Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Naomi Klein, Who Shot to Fame after her First Book, is Withholding Judgment on Obama
She fits the cliché of the Canadian who is a celebrity abroad but is mostly ignored at home.
Naomi Klein shot to international fame eight years ago with her book No Logo, which has since sold 1 million copies.
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, published 15 months ago, has already sold 800,000 copies and been translated into 26 languages. Last week, a documentary based on the book was released at the Berlin Film Festival.
Her speaking engagements and political activism keep her on the road, around the world. Her newsletter goes to 30,000 subscribers.
No Logo charted the corporate commodification of youth pop culture and the casualization of labour (what's sold in the West are expensive brands, not products, which can be manufactured cheaply in the East).
The Shock Doctrine is about the globalization of the neo-conservative ideas pioneered by Chicago economist Milton Friedman and popularized by Ronald Reagan. There was the massive privatization - not only of public services at home but wars abroad (private security forces and contractors galore in Iraq and Afghanistan) and even disaster relief (post-tsunami and Katrina). There was the deregulation of the markets, which led, inevitably, to the current economic meltdown.
Critics attack her for seeing corporate conspiracies. They particularly sneer at her hypothesis, announced in the book's subtitle, that right-wing economic policies have faced such popular resistance that they can only be introduced in the jet stream of shock-and-awe wars and natural disasters (laying off tens of thousands of Iraqis in order to sell state enterprises; building tourist beach hotels in Southeast Asian fishing villages washed away by the tsunami).
Her admirers see the economic crisis as proof of her prescience.
The New Yorker magazine recently ran a 12-page profile: "She has become the most visible and influential figure on the American left - what Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky were 30 years ago."
She has campaigned against the University of Chicago's plan to build a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute to honour its former professor, who died in 2006. "The crash on Wall St. should be for Friedmanism what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for authoritarian communism, an indictment of an ideology," she has said.
In a twist of fate, the economic crisis has dried up funding for the institute, and it has been put on hold - much to her delight.
In an interview Tuesday, Klein, 38, said she welcomes the election of Barack Obama. But she has two problems: his refusal to insist on accountability for recent American misdemeanours abroad and at home; and his "narrative that everything went wrong only eight years ago" with the election of George W. Bush.
It was Bill Clinton who periodically bombed Iraq and tightened the economic sanctions that killed 1 million Iraqis, including 500,000 children, according to UNICEF. It was he who axed the Depression-era restrictions that had prevented investment banks from also being commercial banks. He and Alan Greenspan resisted the regulation of the huge derivatives industry.
If you develop amnesia about all that, "then you do exactly what Obama is doing. You resurrect the Clinton economic and foreign policy apparatus, and you appoint Larry Summers, the key architect of the economic policy that has imploded at this moment."
Obama's economic recovery plan, especially the bank bailout, is a disaster.
It is "layering complexity over complexity. What got us into this mess in the first place were these complex financial instruments that nobody understood. Now they have a bailout that nobody understands.
"The facts are easy to understand, namely, that these banks are bankrupt and they should be allowed to go under or be nationalized because there also needs to be a workable financial sector.
"The amount of money that's at stake in the bailout - if you include everything, the deposit guarantees, the loans, Fannie May and Freddie Mac and AIG - is now up to $9 trillion. The American GDP is only $14 trillion. So they've put more than half the American economy on the line to try to fix a mess that actually cannot be fixed in this way. Just look at what happened to Iceland. The debt that their three top banks held was 10 times their GDP. You can bankrupt the country this way."
Obama's stimulus package is not big enough. Almost 40 per cent goes to tax cuts. "And to pay for the cuts, they had to drastically scale back much more important and stimulative spending, on such things as public transit."
Among the many parallels to the 1930s, the one Klein finds most useful is that president Franklin Roosevelt was under constant public pressure to improve the New Deal. That "history of resistance, struggle and community organizing" needs to be replicated to keep Obama honest.
"Obama is an important change from Bush, and the reason why he is important is that he is susceptible to pressure from everyone. He is susceptible to pressure from Wall Street, to pressure from the weapons companies, from the Washington establishment. But unlike Bush and (Dick) Cheney, I don't think he'd ignore mass protest.
"The irony is that just at the very moment when that kind of grassroots organizing and mobilization could have an impact, we are demobilizing and waiting for the good acts to be handed down from on high, whether it is the withdrawal from Iraq or the perfect economic stimulus package."
It is equally important that America come to terms with its recent past.
"So much of this moment for me comes down to whether there's going to be any accountability for what happened - whether it's the illegal occupation of Iraq or torture or the economic crimes that led to this disaster.
"The FBI believes that there's a huge criminality at the heart of the economic meltdown but they've made a decision not to prosecute because they were afraid that might send panic through the market.
"All this argument for impunity, amnesia is really corrosive."
61 Comments so far
Show All"In an interview Tuesday, Klein, 38, said she welcomes the election of Barack Obama. But she has two problems: his refusal to insist on accountability for recent American misdemeanours abroad and at home; and his "narrative that everything went wrong only eight years ago" with the election of George W. Bush."
Naomi Klein's problem is that she is using the same framework of thought to view the problem as what created the problem, no new idea, but it seems to be missed if the person using it speaks while in sheep's clothing.
Naomi is pretty and articulate, just like President Obama. But regardless of the wolf wearing his teeth on his sleeve or a soft wool jacket, it's still that wolf, that predator. Not that I think wolves should be demonized as humans.
Naomi thinks President Obama would not ignore mass protest at this time, and I think she is right, but I think he might not react to it as she hopes, and he has given clear clues to all exactly what he thinks about those who come forward with a clenched fist. Thus the fear to mass protest in anger.
Obama is a dialogue person, mass mailing for redress of grievance to reach him with dialogue is our best hope with him, and beyond that we may hope he sees the light and make the sacrifice for the greater good.
Mass upheaval, as everyone here fears, will come unforced if collective correct action does not rule the day.
Mass action that can succeed does exist, but it cannot be ruled by anger and retribution, but instead love, and hope. If we marched on Washington and hoped to succeed in securing change that corrects our national course, it must be done with an open heart that is looking forward not a hard heart that looks back and does not forgive.
That is the only movement that I would join for sure success.
Who else understands this?
Summum bonum!
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
Hope is an opiate....it gets We the People nowhere. We have a right to be angry and express that anger, but it does not have to be expressed with violence. Why are Americans so in fear of anger which is a primal human emotion? USE that anger and DEMAND justice and accountability. This government will not react to hope, but they will react to mass protest. It's supposed to be OUR government...DEMAND THE RETURN OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO WE THE PEOPLE AND AWAY FROM THE CORPORATOCRACY.
O February 15th, 2009 10:54 am: "It's supposed to be OUR government...DEMAND THE RETURN OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO WE THE PEOPLE AND AWAY FROM THE CORPORATOCRACY."
That is a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with, and one that could be quickly enacted by an edict from a monarch. However, Obama is not a king, nor would I want him to be one, and he has to work through Congress and the courts to effect change. Here's a question for you, O -- what would YOU do as president to return the government to the people and rid us of the vile influence of corporations overnight?
I think Obama may be playing a very clever game here -- he aggravates the left to 'force' him to do what he wanted to do anyway, while he plays 'bipartisan nice guy' in Washington to round up any stray GOP votes, like Collins and Snowe, and keep the Blue Dog Dems in line. (Allowing your enemies to think you're weaker than you really are is an ancient tactic for political success.)
Obama was roundly criticized during the presidential campaign for wanting to expand the war in Afghanistan, yet he just called a halt to pumping in more troops until the general staff can give him a clear strategy for stabilization and withdrawal. Since the Pentagon seems to be committed to the same failed strategy of endless occupation as were the Russians, this would open the way for Obama to argue we should cut our losses and leave as soon as possible. (We also can't afford these dimwitted foreign occupations anymore -- we're broke.)
February 8, 2009
Obama Puts Brake on Afghan Surge
The (London) Sunday Times (UK)
Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith
"PRESIDENT Barack Obama has demanded that American defense chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.
"There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy."
-- Read the rest at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5683681.ece
Is it possible that Obama is playing a higher level of chess than many on this page recognize? Perhaps that's why someone as brilliant as Naomi Klein is willing to reserve judgment. After all, he's only been president for less than a month.
In his political career, Obama has outfoxed Fox, along with the Republicans, the well-funded Clinton campaign, John McCain, Karl Rove, the official Washington Press Gang and the Entrenched Big Media Punditrocracy. Two years ago, none of them gave him a chance of winning the nomination, yet he did. Last fall many of them thought America would never elect a black man president, yet he won. A week ago, the BM declared his stimulus package dead, yet it passed, mostly intact. Is it possible he just might know something we don't -- like how to get things accomplished rather than simply gripe about them?
Excellent thoughts RJS, I think we may not be underestimating Obama so much for what he has done, to which all judgment is fair, but to what he might yet accomplish to which we can only help by imagining the very best as you are. I thank you for that, I'm sure our President would thank you for such good faith as well, he needs the open and honest direction of the people if he is to serve our will. That is a chip he has staked most of his success on and I hope people get that and even more I hope he gets that more and more as he goes along. It truly is the only right course of action for our day.
It is not he, but the rest of our government that many doubt and fear, and he cannot do it alone. We will just have to keep watching and helping as the need arises to put this ship of state back on course, or abandon it and build a new one if it goes under.
Leea February 16th, 2009 9:13 am, thank you, Leea. I don't know what will happen in the future with Obama or the nation, but, after reading the many self-assured Obama critics here, I do try to look for alternative explanations for his actions. I happen to know one of Obama's relatives, a very progressive and honest man, and I trust him when he says Obama's 'for real,' but our new president's doing things his way, the way he's always done them -- incrementally, subtly, outsmarting his opposition without rancor or anger, gathering together a consensus, and he does want to unite as much of the country as he possibly can to move into the future.
Of course, that's all kind of moot at this point. If Obama fails, Americans will be wearing rags and living in a third-world nightmare while those in the so-called second- and third-worlds die off by the millions of disease and starvation. That's how bad things are in the global economy -- much worse than our Big Media are willing to report.
If he is "for real" how come he is raining missiles on Pakistan, giving hundreds of billions to banksters, didn't even make one "liberal" cabinet appointment talk about a "progressive" one, all his cabinet appointments are right of center, oh and did I mention he is defending BUSH's secrecy policies. Needless to say I am one severely disappointed Obama voter. Sorry Cynthia and Ralph I see exactly what happens when you vote for lesser evil, now you get the evil you voted for. :(
hootowl February 16th, 2009 9:21 pm, you should really read up on what Obama's done.
1. The US isn't 'raining' missiles on Pakistan by any stretch of the imagination, but there have been limited attacks conducted by remote-controlled drones. I admit I don't know for sure, but perhaps these were legitimate terrorist targets. Do you have contrary information from a reputable source?
2. Obama hasn't yet given hundreds of billions to the banks, and has required a cap on executive salaries of those firms that receive bailout funds. Obama can hardly be held responsible for the $300+ plus billion already doled out -- he wasn't president yet. OK, you don't like the bank bailout -- so what's your alternative to make sure the savings and checking accounts, credit, investments and pensions of average Americans are protected? If the banks close, the country will be worse off than we are now, and it will take time to get the financial system up and running again. In the meantime, how do people get paid from their jobs, pay their bills, and access their savings?
3. In fact, Obama's made several 'liberal' appointments, among them Hilda Solis for Labor Secretary and Jared Bernstein as Biden's chief economic advisor.
4. Obama is not 'defending' Bush's secrecy policies, he is reviewing them. There is a major difference.
5. It's a shame you're so severely disappointed in a president who's been in office less than a month. If you have children, I suppose you were also diappointed because they weren't able to walk and talk a month out of the womb. Obama is trying to reverse trends that have taken 30 years to develop and if he doesn't do it in a month you're 'severely disappointed'? That's called unrealistic expectations.
Maybe you wouldn't be so 'severely disappointed' if you'd bothered to read up on your subject.
1. There have been at least 3 drone attacks on Pakistan since Obama took office killing at least a hundred people most of them innocent villagers having nothing to do with terrorism. It is sad to me that you would have probably rightfully condemned these actions had they been done under Bush yet now suddenly they get a great big pass because The Dims waved a magic D wand over them. Sadly in some ways this is even worse than Bush even because Obama is escalating in Pakistan without even a fig leaf presentation at the U.N. for violating Pakistan's sovereign territory. Now yes obviously Collin Powell's presentation at the U.N. was lies from beginning to end but at least the Bush admin went through the motions to some extent of complying with international law and Obama? Even les so than war criminal Bush! Again war of aggression against countries who did nothing to us doesn't SUDDENLY become good just because it was committed by a D. Partisan party hackery that SUDDENLY reverses the moral judgement based on which party commits an action disgusts me, unilateral war of aggression is wrong under Obama, it was wrong under W, and also under Bill Clinton, and also under George H.W. Bush. And yes I walk the talk when BOTH parties engage in immoral actions I have gone to numerous protests against Bush's immoral and illegal war in Iraq and did the same against Clinton's reckless bombing of Kosovo, which he almost failed to get Congressional authorization for. It's the policies not the party stupid!
2. I had read the cap may be rescinded as part of the compromise with the Rethuglicons but I can't find a source for that now so point taken.
3. Obama's cabinet appointments for the most powerful high profile positions have been the very banksters who got us into the crisis like Larry Summers and Gheitner, and neo-con hawks like Hilary, and former IDF soldier Ramh Emmuanual and BUSH's man at the military Gates. Again bankster crimes, and war crimes, don't just SUDDENLY get a pass from me just because the party doing them has a D in front of its name. I knew the gig was up with Obama when their were no honorable decent cabinet appoints like Feingold or if he wanted to be "bi-partisan" Chuck Hagel who has honorably opposed the illegal war in Iraq for years now. We aren't talking radicals here, but mainstream politicians with long honorable not particularly radical records, who nonetheless showed some spine in the Bush years. When I voted for Obama I at the very minimum expected a few non bankster, non neo-con cabinet appointments. Epic fail!
4. In fact you are wrong Obama is using Bush's state secrets policy verbatim in court, some "change."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama/
5. Is just some apologetics rhetoric.
So in sum of your points 1 out of 5 has any substantive merit whatsoever, your defense of the exact same crimes Bush committed with a new improved D rubber stamp is a fail.
I will be voting a Green party ticket in 2012, count on it apologist and no I don't care if your Dimocraps go down in flames because they are doing the EXACT same things the Rethuglicons are doing.
1. You wrote: "It is sad to me that you would have probably rightfully condemned these actions had they been done under Bush yet now suddenly they get a great big pass because The Dims waved a magic D wand over them."
It's sad to me that you would take that from what I wrote. I didn't apologize for the Democrats, nor say I approved of those drone attacks; I simply said I didn't know much about the attacks and that they might have had legitimate military value -- as in attacking an Al Qaeda training camp. I'll read up on this and get back to you.
2. The executive salary cap was passed by Congress.
3. Maybe, but your original claim was that Obama had appointed NO liberals/progressives to his administration, and now you're trying to back away from that. Besides, I think Labor Secretary is a pretty important post.
4. In fact, the federal prosecutors who presented that case in court are holdovers from Mukasey's DoJ, and that case was in the pipe before Obama was elected. As I've said, let's give Holder a chance to review this material and make the appropriate changes before finding a pike for his head.
5. You wrote: "Is just some apologetics rhetoric."
Could you translate? Perhaps the creatures on Planet Hootowl know what 'apologetics rhetoric' is, but I don't. Obviously, with this command of the English language, you didn't comprehend my post fully, so I can understand why you think my 'defense...is a fail.'
Please, Hootowl, leave the Greens alone in 2012 -- they have enough problems as it is. Why not become a Republican? They can use someone like you.
You can absolutely count on me and MANY lefties voting for Greens in 2012. In fact I perhaps might even get a little schadenfreud watching he Dims flameout after they betrayed their lefty base. Say what you want about Republicans at least they feed their base the raw red meat they crave. And do the Dims feed us the tofuburgers we crave? Not so much, they ALSO feed us red raw meat that we do NOT want.
p.s. I bet everyone else reading my response knows EXACTLY what "apologetics rhetoric" means milquetoast liberal Dimocrapic party apologist. You should read the devastating critique of centrism posted on CD today RSJ and think long and hard about what it is saying.
p.s. I hope the DLC is at least paying you a little something to post this polagetics for Dims failures and crimes b.s.
p.s. sorry you aren't up on the catch phrases kidz todayuse like "epic fail" (do a google search) it must suck being so dreadfully out the loop dude.
Very good, hootowl February 18th, 2009 8:33 pm, just the kind of babbling drivel I'd expect from someone who claims to be a leftist but indulges in the language of the right. "Say what you want about Republicans at least they feed their base the raw red meat they crave." And in the process nearly destroyed the country -- glad you can admire that.
No doubt you want a Bush of the Left, a tyrant who will just ignore those who disagree and violate the Constitution to enforce what little Hootowl thinks is good national policy. Good luck with that, Comrade Stalin.
"milquetoast liberal Dimocrapic party apologist." Actually, you're as ignorant about this as you are about everything else -- I'm an Independent and have supported both Greens and Ralph Nader in the past.
Say, here's some advice for you and the 'kidz,' Hootowl: why don't you fold your 'hipper-than-thou' crap five ways and stick it where the moon don't shine? And learn how to spell while you're at it instead of posting lame excuses for your ignorance.
And, please, join the GOP -- you have all the skills to be a good Republican drone and they'll provide all of those tasty 'raw red meat' talking points you crave so much.
Yes, you are so right on O. Of course we have a right and even duty to be angered and furious at all this wrong action. We instinctively know better and reject it in fear. But our anger, unchecked, can easily blind us to that same wrong action. Bringing forward the idea of channeling anger toward correct action is important for success in our own insistence and movement toward corrective action. This power that you speak on above "RETURN OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO WE THE PEOPLE" is an interesting idea. Can natures laws,and those same higher laws which the laws of our country are founded on be returned? Or can those breaking those laws return to right action in respect to those higher laws. Who or what has strayed becomes a very important dynamic to consider. In my opinion our higher laws and natures laws have gone no where, our rights to govern have gone nowhere, but those mere humans we entrusted to serve those higher laws, and protect our rights under them have wandered very far from the light of truth and justice. We can offer them an open hand and call them to come back, a process of redress of grievance. But if they will not listen and continue to wander away, we don't really want to follow them very much further at all. We are getting lost with them IMO, and this is a very dangerous dynamic to misunderstand.
Here hear, Leea! Well said.
Beware false dichotomies. It is not a question of either acceptance of status quo or jumping the train of protest in rage against past transgressions. A massive groundswell of demand for true democracy in this country, the fulfillment of the original stated intent of the founding fathers which was never fully or correctly implemented - this has always been a plutocracy - is finally the only vehicle with which we may hope to usher in fundamental change. Reform is a manifestly inadequate response to this multidimensional meltdown. For those of us who believe it's not only possible but essential to reinvent our society on the basis of a more awakened humanity based on the understanding that our fate and the fate of all living things on our planet are inextricable, it becomes essential that we, collectively, take a holistic view and course of action. What is best for all life is best for all life - it cannot be otherwise. We cannot exploit each other or our environment without generating insurmountable negative consequences. Capital as the dominant force of our society is precisely upside down.
Thank you katfish, I really appreciate your compliments considering how well you understand what I am saying.
This is not a new battle, only one we have yet to win. Where is the Democratic Party of his day? It is on this forum and in the streets but no where to be found in Obama or the Congress.
William Jennings Bryan (8-8-1900) said:
"...a contest between Democracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to say that all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that on the important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by those influences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for the protection of the rights of man.
In 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important questions today Republican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.
The maxim of Jefferson, “equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” and the doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” are being disregarded and the instrumentalities of government are being used to advance the interests of those who are in a position to secure favors from the Government.
The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, it gives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when it promises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property rights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy strives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to his merits.
No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doing injustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in the absence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another the Democratic party says "Thou shalt not."
Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financially powerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them are associated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name, are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of their own party.
Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselves that the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to the greenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of the nation's paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican party was paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support a perpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust now beguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts, while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and more obscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon the small expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objections which are urged against a large increase in the permanent military establishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nation was less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans who three years ago condemned "forcible annexation" as immoral and even criminal are now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation. That partisanship has already blinded many to present dangers is certain; how large a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policies remains to be seen."
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wjbryanimperialism.htm
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
Are you saying that you only see how Republicans do this? Are you saying you do not see how we all do this? Are you saying this is not a human condition but a Republican one? Are you saying you don't see how Naomi Klein is doing this same thing under the cover of the Democratic party?
Summum bonum!
I am saying there is no Democratic Party, rather one "elite" party using two names and a different style and rhetoric but the same objectives. The Democratic Party of Bryan's day no longer exists but is sorely needed.
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
I see, and I reread the quote in your post and feel I missed part of what you were saying. Sorry.
I always wonder why Naomi Klein overdresses herself with makeup and dressing a bit too sexy these days. Oh well, it looks like she looks like just another partisan shill ! Still, give her another year and if she still withholds judgement, then it's confirmed.
Very perceptive post. Until we overthrow the bankster and corporate plutocrats NOTHING will change.
DaveBronstein February 15th, 2009 10:39 am, Obama has also said that anyone who commits a crime, even past administrations, should be held accountable and prosecuted for them.
Aside from that, it is not Obama who will be doing the investigating and prosecuting -- that would be Holder's DOJ. Holder just took office -- let's see what he does in the next few months, especially under pressure from Conyers, et al, in Congress.
I wouldn't worry about the FBI not investigating criminal activity because it might panic the market. The stock market has already crashed, so that horse has left the barn.
BTW, it's not the best strategy to announce in advance who you are going to prosecute and on what charges, and give the criminals time to leave the country or destroy evidence; much better to make indictments and arrests a surprise.
DaveBronstein February 16th, 2009 10:11 am: Dave, you took Obama out of context to make your point; here's Obama's answer from the Feb. 9th press conference:
"What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process, as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm. And I don't think those are contradictory; I think they are potentially complementary.
"My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, [those]... people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.
"But that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards. I want to pull everybody together, including, by the way, the -- all the members of the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have been working hard to protect America and I think sometimes are painted with a broad brush without adequate information."
-- Video and transcript via the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/obama-on-investigating-bu_n_165455.html
I could just as easily quote only those parts where Obama said "What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process..." and "My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, [those]... people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen."
Aside from that, do you really want Obama to devote his full attention to prosecuting the Bush Gang, which is not his Constitutional role? What about the economy; the occupations overseas, and converting to green energy? Should that all be put on the back burner while Obama tries to do the Attorney General's job for him?
You say 'Everyone knows he has no intention of holding anyone accountable.' Everyone doesn't know that and, unless you're a mind reader, you don't know that either.
You obviously don't understand the role of the US Attorney General; while others in the president's cabinet should follow his lead, the AG is the exception -- Holder is supposed to investigate and prosecute crime wherever he finds it, even within the Obama administration. That recent Republican presidents have politicized the Justice Department and the post of AG, that does not change the legally-defined role of the DOJ and AG in the US government.
You wrote: "...Eric Holder, Obama’s new attorney general, assured Republicans at his Senate confirmation hearing that he isn’t planning a wholesale criminal investigation of current or former government officials, though he wouldn’t rule out going after lawbreakers...There won’t be any attempt to 'criminalize policy differences' with the Bush administration, he said."
"Though he wouldn't rule out going after lawbreakers." No, Holder won't, as the GOP has, go after Republicans for policy differences, but authorizing torture and violating your oath of office to uphold the Constitution are not mere 'policy differences.'
You wrote: "Yes, I know you'll jump on the part about "he wouldn't rule out going after lawbreakers." But this is just window dressing, and everybody knows it. That's simply the way a political figure would protect himself from charges that he's giving criminals a free pass -- when in fact, that's exactly what he intends to do."
Again, how does 'everybody know' this is just 'window dressing.' What proof do you have that he doesn't mean what he says? And how do you know what Holder intends to do -- mind reading again?
You can call me an 'Obama apologist' all you want but you are nothing more than a dedicated Obama critic, constantly trying to find anything to make your case. Unless you have some special knowledge or supernatural powers, you really don't know what's going to happen in the future. Rather than apologizing for him, I just say let's wait and see what Obama and Holder do before we go off half-cocked, screaming in panic and rage at every news cycle.
... If this is an interview of Naomi Klein by Haroon Siddiqui, then it should be written as such. The way it is written, it seems a little misleading as to whose authorship this article really belongs to... With that said, I'm always interested in Naomi Klein's expansive perspective -regardless of whom ever is doing the dictation... :-)
"He who is swimming against the stream comes to the source" Gottfried Muller
You can see an old interview with her from 2000 on Canada's newsworld show Hot Type
http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/consumer_goods/clips/14722/
Canada unfortunately is not known for stirring up anything. Our motto is Peace, Order and Good Government. No surprise that someone who discusses fighting the system would not be highlighted in Canada.
Its just so rude. Besides--isnt she really American? I thought her parents were from the US.
Our television is a bit like Soviet tv. The most popularized show is about folksy people having comical antics at a rural gas station. Its so innocuous that sitting Prime Ministers can appear on it without the type of mockery you would find on a US or UK show.
Oh Canada.
Its just so rude. Besides--isn't she really American? I thought her parents were from the US.
No she was born in the city of my birth, Montreal. Yes both her parents were Americans, Her father, a Physician, was a Viet Nam war resister.
Her grandfather was actually an animator for Disney. He "organised the first strike there, as a result of which he was sacked and blacklisted. He taught her to 'always look for the dirt behind the shine'." Almost prophetic that his granddaughter is a chief deconstructor of the fantasy world pulled over our eyes.
Children of American citizens may claim American citizenship regardless of where they are born.
Hence, John McCain is an "natural born American" despite the fact that he was actually spawned in Panama while his father stationed there.
"The Shock Doctrine" should have the widest readership possible, no doubt.
I'm puzzeled by the following characterization in this piece:
"But she has two problems: his (Obama's)refusal to insist on accountability for recent American misdemeanours abroad and at home..."
I understand these are the words of Haroon Siddiqui, and not Naomi.
But if the recent American actions at home and abroad are "misdemeanours," I'd like to know what a felony looks like.
"If the recent American actions at home and abroad are 'misdemeanours,' I'd like to know what a felony looks like."
Well said.
Contrast this with the rhetoric used against Democratic admnistrations, wherein even the most scrofulous lies are repeated endlessly.
"O", I disagree with you. Hope is as necessary as air and water! You state that we have a right to be angry. I agree with that statement. Someone who is raped has the right to be angry..it would be insane to suppose that they would be happy about being raped. However, it is what happens next that makes all the difference.
Yes, I too have been so angry at what the immoral corporate criminals and governments have done to our world that I wanted to just execute all of them! But, the anger, if used as retaliation and revenge seeking, would just be energy wasted. It would result in untold levels of increasing violence, ending in possible loss of freedom. Anger acknowledged, processed, and channeled into positive change would be anger used to heal. Justice is part of healing, but cannot be obtained by violence nor demands. As "Leea" stated above..."we cannot be ruled by anger."
Hope is like water. It is all that keeps the Mind/Body/Spirit connection intact. With Hope comes the understanding that we are all one. We are all just atoms in a cohesive form. Hope promotes Love for all life forms. Sorry, but the bottom line is Love....no matter how cliche, or naive anyone thinks it is ..."the greatest of these is Love." Through Love, our actions become part of Truth. Truth prevails in the end.
"Hope has two beautiful daughters
anger and courage: anger that sees things the way they are, and courage to make things the way they ought to be"
— Augustine of Hippo
Yes, wonderful quote and notice the action comes from courage. Anger is necessary and vital and normal when wrong is done, courage leads one on to corrective action.
Either we believe that violence, that which we find criminal, is wrong, and do not do it, or we believe it is right and we try to correct wrong action with wrong action.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
That's what CD is about...the right to disagree.
I may hope and love and trust the prospect that tomorrow all the world will live in peace and harmony, without war, injustice and genocide. BUT, without substance, method and strength, there's not much chance of that happening.
At times, one must fight tooth and nail for some achievement..is that not in part of how this country came about?
Personally, I believe we are at that threshhold. If violence is simply a massive, angry American public, that's fine by me. It's past rhetoric. Some kind of action is necessary. Guns are not the answer....but neither are flowers.
We the People have the numbers and should use that power wisely and strategically with strength, intention ...and yes, at times anger.
Inanna if you think all that lalala will effect a black hearted lizard like DICK Cheney and his ilk you are truly naive. The only thing that will make their class think twice about committing more crimes is a public hanging. Nuremberg trials v. 2.0 I say.
Inanna February 15th, 2009 2:25 pm. True, resorting to anger and vengeance won't solve the problem. Between 1789 and 1799 the French revolutionaries satisfying executed the aristocracy but ended up with a corrupt government followed by Emperor Napoleon. The Russians overthrew the Czar and killed him and his family, and were stuck with the autocratic Lenin and the despotic Stalin. Anger can indeed lead you down paths that work against your own interests -- look at the state of the current GOP.
As a nation we are no more than the product of our willful ignorance and all consuming greed
A recent Klein comment post "election" quoted in The progressive
http://conference.progressive.org/
Klein: "That night I was walking to the apartment where my husband stays, and passing by this really elite, storied club. I always look in the window. It looks like the kind of place where Central American coups are plotted. On this night, a half hour after the results had been announced, there were these two African American men high-fiving each other outside the club. One of them was the doorman for this private club, and the other was a chauffeur for one of the club members. As I was passing, one of the club members came out looking just miserable. He was sort of a Daddy Warbucks character, with just an absolute scowl on his face. I watched these two men who had just been celebrating go back to their posts. One of them opened the door of the club, and the other opened the door of the waiting limousine. And they shared this smile. I just thought: Wow!"
So what's changed? Daddy Warbucks (rich old white or more likely Jewish financier)is still riding in a limo chauffeured by a black man (or African American) and the black bouncer(or African American bouncer) is still standing in the cold and rain.
Al Jolson is in the "White" house and Billybob Clinton was indeed ameriKa's first black (African American ) president. When will ameriKan's (and Canadians) wake up and see that the shell game is fixed and the rhetoric of "change and hope" is precisely just that even when eloquently uttered by a token "black" (or was that African AmeriKan) president or a left wing Jewish groupie.
James Petras was exactly to the point when he called Mr Obama the Zionist Power Configuration's first president. If you want real change in ameriKa don't bank (pardon the pun) on the greatest conman and opportunist since well.... Billybob Clinton!
Did ameriKa's liberal intellectuals expect anything other than the gumbo South African "Mandela miracle" to be cooked up again in Washington?
Onward thru the fog to our titanic destiny with Cap'n O Bama!
Naomi Klein, Arundhati Roy, Vandana Shiva, Amy Goodman. I love 'em all. No shrinking violets, these, but brilliant sunflowers. Thank God for their voices in this generation.
Bubba, Here, Here!!!!
Out of the four you mentioned, Naomi Klein finishes dead last. Amy is at number 3.
The problem these days is that there are so few strong, independent voices.
And we can forget about Chomsky and Zinn. They are old and feeble-minded. For example, neither one approves of re-opening an investigation into the events surrounding 9/11.
Mickey Z., William Blum, Michel Chossudovsky, Helena Cobban, Norman G. Finkelstein, Paul Craig Roberts, Chellis Glendinning, Michael Hasty, George Monbiot, Justin Raimondo, Manuel Valenzuela, Michael Rivero, Diane Warth, Mike Whitney, Heather Wokusch, xymphora - and others who are less well-known - are the voices worth listening to.
The glamorized celebrities, by definition, have lost an essential part of their inner spirit and independence.
I would like to add Alex Jones and Infowars to your list of voices. Although some are put off by certain personality issues and some of his more conservative views, I've been able to move beyond that to find Jones to be one of the most informative and thorough investigative reporters of the day to day encroachment of global fascism. He also provides a forum for some of the voices you have mentioned such as Chossudovsky, Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Rivero. Peter Dale Scott is another voice that comes to mind. I don't think the 911 issue would have gained the traction it has without Alex Jones.
Naomi Klein is right on the mark when she says:
"The FBI believes that there's a huge criminality at the heart of the economic meltdown but they've made a decision not to prosecute because they were afraid that might send panic through the market.
"All this argument for impunity, amnesia is really corrosive."
This is what is most bizarre about the current national political mood. A new administration has succeeded perhaps the most criminal government in U.S. history and, because of its party's complicity in the crimes, chooses to do nothing. Only more doom can come of this.
All the dirty laundry must be washed. Financial fraud, government corruption, going to war on false pretenses, and so on down the line. Starting with the stolen election of 2000 and the events of 911.
Those of you who believe some sort of "truth and reconciliation" council will cleanse the system of its sewage are simply naive. Accountability and justice, and if need be as ascertained by due process, punishment, is the only thing that will create an atmosphere where those who profit from the misery of the masses can be held in check.
These people laugh at your "love" and "forgiveness" doctrines. If not punished, they simply slither away to hide in some remote corner until their chance rises again.
I do agree that a massive turnout, a civil demonstration of such proportions as can't be edited away by MSM, would have an effect on Obama. He doesn't have the political will to do it on his own - and I am beginning to wonder how much of that "executive power" he would like to retain for himself . . . . We need to help - we need to call upon the Molly Ivins in all of us and start raising hell, banging on pots and pans, standing in the streets and DEMANDING THAT JUSTICE BE DONE.
Actually, I agree with you. I think the murderers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and I think there is a universe of evidence to nail them on a myriad of charges, if only there were the political will to pursue this. Unfortunately that's a very big "if."
Obama will appoint a Lee Hamilton type to any "future" oversight committee and it will be Iran-Contra cover up all over again.
Obama appointing politicians to take charge of the CIA was not change for the better....
************************************************
Obama's economic recovery plan, especially the bank bailout, is a disaster.
It is "layering complexity over complexity. What got us into this mess in the first place were these complex financial instruments that nobody understood. Now they have a bailout that nobody understands.
"The facts are easy to understand, namely, that these banks are bankrupt and they should be allowed to go under or be nationalized because there also needs to be a workable financial sector.
************************************************
I am with Naomi on obama because he just hasn't been in office but about 3 weeks. By the above quote from this article this is just some of the stuff that worries me about him. The others is kissing ameican izraeli public affairs committee's ass and appearing as if izrael has carte blanche in and with the US as they always have, maintaining the status quo. His so far placating the corporate america. And his trying to bipartisan his administration, this could really hurt him as it seems it may already have with geithner's pandering to the financial houses that have created this mess.
These are strange hard times but I still believe that he should get the so called 100 days that are sort of given other newly elected presidents because he may just need to get sucker punched a few times before he does something like fire all those republicans he has. Those guys are not playing and their attitudes are falling into step with how I would think they would be, arrogant, indignant, uncooperative, obstuctive and demeaning (just the few I can readily but correctly pin to those neocons) towards the president. Something I did not see from the democrats when w had the supreme court federalists appoint him as president, which was curious that there was no objection at all from them about that event. But I damn sure am not giving dems a break because they(congress) have not shown much in getting changes that are needed for and in the country for the people, it has all been corporate and financial rewarding.
Keep it up and I will get out there and bang a pot or something. I still cannot get over the complacency of the people but maybe they are waiting for that first 100 days to roll by.
"You can bankrupt the country this way."
The country is bankrupt already; the world is bankrupt already. By predicating all these bizarre phantasmic debt instruments on utterly unrealistic figures, the financial wizards have made it impossible for anyone, no matter how brilliant, to distill any real debts or real assets out of the radioactive clouds. Everything has imploded. As Marx wrote, even more prophetically than was thought fifty years ago, "Everthing solid melts into air."
Who are Obama's progressive appointees?
"waiguoren February 15th, 2009 12:40 pm
"The Shock Doctrine" should have the widest readership possible, no doubt.
I'm puzzeled by the following characterization in this piece:
"But she has two problems: his (Obama's)refusal to insist on accountability for recent American misdemeanours abroad and at home..."
I understand these are the words of Haroon Siddiqui, and not Naomi.
But if the recent American actions at home and abroad are "misdemeanours," I'd like to know what a felony looks like."
I AGREE with all of that post, with the slight difference of a question, which is whether or not she really said what Siddiqui says in terms of the "American misdemeanours abroad". If she didn't say that at all, and didn't infer it at all, then Siddiqui's a sick sh*t and should have quoted her instead of inserting his sick perspective. However, if she did say or clearly infer as he wrote, then she's the one who needs to have her mind examined and treated, while Siddiqui should've more carefully written the article, for he praises her from start to end, which means that he'd be agreeing with the bs "misdemeanours" view.
Given he didn't quote her it's certainly not possible for us to know if she would at all say or infer as he wrote in this piece; not from reading this article alone anyway.
"The crash on Wall St. should be for Friedmanism what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for authoritarian communism, an indictment of an ideology," she has said.
Yep, to be acceptable to the establishment, one must never forget to throw in some anti-communism and do some red baiting.
-----------------------------------------
What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class needs to know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html
Yes, Klein is really pretty superficial IMO. She definitely is no Zinn or Chomsky and her Disaster Capitalism stuff promotes the idea of 'conspiracies' everywhere.
Certainly capitalism has always seeded the planet with catastrophe and there is nothing distinctive about our present capitalist downturn in the economic cycle beyond the fact that now the entire ecology of the planet is being collapsed. That came about not by conspiracy though but merely through the normal workings of world capitalism.