

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In late 2021, when Americans think of progressive or liberal politics, what do they think of?
Defund the Police.
Cancel culture.
Not corporate crime.
Political corruption.
Corporate culture.
The agenda has been set by the corporations and led to the rise of woke corporatism.
Corporations and corporate criminals embrace 2021 liberal values to escape 1921 liberal values.
Or as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat put it in a 2018 column titled The Rise of Woke Capital -
"In every era and every political dispensation, businessmen ask themselves: What am I required to do to make money unmolested by the government?"
Four pillars of woke corporatism - Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, Democratic Congressional Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and President Biden - all have taken a knee for Black Lives Matter.
And when they stand up, they go back to work for Wall Street.
Woke corporatism protects a criminal justice system that throws poor whites and blacks into prison for minor drug crimes while allowing corporate criminal drug pushers off the hook.
Think -- Purdue Pharma.
In 2006, prosecutors in western Virginia wanted to put an end to the Purdue Pharma sponsored opioid epidemic.
Those prosecutors wrote a more than 100 page prosecution memo.
"The memo was an incendiary catalog of corporate malfeasance," reporter Patrick Radden Keefe writes in his book Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty.
"It wasn't just that it spelled out a litany of prosecutable misdeeds. It substantiated, in forensic detail, the knowledge and direction of those misdeeds at the highest levels of Purdue."
But corporate criminal defense lawyers went over the heads of line prosecutors to Main Justice and the criminal prosecution that could have limited the damage was turned back. (To get a nutshell overview of the story, check out Barry Meier's New York Times 2019 report and mini documentary - A Secret Opioid Memo That Could Have Slowed An Epidemic.)
Woke corporatism protects a death penalty for individuals but prevents a death penalty for culpable corporations.
Think -- health insurance corporations.
Are there any corporations more deserving of the corporate death penalty than health insurance companies?
Americans overwhelmingly want to put insurance companies out of their misery and ours.
But woke corporatism prevents this humane execution at every turn.
Those who made their names calling for the death penalty for insurance companies - Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal - refuse to raise the issue this year in deference to the corporate powers that be.
Sanders has yet to introduce his single payer bill in the Senate. And while Jayapal introduced hers, she has refused to hold the hearings she promised earlier this year.
Single payer would replace major health insurance companies with Medicare for All saving hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of American lives a year.
Instead of defunding the corporate crime police, we should be making heroes and heroines out of those on the front lines in the battle against corporate crime.
How many Americans know the name Frances Kelsey?
She was the young Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official who, fifty years ago, prevented a pharmaceutical disaster in the United States by refusing to authorize the anti-nausea drug thalidomide for market in the United States because she was concerned about the drug's safety.
Resisting pressure from the company, Kelsey refused for over a year to approve the drug. She was vindicated when it was shown that where the drug was being used in Europe and around the world, it caused serious birth defects - babies born with no arms and no legs.
A headline in the Washington Post yesterday reads - In a Setback for Black Lives Matter, Mayoral Campaigns Shift to Law and Order.
Today we need a headline that reads - "In a Setback to Woke Corporatism, Congressional Campaigns Shift to Law and Order for Corporate Criminals."
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (July 14)
Note from Russell Mokhiber:
On July 14, 2003, Ari Fleischer held his last White House press briefing. He left the White House to start a consulting firm that will advise corporate executives on how to handle the news media. The new White House Press Secretary is Scott McClellan. I'll continue this feature under the headline: "Scottie & Me."
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, in the 2002 election campaign, the Republican Party took in $7.2 million from convicted criminals. Is the President okay with his party taking millions of dollars from convicted criminals? Ari
Ari Fleischer: I have no idea what you are referring to -
Mokhiber: I'm referring to, let me tell you -
Fleischer: Obviously, if money is received - both parties from people who are later found out to be people who shouldn't be giving money - then it gets returned.
Mokhiber: These are actually major corporations convicted of crimes. ADM gave $1.7 million, Pfizer $1.1 million, Chevron $875,000. Is the President okay with those companies giving direct contributions to the Republican Party after being convicted of crimes?
Fleischer: Russell, as you know, the Presidential campaign takes no money from corporations.
Mokhiber: I'm talking about the party.
Fleischer: Well, you'll have to address your questions to the party.
Mokhiber: Well, as the titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: I don't know what information you have where you can that this corporation is a criminal.
Mokhiber: Convicted - they pled guilty to crimes.
Fleischer: Were the crimes of such a nature that they are no longer in existence?
Mokhiber: ADM pled guilty to one of the most massive antitrust crimes and paid a $100 million fine.
Fleischer: I think you need to address any questions about specific companies with the specifics in mind, and if that company is still doing business and is still in operation, that means it is still in operation with the law, and every case is individual, and the party decides about whether the money needs to be returned or not. But I don't have specifics.
Mokhiber: One follow-up.
Fleischer: Go ahead, Russell.
Mokhiber: One follow up. It's actually a broad philosophical question. Is the President okay with taking money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: I informed you that the President does not take money from corporations.
Mokhiber: No, I'm talking about - as titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals. For example, in Enron -
Fleischer: I just have to differ with your notion that because a company has been fined -
Mokhiber: No, they pled guilty to crimes. They pled guilty to crimes.
Fleischer: Even so - I don't know what specifics you are referring to - that that company is a convicted criminal.
Mokhiber: If you plead guilty to a crime, you are a criminal.
Fleischer: Does that mean that they need to go out of business?
Mokhiber: I'm asking - should the Republican Party take money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: You need to address your question to the Republican Party.
Mokhiber: But he's the titular head of the party.
Fleischer: And the titular head of the party refers you to the party.
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (May 27)
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, there is a new documentary film by an Irish journalist, Jamie Doran. He alleges -
Ari Fleischer: I haven't seen it.
Mokhiber: Well, let me tell you about it. He alleges U.S. military involvement in a massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan. He says that the 3,000 prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. When the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S. allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. Then, witnesses in the film said that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. U.S. special forces redirected -
Fleischer: And your question is?
Mokhiber: Well, you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm giving you some background. One more thing - U.S. special forces redirected the containers carrying the dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried.
Fleischer: I think I understand your movie review.
Mokhiber: And there is a mass grave of 3,000 Taliban prisoners. Question - does the President know about this massacre? Is he ordering an investigation?
Fleischer: Number one, I would not use a movie as a basis to make assumptions about what is right and what is wrong. If your question is about a factual matter in Afghanistan dealing with military actions, that is a question you should address to the Pentagon. I'm not aware of any such -
Mokhiber: Is the President aware of it?
Fleischer: I don't know if he is aware of this movie or not - I would doubt it.
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (May 14)
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, you said on April 10th, about weapons of mass destruction, "That is what this war was about." On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the group directing U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms.
Ari Fleischer: Efforts aren't winding down, efforts are cranking up. As Dr. Rice said in an exclusive interview with Reuters, we are sending in additional teams of people and increasing the amount of inspectors, the amount of people who go through documentation, people who are more expert, to continue to go in. And nothing has changed from what I said on April.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that. Let's -- hypothetically, these weapons are --
Ari Fleischer: You're beginning a sentence with the wrong word. (Laughter.) You just hurt your cause.
Mokhiber: If The Washington Post report is correct, and weapons that Secretary Powell said are there, are not there, I'm wondering if -- what are the chances that you were misled?
Ari Fleischer: No, I think that you've heard it from enough officials to know that you should not begin a sentence with a hypothetical. We remain confident in all the statements we've made about it.
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, you say the President is going to the AMA [American Medical Association] tomorrow to give a speech. There is also a group of victims of medical malpractice who are in town. They want to meet with the President. One of them is a gentleman named Richard Flagg. He is a Vietnam Vet who voted for the President. I just spoke to him and he said that he was diagnosed with a tumor in his left lung. The surgeon took out his right lung -- his healthy right lung. He's now ashamed that he voted for the President because the President is seeking to limit what he can get in terms of non-economic damages. I'm wondering two things -- why won't the President meet with victims of medical malpractice just to get their point of view? And two, why won't he meet also with a wide range of Americans who have asked to meet with the President, who are opposed to the war, including religious leaders?
Ari Fleischer: On the first question, I would urge everybody to be at the speech tomorrow. The President, in his remarks tomorrow is going to talk about issues involving medical liability. And he's going to talk about problems that do come up with doctors, and mistakes that can be made by doctors, and patients' right to just and fair compensation. Patient safety remains of paramount concern. I think it would be interesting on what the President has to say on that important part of this issue tomorrow. As always, the President meets with a variety of groups and hears a variety of concerns. And we'll keep you informed of who he meets with.
Mokhiber: Has he met with any of those representatives, Ari?
[Ari moves on]
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, you said yesterday that if we go to war with Iraq, the Iraqi leadership, including Saddam Hussein, would be a legitimate target under international law. Does this mean that if we go to war with Iraq, our leadership would be a legitimate target under international law?
Ari Fleischer: I think you should address that to an international lawyer. But the point remains the same -- our nation is threatened, all people in our nation are threatened by Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. We know that terrorists desire to strike the United States. We know terrorists desire to strike the leadership of the United States. We don't know definitively if that fourth airplane was heading toward the White House or the Congress. So we do know that we are at war with people who want to seek maximum damage on our country and its leadership.
Mokhiber: But you made a judgment yesterday under international law, that Saddam would be a legitimate target. So does that mean our leadership would be a legitimate target?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, I have no intention of becoming Saddam Hussein's international lawyer. You can find another one.
Mokhiber: Okay. Second question -- can I take from what you said earlier that the reason Lawrence Lindsey was fired was because he made an estimate about the cost of war with Iraq?
Ari Fleischer: No, I was having fun with Dick. That's why I said that. And I wanted to get myself out of having to dodge the question again.
[Here's the back and forth with the other reporter, Dick:
Question: Ari, you said many times -- whether in reference to foreign protests, domestic protests, questions from the Hill, wherever, that the President welcomes an honest and open debate about how we move forward on Iraq. But given the concerns over the deficit, given the concerns over the economy, isn't it fair to include in that debate, even with all the caveats he wanted to attach to it, some preliminary figures on what this might cost -- best case scenario, worst case scenario -- so that people around the country and people on Capitol Hill can make up their minds about how we move forward?
Ari Fleischer: You're asking the same questions over and over again -- my answer is exactly the same. Nothing has changed.
Question: The reason we're asking over and over again is it doesn't seem unreasonable to get at least a cost range, with all the appropriate caveats. You know everybody in this room is careful about reporting those. What's the harm in putting that out? I mean, it's --
Ari Fleischer: For the exact reasons I gave earlier. As soon as something is knowable, we will have additional information to share on it. I'd think you would also not want the White House to engage in any speculation about numbers that could fluctuate or be dramatically different. So it's too soon to say.
Question: A recently departed Larry Lindsey put forward an estimate back in December based on a percentage of GDP which was in line with the spending --
Ari Fleischer: Are you asking me to follow the example and be recently departed? (Laughter).
Question: That's a decision you can make --
Ari Fleischer: Thank you.
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, two things.
A group of bishops and pastors from the National Council of Churches, the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, among others -- sent a letter to the President last week. They said they want a meeting face-to-face with him because they're "uneasy about the moral justification for war on Iraq." Will the President meet with these church leaders?
Ari Fleischer: As always, we'll fill you in on the President's schedule. But I want to emphasize again the President is a deeply religious man, and there are many people in a variety of religions who are going to have different thoughts about how to keep the peace and whether or not to go to war with Saddam Hussein. The President will respect their thoughts, and he will act as he sees fit as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.
Mokhiber: One question on that.
You just said the President is a deeply religious man. Jesus Christ was an absolute pacifist. How does the President square his militarism with Jesus' pacifism?
[At this point, other reporters in the room challenge Russell's assertion that Jesus Christ was an absolute pacifist. One says "no he wasn't." Another says "How about the -- at the temple with a whip, where he beat the hell out of those money-changers? Does that sound like he's an absolute pacifist, Ari?"]
Ari Fleischer: I think there may be a debate in the press corps about your question, Russell.
[Press conference ends, with reporters shouting. Ari walks out without answering the question.]
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, two things. Yesterday in South Africa, former President Nelson Mandela said "All President Bush wants is Iraqi oil because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil and he wants to get a hold of it." He also said that America is "so arrogant" that they dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed innocent people. President Bush, on the other hand, yesterday said "either you are with us, or you are with the enemy." In saying this, does the President believe that Nelson Mandela, France and Germany are with the enemy?
Ari Fleischer: No, on the last point. And on the first point, if this was a war for oil, the United States would be the one saying -- lift the sanctions -- and that way Iraq could pump oil. This is about peace, this is about protecting the people in the region and the American people from Saddam Hussein and his weapons that kill millions.
Mokhiber: May I have a second one --
Fleischer: No you can't. Not today. We are running late.
Ari moves on.
Russell Mokhiber: The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that a number of major American corporations -- including Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel -- helped Saddam Hussein beef up its military in the 1980s. And also the Washington Post last month in a front-page article by Michael Dobbs said the United States during the '80s supplied Iraq with cluster bombs, intelligence and chemical and biological agents. In that same article, they reported that Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, went to Baghdad in December 1983 and met with Saddam Hussein, and this was at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons almost on a daily basis in defiance of international conventions. So there are some specifics, and the question is -- if Iraq is part of the axis of evil, why aren't the United States and these American corporations part of the axis of evil for helping him out during his time of need?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, as I indicated, I think that you have to make a distinction between chemical and biological. And, clearly, in a previous era, following the fall of the Shah of Iran, when there was a focus on the risks that were underway in the region as a result of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, different administrations, beginning with President Carter, reached different conclusions about the level of military cooperation vis-a-vis Iraq.
Obviously, Saddam Hussein since that time has used whatever material he had for the purpose therefore of attacking Kuwait, attacking Saudia Arabia, attacking Israel. And, obviously, as circumstances warrant, we have an approach that requires now the world to focus on the threat that Saddam Hussein presents and that he presents this threat because of his desire to continue to acquire weapons and his willingness to use those weapons against others.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that --
Ari Fleischer: Russell. Russell.
Mokhiber: If I could follow-up on it. You and the President have repeatedly said one of the reasons Saddam is part of the axis of evil is because he's gassed his own people. Well, he gassed his own people with our help. You saw the Washington Post article, didn't you, by Michael Dobbs?
Ari Fleischer: I think that statement is not borne out by the facts.
Mokhiber: Did you see the Post article by Dobbs?
Ari Fleischer: I think that he gassed his own people as a result of his decisions to use his weapons to gas his own people.
Mokhiber: But who gave him the weapons?
Ari Fleischer: And I think the suggestion that you blame America for Iraq's actions is way beyond the pale.
Mokhiber: Who gave him the weapons?
(Ari moves on.)
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, UPI reported last week that Prime Minister Sharon of Israel has given the green light to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, to engage in targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries. The report says that Mossad has in the past engaged in assassinations in Belgium, Norway, and other European countries, but never in the United States. Is the administration aware of this new Israeli policy and has the administration agreed to it?
Ari Fleischer: That's the first I've heard of it, so I have no comment to offer on it.
Mokhiber: Could we get comment from you?
Ari Fleischer: I'll see if there is something on it.
Mokhiber: You and the President have repeatedly said that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. The biggest such attack was in Halabja in March 1988, where some 6,800 Kurds were killed. Last week, in an article in the International Herald Tribune, Joost Hiltermann writes that while it was Iraq that carried out the attack, the United States at the time, fully aware that it was Iraq, accused Iran. This was apparently part of the U.S. tilt toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees. Sensing he had carte blanche, Saddam escalated his resort to gas warfare -- graduating to ever more lethal agents. So, you and the President have said that Saddam has repeatedly gassed his own people. Why do you leave out the part that the United States in effect gave Saddam the green light?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, I speak for President George W. Bush in the year 2003. If you have a question about statements that were purportedly made by the administration in 1988, you need to address those somewhere other than this White House. I can't speak for that. I don't know if it is accurate, inaccurate, but you have all the means to ask those questions yourself.