auch immer, jede Art der zivilen Kontrolle.Sie haben auch die-Veränderungen ermöglichen es auch das Militär als Parlaments. In Ermangelung einer Sitzung des Parlaments, sind sie erlaubt, Gesetze per Dekret zu erlassen. Darüber hinaus ziehen ihren Griff auf das Schreiben von der Verfassung des Landes. So haben sie de facto ein Vetorecht über jede Klausel, dass sie vielleicht von missbilligen, und sie können auch tatsächlich weiter zu gehen und lösen die aktuelle Assembly, die vom Parlament gebildet wurde nur zwei Tage, bevor es aufgelöst wurde, und auf sehr vage Gründe, wenn er trifft was heißt ein Hindernis, werden sie erlaubt, diesen Körper aufzulösen und die persönlich ihre eigene Hundert-köpfiges Gremium, das dieses Landes permanente Verfassung ausarbeiten wird. Und das Militär hat deutlich gemacht,-Periode, die wir während der Übergangszeit brauchen nur einen Blick zurück auf im letzten Herbst etwas namens Selmi Dokument genau wissen, was sie suchen, welche Art von Schutz für sie in der Verfassung sucht, und das ist wirklich zu ihrer politischen und wirtschaftlichen Rechte in der Verfassung zu verankern. So, und auch, um noch schlimmer zu machen, sie vor kurzem der Chef des Beirates der militärischen Rates, ein Mann namens Sameh Ashour, sagte, dass der künftige Präsident kann nur für eine Übergangszeit zu dienen, bis eine neue Verfassung geschrieben wird .Weiter oben, dass kündigte die Tantawi das Militär-Rat einen Nationalen Verteidigungsrates, die gebildet wird, aus 17 Mitgliedern, die von dem künftigen Präsidenten geleitet werden. Aber dieser 17 Mitglieder, 11 von ihnen sind leitende Militärs, und Entscheidungen werden mit einfacher Mehrheit gefasst. Also, wirklich, haben alle diese Schritte wirklich geschwungenen dem künftigen Präsidenten über jede wesentliche Autorität beraubt, in einer Last-Minute-Griff nach der Macht, und wirklich ist vielleicht ein passender Abschluss für dieses unsinnige Übergang dass wir in den letzten 16 Monaten gesehen. Im Moment hat das Land keine Verfassung, kein Parlament und einen Präsidenten ohne ein eingehendes-Präsident, die kaum Macht haben wird. Also, wirklich, ist das Militär Rat Steuerung der wichtigsten Zweige der Staat.Nermeen Shaikh: Sharif, die Kräfte sind Sie beschreiben, wie Sie sagten, ganz pauschal. Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, in dem der künftige Präsident entweder-in kann jeder Sinn, entweder zu ändern oder aufzuheben einige dieser Änderungen, diese Verfassungsänderungen?Sharif Abdel Kouddous: Nun, die Muslimbruderschaft, die allgemein erwartet wird, die Präsidentschaft zu gewinnen morgen, hat solide diese Abänderungen abgelehnt. Sie haben auch den Obersten Gerichtshof Urteil zurückgewiesen, das Parlament aufzulösen. Die Armee eingesetzte Truppen rund um das Parlamentsgebäude an die Abgeordneten am Betreten des Gebäudes über das Wochenende zu verhindern. Wir sahen einen massiven Protest gestern, die vor allem von der Muslimbruderschaft, sondern auch andere Kräfte, auch politische Kräfte, aber einschließlich der revolutionären Kräfte wie die Jugendbewegung 6. April genannt wurde. Die Revolutionären Sozialisten waren da, ebenso. Aber wirklich, wurde der Platz von den Mitgliedern der Muslimbruderschaft, die diese Änderungen abgelehnt verpackt. Und ich denke, es war auch eine Machtdemonstration, um eine Warnung handeln, für den Fall Ahmed Shafik als Präsident bezeichnet wird, damit sie zu Protesten zurück.Aus juristischer Sicht, ob diese Änderungen aufgehoben werden kann, ist es noch in den Sternen. Ich meine, der Oberste Rat hat eine Änderung der Regeln, wie es entlang geht und hat Gesetze per Dekret erlassen. Es gibt keinen-es gibt keine Regeln, um das Spiel jetzt. Also, ich bin sicher, dass Verhandlungen im Gange sind wahrscheinlich, aber im Moment das Militär Rat wird mit viel Hybris handeln und wirklich-und auch in, was scheint, Verzweiflung, die in einer Art und Weise werden dürfen ermutigend sein, dass sie befürchten, dass ihre Macht werden kann verrutschen. Aber gerade jetzt, sie halten alle Karten in Bezug auf den Hebeln der Macht des Staates.Amy Goodman: Sharif, welche Rolle spielt die USA in all diesen Dingen zu spielen?Sharif Abdel Kouddous: Nun, das Außenministerium und das Pentagon äußerte Bedenken über diese Änderungen. Wir haben gehört, Sprecher des Außenministeriums Victoria Nuland besorgt, ebenso wie das Pentagon. Aber wie bei so viel in der US-Politik, vor allem in Richtung Ägypten, Worte selten entsprechen die Aktionen. Und so hat der US-Politik gegenüber Ägypten sehr wenig, da vor der Revolution geändert.Washington, natürlich gesichert, das Mubarak-Regime mit einem jährlichen Militärhilfe von 1,3 Milliarden Dollar für Jahrzehnte. Wir haben gesehen, dass die Hilfe fortzusetzen. Kongress im vergangenen Jahr im Zuge der Revolution, eine Bestimmung hinzugefügt, um die Hilfe, die dies-das US-Außenministerium hatte bestätigt, dass das Militär, die regierende Militärrat, war dabei ein Übergang zu einer zivilen Demokratie hatte. Die Obama-Regierung gab eine nationale Sicherheit Verzicht dass diese Vorschrift für die Hilfe nach Ägypten weiter hinwegsetzte, trotz der weit verbreiteten Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch Armee und Sicherheitskräfte. Es kam in der Folge des NGO-Krise, wo US-finanzierten NGOs überfallen und wurden geschlossen, und der Sohn der Verkehrsminister, Sam LaHood, durfte nicht reisen oder das Land verlassen.Also haben wir diese Fortsetzung der Politik der USA gesehen, wo Fragen der regionalen Anliegen mit Israel und so weiter übertrumpft haben Menschenrechtsfragen. Aber viele Leute hier auf dem Boden sind für die USA zu fragen, um endlich Stellung zu beziehen und vielleicht haben seine tatsächliche Politik passen seine Worte und haben einen bedeutenden Cutoff von Beihilfen auf, da, was mit dieser-, das viele als eine konstitutionelle Staatsstreich durch das Militär passiert Rat.Amy Goodman: Auch die Zahl der Menschen, das auszog, um in dieser Wahl stimmen am vergangenen Wochenende, können Sie über den Boykott-Bewegung sprechen? Ich meine, die ägyptischen Wahlen schauen, ein wenig wie in den US-Wahlen, wie wenig Leute kamen, um zu stimmen.Sharif Abdel Kouddous: Amy, du weißt, Ägypter haben an die Urnen drei Mal in diesem Übergang weg, und jedes Mal, wenn sie gehen, ihre Stimme wurde bedeutungslos. Sie gingen im März 2011 stimmten über neun Änderungen an der Verfassung, und das wurde durch eine konstitutionelle Erklärung einseitig von der militärischen Rat erteilt, nur wenige Tage später, dass über 60 Artikel der Verfassung geändert werden verdrängt. Dann gingen sie zu den Umfragen im letzten Herbst, und sie stimmte mit einer viel geringeren Wahlbeteiligung, und sie stimmten für das Parlament. Das Parlament wurde nun gelöst, und so wurden diese Wahlen wertlos. Und jetzt haben sie wieder zu den Urnen gegangen, und mit wieder eine niedrigere Wahlbeteiligung oder-wir sind wirklich nicht sicher, was die Wahlbeteiligung, klar zu sein, ist in dieser Runde, aber es ist nah an etwa 50 Prozent, manche vorausgesagt haben. Und wir haben wieder gesehen, dass ihre Stimme etwas gemacht worden ist bedeutungslos, weil die Person, die sie gewählt hat aller Macht beraubt worden.Also, hat es eine wachsende Bewegung, um Boykotte, eine wachsende Bewegung, um Stimmzettel zu verwöhnen, zu sagen, dass es eine dritte Wahl, haben wir nicht zwischen den beiden Kandidaten, die vertreten waren, zu pflücken. Und ich weiß es nicht. Ich meine, wenn Ägypter feststellen, dass there's-, dass ihre Stimme nichts bedeutet, dann vielleicht werden sie andere Wege der Veränderung zu suchen. Aber, wissen Sie, die Stichwahl, die wir sahen, wirklich, die Begeisterung der Straßen-Ich reiste um Kairo und ging zu dem Delta, wie auch, zu verschiedenen Wahllokalen, war-die Begeisterung sehr niedrig war. Sie sah nicht die allgegenwärtige, wissen Sie, Person, die ihre blau gefärbten Finger und zeigt stolz, dass sie gestimmt, weil dieser-eine Menge Verwirrung und Apathie, die von diesem sehr unsinnig Übergang noch unterstützt wurde, sowie die Kandidaten selbst-auf der einen Seite, stellt Ahmed Shafik, der ist wirklich ein treuer Anhänger des Mubarak-Regimes und den Autoritarismus dieses Staates, und auf der anderen, die Muslimbruderschaft, eine konservative islamistische Gruppe, die in vielerlei Hinsicht, wie die Abschaffung der gesehen wurde Die Revolution in der Verfolgung ihrer eigenen Interessen. So war es wirklich eine Art von einem Niedrig-Energie-Wahlbeteiligung.Wir müssen für die Zahlen warten morgen. Aber jeder wird geklebt morgen zu dieser Ankündigung werden durch die Präsidentschaftswahlen Kommission. Es ist ein sehr knapper Mehrheit, unabhängig von allen Anklagepunkten, irgendwo zwischen 52 bis 48 oder 51 bis 49. Und die Präsidentschaftswahlen Entscheidung der Kommission sind unanfechtbar. Also, wenn sie so-jeder wird in Zukunft um herauszufinden, wer der künftige Präsident, ist, obwohl seine Befugnisse wurden stark eingeschränkt haben gestimmt werden.Amy Goodman: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, ich möchte Ihnen ganz herzlich danken, daß Sie uns. Sharif wird sich uns aus mit Blick auf Tahrir-Platz in Kairo, in Ägypten, Democracy Now! Senior Correspondent.Dies ist Democracy Now!, Democracynow.org, Der Krieg und Frieden Bericht. Wenn wir zurückkommen, hat Julian Assange Zuflucht in der ecuadorianischen Botschaft in London übernommen. Er sucht politisches Asyl. Die britische Polizei hat einen Haftbefehl gegen ihn ausgestellt. Wir werden mit Assanges Anwalt, Michael Ratner sprechen. Bleiben Sie mit uns.

 
Der ursprüngliche Inhalt dieses Programms ist unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung-Keine kommerzielle Nutzung-Keine Bearbeitung 3.0 United States License. Bitte zuschreiben legale Kopien von dieser Arbeit zu Noam Chomsky. Ein Teil der Arbeit (en), dass dieses Programm integriert, kann aber separat lizenziert werden. Für weitere Informationen oder zusätzliche Berechtigungen, kontaktieren Sie uns.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Human Times

The anonymous rich donor thing reminds me of something in law where
the accused has a right to confront his accusor - no secret testimony.
But that has probably gone down the drain too now as they will accuse
and then say they can't disclose who says it for national security
reasons. Another Catch 22.
That guy who always sounds like he's talking with a mouth full of
shit- Mitch McConnel? - is leading the fight to avoid disclosure. Once
they win all the elections, so it's a one party nation, there will be
a schism between radical right and moderate right and guess who will
win that?
What do the Koch brothers sell that we can boycott? Or maybe we should
boycott Coke until they take on the Kochs for us?. That makes sense in
political style now. The Kochs remind me of the Duke brothers in
Trading Places- Don Amechi and Ralph Bellemy.
Romney wants to choose Rubio for running mate- doesn't it matter
anymore that he lied about his heritage? It gets forgotten- something
about his family coming to Miami after Castro took power when in fact
they left before that happened. Just a small lie. h

More B.S. from Egypt

MORE B.S. FROM EGYPT


Some updates:  Mubarak is not dead, and the people gathered at Tahrir Square really don't care.  They are protesting the military coup.

About Mubarak:  There is an old Arab saying when told someone is dead: "Is he dead and buried or just dead?"

MEHR B.S. AUS ÄGYPTEN


MEHR B.S. AUS ÄGYPTEN


Einige Updates: Mubarak ist nicht tot, und die Menschen am Tahrir-Platz versammelten sich wirklich egal. Sie protestieren gegen den Militärputsch.

Über Mubarak: Es gibt ein altes arabisches Sprichwort drückt es, wenn jemand tot ist, sagte: "Ist er tot und begraben oder einfach nur tot"

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

One more thing

To the Republican legislators in Michigan: vagina!

Occupy it all -- type faster




          We had some communication about a lack of due diligence on our part in not keeping current with things as we haven’t put out an edition for awhile.  Frankly, it wasn’t clear that anyone was really paying attention and we were simply getting tired of the same old crap day after day, just new examples of it.  As a matter of fact, happening faster than I can type.
          The election here?  I heard a good quote about the stock market that applies.  People “Buy on rumor, sell on news.”  No matter what the politician promises and how progressive, or regressive, he sounds, we will likely get the same thing.  There is a nice interview with Ralph Nader below on the political equivalent of the LA gangs, the cripts and the bloods.  Well, if only there was a really difference other than a possible judicial appointment here and there.
          The election in Egypt?  Time to laugh.  Right before it, the Egyptian court, all members appointed by Mubarak, invalidated the entire congress.  Maybe the guy from the Moslem brotherhood will win – at least they have some belief other than profit.  His chances are very good, but then the military will take over.  It’s main goal is to get money and arms.  Screw the people.  Oh, yeah, they say the had to do that in lieu of a constitution.  Well, they can use ours since we don’t seem to have much use for it.
          The leader of Pakistan is now out of office.  No word of a replacement, but their military will make sure all is well.
          Obama and Putin met in Mexico and talked for two hours, mainly on Syria.  That Putin just won’t trust him. 
          Israeli settlers set fire to a Palestinian Mosque.  In fact, no news from or about Palestine, especially Gaza, is allowed on our media.  The truth is, things are worse than usual.
          Another of you kindly acquainted me with an article by one of Obama’s former Law Professors at Harvard.  He thinks Obama should be defeated so the Democrats will reorganize their priorities.  Good luck on that one!  The chances of them changing their priorities are zero.
            We are conducting cyber warfare against Iran without a congressional declaration.  See, we don’t want anyone to find out about it.  Right.  Iran was reluctant to let inspectors in (unlike Israel that won’t let them it).  Seems every time the U.N. visited, a scientist or two was killed by Mossad.  Well, easy come, easy go.  
          Some of you may find this of interest.  Of course, for decades now everything transmitted electronically, e-mail, phone calls, radio signals, the web, everything is monitored and stored, so this should come as nothing new:

LOS ANGELES (KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO) — As the Federal Aviation Administration helps usher in an age of drones for U.S. law enforcement agencies, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) domestically by the U.S. military — and the sharing of collected data with police agencies — is raising its own concerns about possible violations of privacy and Constitutional law, according to drone critics.
A non-classified U.S. Air Force intelligence report obtained by KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO dated April 23, 2012, is helping fuel concern that video and other data inadvertently captured by Air Force drones already flying through some U.S. airspace, might end up in the hands of federal or local law enforcement, doing an end-run around normal procedures requiring police to obtain court issued warrants.
photo1 The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police
Charles Feldman flies a drone in Simi Valley
LISTEN: PART ONE OF KNX 1070′S CHARLES FELDMAN’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT




Friday, June 15, 2012

A Judicial Coup in Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood-Controlled Parliament Dissolved, Military Gains Power

Days before Egypt’s presidential runoff, the Egyptian Supreme Court has dissolved the newly elected parliament, handing power back to the military. The court also confirmed Hosni Mubarak’s former prime minister, Ahmed Shafik, can run for president against Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. Protests have erupted in Egypt, with critics saying the decision is tantamount to a judicial coup. We go to Cairo for an update from Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous. "These court rulings have really dealt the final fatal blow to a military-managed transitional process that’s been so deformed as to barely make sense anymore," he says. "Right now Egypt is in a state where there’s no parliament, no constitution or even a clear process for drafting one, and a presidential runoff that will leave Egypt with a ruler who will be a very divisive president." [includes rush transcript]
Guest:
Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent reporting from Cairo.

Related

Links

Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate >

Transcript

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Egypt’s democratic transition was thrown into disarray Thursday when the country’s Supreme Constitutional Court ruled to dissolve the newly elected parliament in what critics have described as a judicial coup. The decision effectively puts legislative power into the hands of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. In addition, the court ruled that former leaders of the Mubarak regime can hold political office, effectively approving the candidacy of former prime minister and presidential hopeful, Ahmed Shafik. The court decision is a major setback to supporters of last year’s uprising, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, which held 46 percent of seats in the newly elected parliament.
The court’s decision comes just two days before Egyptians go to the polls for a presidential runoff between Shafik and the Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohamed Morsi. After Thursday’s ruling, Morsi vowed to stay in the race but said that any foul play in the election would be met by a new revolution.
MOHAMED MORSI: [translated] We will continue with our journey and observe closely. And if there’s any fraud, we already know what the consequences will be: a revolution against the criminals, a revolution against those who protect the criminals, a revolution until the goals of the January 25th revolution are fully achieved.
AMY GOODMAN: After the court ruling Thursday, protesters gathered outside Egypt’s constitutional court.
MOHAMED HUSSEIN: [translated] This ruling is void. By what logic or what justice can the one who killed our brothers and the person who was behind the camel battle and the one who was part of Mubarak’s regime and who said that Mubarak is his role model—by what logic can we return to the tyrannical old regime? Where is the justice in that? We had a revolution, and no revolution in the world brings back a tyrannical regime. This military council wants to bring back the old regime, and they want us to return back to being subservient. We will not go back to being subservient. We will continue to struggle and to struggle against Ahmed Shafik. We will go on, God willing.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, to find out more about what’s happening in Egypt, we go to Cairo to talk to Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous.
Sharif, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about what’s developed over the last 24 hours in Egypt.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, Amy, these court rulings have really dealt the final fatal blow to a military-managed transitional process that’s been so deformed as to barely make sense anymore. Right now Egypt is in a state where there is no parliament, no constitution or even a clear process for drafting one, and a presidential runoff that will leave Egypt with a ruler who will be a very divisive president. The rulings really set off shock waves. This is the cover of a privately owned newspaper, Shorouk. The top head says, "As You Were." And it reads, "The constitutional court returns all powers to the military."
So, as you mentioned, there was two landmark rulings yesterday, the first of which was on something called a political isolation law. This was a law that was passed by the parliament in April. It was initially intended to target Omar Suleiman, who had put himself as a nominee in the race and who was, of course, Mubarak’s first and only prime—first and only vice president and who was his longtime intelligence chief. He was disqualified out of the race for technical reasons. But the law would also apply to Ahmed Shafik, who was Mubarak’s last prime minister, appointed on January 29th of 2011. So, this law would have banned any top Mubarak officials from running for office for 10 years. The law was passed. It was signed by the military council. However, the Presidential Elections Commission refused to implement the law and instead referred it to the Supreme Constitutional Court, which yesterday ruled this law unconstitutional, thereby leaving Ahmed Shafik in the race, which is scheduled—the runoff is scheduled for tomorrow.
What was more of a bigger blow was the second ruling, which was the ruling that one-third of the—the way that parliament was elected, one-third of them was unconstitutional. The way the elections were set up, the parliamentary elections last fall, was a complicated system where two-thirds of the candidates would be elected on a list-based system that’s also known as proportional representation. The other third would be individual candidates who would run for winner-take-all seats. But in a last-minute change, they allowed members of parties to run for these individual seats, as well. And it was that aspect that the court yesterday ruled unconstitutional. It effectively dissolves the parliament, the first really freely and fairly elected parliament in Egypt for many decades. And it effectively hands the legislature, the powers of the legislature, back to the military council. The military council, of course, had that power up until January of this year, when the parliament was first seated.
So, the response has been varied, but many are calling it a coup. What Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a liberal Islamist thinker who came forth in the presidential race, called it—called it a coup. The Muslim Brotherhood has said it would respect the decision, but senior Brotherhood member Mohammed el-Beltagy and others have called it a military coup. Hamdeen Sabahi, who came third in the presidential race, is calling on the Muslim Brotherhood to not field its presidential candidate tomorrow, to pull out of the race, and thereby delegitimize the process. However, Mohamed Morsi, the presidential candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, as you heard in the clip earlier, has pledged to go on in the race, putting himself forward as the revolutionary candidate against [Ahmed Shafik].
So, really, these decisions yesterday were really monumental, because this transition process has—over the course of these past 16 months, there has been a crisis of legitimacy at every turn. There has been complicated court rulings at every turn, putting things into question. And right now, it seems that almost nearly all of the power is in the hands of the military council. So while many have called it a coup that happened yesterday, many also point to the fact that this was really maybe a coup on February 11th of 2011, when the military council first came to the helm of power after replacing Mubarak after he was forced out of office.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Sharif, what would happen now in terms of the ruling on the parliament? Would they have to schedule new elections? And to—because, obviously, the presidential election now comes, and if Morsi wins, he will be faced basically with being the president but having no government to work with.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That’s exactly right. He will be president without a parliament or a constitution delineating what his powers exactly are. So it’s a very dangerous situation to be in and a very vague and unclear one. Right now, parliament—the ruling yesterday doesn’t actually—isn’t actually enforced until the military council actively dissolves parliament. But for all intents and purposes, parliament will be dissolved. The military council is the one that was scheduled to—will schedule parliamentary elections to be held. It’s very unclear when these will be held, under what rules they will be held. As with so much else in this erratic transition process, many things are vague.
But what is clear is that the military council has really taken control of the basic aspects of what we were supposed to have been building in a post-Mubarak state these last 16 months. I mean, we spent three months going to parliamentary elections, and that’s just been voided. There’s been no reform in the security apparatus. There’s been no reform of the media. There’s been no reform of the judiciary. So, really, the Mubarak regime is still very much in place. And to top it all off, its last prime minister is now in a runoff against the Muslim Brotherhood, which is really the same political landscape that Egypt has had for many decades now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And is there any sense of possible exhaustion among the population in terms of the continued turmoil that might lead to a movement basically to restore order and which would benefit the old Mubarak regime and those members of that old—of that old regime?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, I mean, there has been this idea of people being tired of what they call a security vacuum. Police have not been really deployed on the streets. There has been—protests have continued for these last 16 months. Many say that they lack the leverage that they once had to actually effect change. Ahmed Shafik himself ran on a law and order platform, which seems to have resonated with large segments of the electorate that placed him second in the first round of the elections.
However, I think his election—or his success may also be attributed to the patronage networks that really were part of the former National Democratic Party, Mubarak’s party, that we didn’t see really in the parliamentary elections but seem to have come back with a vengeance in the presidential elections. I just went to a conference of his a couple of days ago, and there were leading members of the National Democratic Party, the now-dissolved party. Mustafa al-Fiqi and Jehan Sadat, the wife of the assassinated former president, was there, all supporting Ahmed Shafik for president, supporting him as a bulwark against the rise of the Islamists, against the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, he’s really had—has a lot of support from the state that the protesters rose up against last year to try and topple.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, earlier this week, Egyptian activists unveiled a campaign to boycott the elections, calling it a false choice under ongoing military rule. Boycott organizer Tarek Shalaby said Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, or SCAF, have effectively rigged the election to ensure their continued dominance. This is what he said.
TAREK SHALABY: So, they do that, and therefore, what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to show us that there’s no other way for the revolution to continue, except for collaborating with SCAF in these elections that they’ve made for us. And obviously they make these elections customized specifically for them, so that the result that comes out, whatever it is and whoever it is, works perfectly for them. And that’s why what we need to do is we need to reject these elections, refuse to collaborate with them, and make sure that we organize ourselves and do go for labor strikes and for demonstrations and sit-ins, because that’s how we use popular masses and the workforce to cripple the regime and to bring it down and make it lose its power. And that’s how there could be a balance of power, and then we can bring change that way.
AMY GOODMAN: And Sharif, this news just in: in an interview with The Guardian, Mohamed ElBaradei says he will not vote in the presidential election this weekend. He expects Shafik to win but has harsh words for the Muslim Brotherhood. If you could comment on the boycott movement and also, as all these decisions came down yesterday, Shafik sounding like he had won, in a statement that he was making to the public, and the anger of Mohamed Morsi.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, the boycott movement has certainly grown, especially after the first round of the—the results of the first round of the presidential election. There were a number of—I’d say a small core of revolutionary youth who boycotted the first round of the presidential election, saying that the entire process being led by the military council was illegitimate. But this boycott is being pushed further right now, and I think it’s growing. There’s been people like Alaa Al-Aswany, who’s a leading intellectual here, who was previously backing Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, has now said he’s going to boycott. As you just said, Mohamed ElBaradei said he’s going to boycott.
So there’s a leading movement against it, because—for a number of reasons. One is seeing as—the elections as being rigged, the whole process as being rigged. There were certainly questions surrounding the first round. The Presidential Elections Commission behaved suspiciously by distributing last-minute voter lists and not allowing monitors into the aggregation of vote counts. And so, there’s questions of legitimacy surrounding the poll, but also the outcome of the poll, pitting the Muslim Brotherhood, which is, you know, a conservative Islamist group that is in many ways the mirror establishment to the one that has ruled Egypt for 60 years—highly disciplined, highly hierarchical, secretive, with its own set of patronage networks—of course, not guilty of the same crimes as the regime, so perhaps the comparison is unfair, but I’m pitting that against really a stalwart of the former regime. And so, telling people that there is—it’s not just these two choices. There is a third choice, and that choice is to refuse to participate in this process. A lot of people are going to go in, and have done so already in the ex-pat vote of people voting abroad, Egyptians, have spoiled their ballots, written "Down with military rule" on their ballots. So, the turnout was—the first round of the elections was much lower than the parliamentary elections, and many expect that when the polls open tomorrow, that there will be fewer people going to the polls, as well.
There’s also just one other thing I—a very important point to mention that was announced this week was that the Justice Ministry decreed basically giving military officers, intelligence officers, military police the right to detain and arrest citizens, to arrest civilians. This actual decree was announced on the 13th but was actually made on June 4th. And that’s just four days after Egypt’s 30-year emergency law finally expired, you know, a small gain in this transitional process, where Egypt had lived under emergency law for so long, and now the minister of justice issues this decree basically allowing these widespread powers of search and detention by the military. Seventeen Egyptian human rights groups condemned it, calling it a worse substitute than the state of emergency. So, all of these factors combined—with these court rulings, with Shafik in the race—really throw the entire transitional process into question, and many say that it’s, in fact, dead.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, I want to thank you very much for joining us. Of course, we’ll speak to you next week at the end of this election cycle to see what happens. Sharif Abdel Kouddous is a Democracy Now! senior correspondent, speaking to us from Cairo, Egypt. To see all of his reports all through the Egyptian revolution, you can go to our website at democracynow.org.
When we come back, former presidential candidate, consumer activist Ralph Nader on President Obama and Mitt Romney, their speeches on the state of the economy in the battleground state of Ohio, and much more. Stay with us.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or

Friday, June 15, 2012

Ralph Nader: 30 Million Workers Would Benefit from Raising Minimum Wage to 1968 Level

In 2008, Barack Obama pledged to raise the minimum wage every year once elected, but the hourly rate of $7.25 hasn’t increased since 2007. Low-wage workers now make far less than they did four decades ago. Last week Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. introduced the Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2012. It draws its name from the idea that the federal minimum wage would be $10.55 an hour now if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. While the bill has about 20 co-sponsors so far, President Obama has yet to endorse it. We speak to longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. "The U.S.’s federal minimum wage is lower than all Western countries," Nader says. "This is basically an issue that reflects the craven, cruel nature of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill, but it also reflects the caution, the cowardliness, the betrayal of the Democratic Party of its core constituency." [includes rush transcript]
Filed under  Economy
Guest:
Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate. His latest book is Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build it Together to Win.

Related

Links

Editor's Picks

Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate >

Transcript

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to the economy. On Thursday, presidential rivals, Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, gave major addresses in Ohio. Both blamed the slow economic recovery on each other’s parties. Romney spoke first in Cincinnati.
MITT ROMNEY: He is going to be a person of eloquence as he describes his plans for making the economy better. But don’t forget, he’s been president for three-and-a-half years. And talk is cheap. Action speaks very loud. And if you want to see the results of his economic policies, look around Ohio, look around the country, and you’ll see that a lot of people are hurting, a lot of people have had some real tough times.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Meanwhile, at a rally in Cleveland, President Obama acknowledged the slow economic recovery. He cast his re-election battle with Mitt Romney as a clash between contrasting philosophies on how to fix it.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The debate in this election is not about whether we need to grow faster or whether we need to create more jobs or whether we need to pay down our debt. Of course the economy isn’t where it needs to be. Of course we have a lot more work to do. Everybody knows that. The debate in this election is about how we grow faster and how we create more jobs and how we pay down our debt. That’s the question facing the American voter.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Concerns about the troubled economy have helped push Obama’s approval ratings to their lowest level since January. But a new Gallup poll finds that two-thirds of Americans blame his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, for the downturn.
AMY GOODMAN: Many economists say more jobs could be created by generating more consumer demand. Well, a new bill introduced by Illinois Democratic Congressmember Jesse Jackson Jr. aims to do that by increasing minimum wage for the first time since 2007. He says the increase could generate tens of billions of dollars in spending by poor families and workers almost immediately. Congressmember Jackson recently introduced the Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2012. It draws its name from the idea that the federal minimum wage would be $10.55 an hour now if it had kept up with inflation over the last 40 years. Instead, it’s $7.25.
While the bill has about 20 co-sponsors, so far President Obama has yet to endorse it despite a campaign promise he made in 2008. His poverty agenda included a pledge to, quote, "raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 [so that] full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing."
One prominent supporter of increasing the minimum wage has been longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. He’s joining us now from Washington, D.C. His latest book is Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build it Together to Win.
Ralph Nader, welcome back to Democracy Now! Start off by talking about the minimum wage bill that Congressmember Jackson has put forward and what President Obama is doing about it.
RALPH NADER: Well, President Obama has done nothing since he promised in 2008 to go to $9.50 by 2011, as you pointed out. This is a problem of the Democratic Party, Amy. The case for the minimum wage going to $10 is overwhelming. That’s why Jesse Jackson called it "Catching Up with 1968." That’s when the economy was half the size of it is today and half the worker productivity as today. So, if you look at the political scene, all the stars are aligned for the Democratic Party to take the lead and push this through Congress in an election year. For example, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney have been on the record of saying they want to—wanted a minimum wage keeping up with inflation. That would break the grip of McConnell, Senator McConnell, and Speaker Boehner over 100 percent of their Republicans and split the ranks. Furthermore, all these large membership groups like the AFL-CIO and the NAACP and La Raza, Center for Council on Budget Priorities [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities], all of them and many more, are for an increase in the minimum wage. This is the signal issue of the old Democratic Party, when the minimum started in 1938 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But the Democratic Party has become a party of caution, cash and co-optation. And so, they don’t even know a winning humanitarian, moral and political issue if it was put on their desk.
Well, Jesse Jackson Jr. has broken ranks from the lethargy on Capitol Hill. He has about 20 good progressives in the House supporting him. And this is jolting what everybody’s been waiting for. The AFL has been waiting for George Miller, a congressman, a senior congressman from San Francisco. The White House apparently is waiting for George Miller. Nancy Pelosi is waiting for George Miller. So, in a few days, George Miller, after three-and-a-half years of doing nothing, is going to put in a bill for a three-year stage, going to $9.80 by 2014. That is not a political winner. If you go from seven and a quarter and catch up with 1968 by taking it to $10, that’s 30 million workers that you can appeal to—30 million workers. And that doesn’t count the tipping of restaurant workers and fast-food workers, who are still at $2.55 an hour plus tips. Who knows what they are in terms of getting even to today’s federal minimum wage? The U.S.’s federal minimum wage is lower than all Western countries. Ontario in Canada has a minimum wage of $10.25.
And another star that’s allied, this. They usually cater to the business community. When there’s a minimum wage increase in the past, they say, "Well, let’s give them a tax break." Well, they’ve already given, under Obama, 17 small business tax breaks. And, of course, we all know that Wal-Mart and McDonald’s have got the tax system pretty well gamed. So here we have this gross inequity where workers in Wal-Mart are making $8, $9, $10 an hour before deductions, with hardly any health insurance, and their boss, the CEO of Wal-Mart, is making $11,000 an hour, eight hours a day. So you can see it’s a great, powerful, fair-play political message if the Democrats would rise up.
But I think we have to have another slogan here: "30 million American workers arise. You have nothing to lose but some of your debt." And we have a website to mobilize these workers. It’s a simple one: timeforaraise.org, timeforaraise.org.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph?
RALPH NADER: And H.R.5901 of—Jesse Jackson’s bill, H.R.5901, will do it. So call the White House. Ask for Gene Sperling. He’s the economic adviser to Mr. Obama. And call your members. This thing can really roll, especially if the Occupy movement begins to surround the local congressional districts on this issue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Ralph, I want to ask you about Mitt Romney’s views on raising the minimum wage. This is what he said in January when approached on the campaign trail.
MITT ROMNEY: My view has been to allow the minimum wage to rise with the CPI or with another index, so that it adjusts automatically over time.
REPORTER: So you’d support that as president?
MITT ROMNEY: I already indicated that when I was governor of Massachusetts that that was my view.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Republican candidate Mitt Romney. He also supported raising the minimum wage in 2002 when he was running for governor. But speaking on CNBC in March, Romney described how he vetoed such a raise in 2006.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, actually, when I was governor, the legislature passed a law raising the minimum wage. I vetoed it, and I said, "Look, the way to deal with the minimum wage is this. On a regular basis," I said in the proposal I made, "every two years, we should look at the minimum wage. We should look at what’s happened to inflation. We should also look at the jobs level throughout the country, unemployment rate, competitive rates in other states—or in this case, other nations." So, certainly the level of inflation is something you should look at, and you should identify what’s the right way to keep America competitive.
LAWRENCE KUDLOW: In that case, there’s no inflation, or at least very minimal inflation so far.
MITT ROMNEY: So, right. Yeah, so—so that would tell you that right now there’s probably not a need to raise the minimum wage. What I can tell you is, had one indexed the minimum wage back to, let’s say, 1990, the minimum wage would be lower now than it actually is. Democrats make big hay of this every—every few years — "Oh, we’re going to raise the minimum wage" — and get a lot of hoopla for it. Frankly, the right way to process it is to look at the minimum wage, look at how unemployment rates are, make adjustments as time goes on based upon our need to compete, the need of the job market, and, of course, what’s happened to inflation.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, Ralph, is he for it or against raising the minimum wage?
RALPH NADER: He doesn’t know where he is. You know, he’s—historically, he’s been for supporting the minimum wage keeping up with inflation. He’s waffling now. After all, his wife only drives two Cadillacs, he’s only worth over $200 million. This is the plutocrat speaking to 30 million workers who are working on a minimum wage that’s the lowest in the Western world. I might add, there are Republicans against that position. This minimum wage keeping up with inflation comes in at 70 percent in the polls, historically. Seventy percent means that a lot of Republican workers in Wal-Mart and McDonald’s and others are not going to say, "Oh, we’re Republicans. We don’t want to go from seven and a quarter or seven and a half to $10." This is a winning issue. In 2004, there was a $1 minimum wage increase on the ballot. There was no money by the promoters to go on TV. Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, all these low-wage big chains plastered TV against it, and they lost. It came in 70 percent winning for the minimum wage increase in Florida.
So, this is basically an issue that reflects the craven, cruel nature of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill, but it also reflects the caution, the cowardliness, the betrayal of the Democratic Party of its core constituency. Historically, this would be a no-brainer. This would be on the platform. And Senator Harkin introduces a modest bill in March. Look how late in the season. And George Miller in the House hasn’t introduced it yet. And he comes from a progressive San Francisco Bay Area district. So, this minimum wage issue is the Rorschach test for our two-party tyranny. If they can’t even pick up on that and increase consumer demand in a recessionary economy, and be backed up by the chief economic adviser to Obama, Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, who’s the main researcher, when he was at Princeton, disproving that an increase in the minimum wage costs jobs—it increases jobs. It increases sales. A lot of small businesses know that, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for Women, which is supporting a minimum-wage increase in New York state, which is also stuck at seven and a quarter. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce for Women.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph, we’re going to break and come back to this discussion. Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, former presidential candidate. His latest book is called Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build it Together to Win. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Related

Links

Editor's Picks

Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate >

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined by Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, ran for president three times. Ralph, I want to turn to the two recent comments made by President Obama and Mitt Romney that have become, well, the most famous comments so far of the campaign, and it’s around the economy. Speaking in Iowa Friday, Romney invoked the recent election in Wisconsin to criticize Obama for pushing a measure to help states regain public sector jobs.
MITT ROMNEY: He wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.
AMY GOODMAN: So there’s Mitt Romney saying, don’t hire more police, firefighters and teachers. Meanwhile, his campaign has produced an ad featuring President Obama’s comment last week that the private sector economy is, quote, "doing fine."
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.
WOMAN 1: We’ve seen layoffs, cutbacks.
MAN 1: When it’s all said and done, I’m making $200 a month.
WOMAN 2: I’ve been looking for a job for two years. Haven’t found any.
MAN 2: You know, I had to file my own personal bankruptcy, had to close my business.
WOMAN 3: Here I am—no healthcare and a slashed pension.
WOMAN 4: I just lost my job recently.
WOMAN 5: I have to work part-time in order to make ends meet.
MAN 3: Sometimes I feel like I’m a failure.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The private sector is doing fine. The private sector is doing fine. The private sector is doing fine.
AMY GOODMAN: That ad by Mitt Romney ends with a caption on the screen saying, "No, Mr. President, we’re not doing fine." Ralph Nader, your response?
RALPH NADER: First of all, there should be presidential debates where they go at each other with a smart moderator. Right now they’re ships passing in the night, hurling general charges against one another, and the issues are not being joined.
There are two ways immediately to increase economic activity in this country. One is to raise the minimum age. Tens of billions of dollars in consumer purchasing power will invigorate the economy. The second is to launch a "repair America" program, a public works program the way Franklin Delano Roosevelt and others have done in the past, which create good-paying jobs and investment in public facilities, repairing schools, clinics, public transit systems, etc., and jobs that cannot be exported to fascist and communist regimes abroad. The more longer range, of course, is to deal with the tax system, which has a perverse incentive of encouraging companies to go abroad with American jobs, and to do other things that take a little longer.
But, you see, there’s no debate until October, with these hoked-up debates and the predictable questions. And I’ve tried for months to get people around the country to realize: mobilize yourself—in Portland and Chicago and Houston and Miami—and demand presidential debates in your area. Don’t leave it up to this two-party-dominated so-called Commission on Presidential Debates to rig the system. We need a vibrant, multi-month debate process. For heaven’s sake, they had a lot of debates in the primaries. Let’s have more debates earlier between Romney and Obama and third parties like the Green Party and Libertarian Party. What’s—why are they rationing debates in this country? Because they don’t want to arouse the public. They really don’t want to engage the public. They just want to—both parties—dial for these corporate dollars and put these insipid, inane ads on that are not really grounded in any spirit of voter engagement.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, I wanted to ask you about an issue that’s become an increasing wedge issue, it seems to me, in terms of American workers, and certainly the Republican Party is trying to do that, the whole issue of pensions—worker pensions, especially government pensions and local and state levels. We’ve seen the situation in Wisconsin, the referendums in California to reduce pension benefits in some towns. And there seems to be an attempt to convince private sector workers: why should we be paying taxes to provide cushy pensions for teachers and firefighters and other government workers, when we don’t have those kinds of pensions ourselves? Your sense of this debate, the public debate now over employee pensions, government pensions?
RALPH NADER: Well, this is the latest stage of the divide-and-rule between governmental workers and corporate sector workers that started with NAFTA and WTO and shipping jobs abroad, because when Congress was deliberating these export of jobs trade agreements, the public employee unions were sort of standoffish. You know, they weren’t going to lose their jobs. They did not stand in solidarity with the industrial unions, like the steel workers and the auto workers. Now, it’s the public employees’ turn to get the brunt of this low-wage, downward corporatist trend that is seemingly relentless. So, when you strip private sector workers of any adequate pensions, and they lose their jobs, they are very ripe for this kind of political message: why should you pay for better-paid public employee workers?
That, unfortunately, is going to be a really hard nut to crack. And we’ve got to basically have a pull-up economic strategy, where you don’t have the politics of envy between unemployed workers who have lost their jobs to China—compliments of U.S. companies—and public employee workers. And I think the labor movement has got to reset itself. It’s got to get together. It’s got to become much more aggressive. Rich Trumka, in the AFL-CIO building right near the White House, is not exactly a vibrant fighter, whether for the $10 minimum wage or for any of these policies.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you, Ralph Nader, about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recent victory, who survived that historic recall election after launching an attack against the state public workers. This is Walker declaring victory, after his opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, conceded the race.
GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Tonight—tonight we tell Wisconsin, we tell our country, and we tell people all across the globe that voters really do want leaders who stand up and make the tough decisions. But now—but now it is time to move on and move forward in Wisconsin. Tomorrow—tomorrow I’ll meet with my cabinet in the state’s capitol, and we’ll renew our commitment to help small businesses grow jobs in the state. We’ll renew our commitment to help grow the quality of life for all of our citizens, both those who voted for me and those who voted for someone else, because tomorrow—tomorrow is the day after the election, and tomorrow we are no longer opponents. Tomorrow we are one as Wisconsinites, so, together, we can move Wisconsin forward.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Scott Walker, his victory speech in the recall election. Ralph Nader, the significance of this, of Mitt Romney saying that—asking if President Obama has learned the lesson of Wisconsin, and what is that lesson? Is it the message of Walker, or is it that President Obama should have gone to Wisconsin to fight for Barrett, and perhaps he would have won?
RALPH NADER: Well, first of all, it wasn’t a straight, normal recall, because it was just another rerun election midterm, which turned off some people in Wisconsin. And they had the candidate who Walker beat two years ago up against Walker. So it was really a second election. It wasn’t the kind of recall that they would have in a state like California. So I wouldn’t read too much into Walker’s victory. He didn’t have the best candidate up against him. After a bitter primary fight with a much more progressive Democratic candidate, Barrett was not very exciting.
The second is, well, what is Walker planning for Wisconsin? I think he’s planning Wis-Koch-son. The Koch brothers are really the people who are in Walker’s camp and funding all this. Walker has not made one move to get rid of billions of dollars of corporate welfare that have been layered into Wisconsin laws for the last 50 years—subsidies, tax abatements, you name it. Nobody is raising that, because the Democratic Party is not a party that people can rely on to defend the country against the most craven, cruel, ignorant, indentured-to-corporatism Republican Party in history. That’s the problem.
So it all starts with how many people out there are going to take some time and put the pressure on Congress, put the pressure on the White House, start encircling congressional offices back home, with the help of the Occupy people, and push for these changes, like the card check, the federal minimum wage at $10, like cracking down on corporate crime, like full Medicare for all—all of these—and getting rid of those wars, those criminal wars overseas, and bringing the soldiers back home. All of these are long-overdue, catch-up reforms.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph?
RALPH NADER: And they have a large proportion to people polling in favor of them. Who’s against cracking down on corporate crime and ending corporate welfare? There aren’t many people left.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, we just have a—we just have a couple of minutes left. I wanted to ask you about—on another topic. By the end of this month, the Supreme Court is going to make two major decisions, one on the healthcare law and the other on the Arizona "show me your papers" law. And many civil rights leaders believe that the decision is going to uphold Arizona and is going to strike down key aspects of the healthcare law. What do you think this is going to mean for progressives and activists and what they have to do after these decisions come down?
RALPH NADER: Well, I don’t know anyone who can read the mind of the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. We’ll see. But if it goes adverse, as you imply, this has got to be a wake-up call for people. Listen, it all comes down to how many people are going to organize and make civic action and political action their chief hobby. Some people play—you know, are in bowling leagues. Some people have bridge game leagues. How many people? And this is who I call "the other 1 percent." The other 1 percent advancing all these changes, all these changes, with the backing of majority polls, can take on the top 1 percent of the super-rich and beat them.
That’s why we want people to log into timeforaraise.org, timeforaraise.org, pick up the phone, just get your feet wet here. If you don’t do this, call the White House and call your member of Congress, (202) 224-3121—there’s a switchboard—and tell them you want to support Jesse Jackson Jr.'s bill. I mean, they're in a bubble on Capitol Hill. We call it "Withering Heights." You cannot believe how stagnant this city is, because the people back home have become so disillusioned and so discouraged that they just give up.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph, very quickly—
RALPH NADER: And they cannot give up.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, the whole battle over whether to raise Bain and Mitt Romney and his wealth within the Democratic Party, it seems that they’re heading away from that. What about Mitt Romney’s overseas accounts, both personally and with Bain, and the significance of how far the Democrats are willing to go?
RALPH NADER: Mitt Romney’s record is a losing record for Mitt Romney, but only if the Democrats make a big deal of it. They didn’t make a big deal out of George W. Bush’s Texas record for some bizarre reason. But why don’t they put up on TV the string of companies that Bain Capital, under Romney, bought, strip-mined, loaded with debt, laid off workers—
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
RALPH NADER: —and threw into bankruptcy?
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave—we’re going to leave it there. I want to thank you for being with us.
RALPH NADER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Longtime consumer advocate, three-time presidential candidate, Ralph Nader.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.