(Mensaje se repite en Español)

I found myself doing something today that I have never done before. I went on line to: (www.berniesanders.com/phonebank) to call voters in the State of New York and elsewhere to try and encourage them to vote for Bernie Sanders in the April 19th primary. Despite having been told incessantly by the mainstream media from the beginning of the primary season that, "Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate and he doesn't have a chance of winning," I nonetheless tried to point out to the people I talked with today how it is that somehow Bernie continues to keep racking up victory after victory with his latest on April 9th in Wyoming.

My goal was to do my own small part to conquer the public's artificial media nurtured apathy that has attempted to marginalize Sanders from the beginning of the primary season. I found myself pointing out to the folks I talked with that the millions of dollars the Sanders campaign has raised with an average donation of $37 per person continues to give Hillary Clinton a run for her- seemingly endless supply of corporate- money. Money derived from endless $350,000 speaking engagements and dinners with bankers, Wall Street, and other corporate interests sanctioned by Citizens United in their continuing coup over the reminents of America democracy. Was it really part of our Founding Fathers original intent to include corporations in "We the people"?

Does anybody really believe that these corporate interests fund-bundling for Clinton and all other presidential candidates except Sanders are doing so to further the democratic process? Or is it clearly to ensure continued corporate control of our government and those that continue to run it for them as their well-compensated vassals. Does anyone really think that political candidates like Clinton, who are clearly beholden to the corporate financers of their campaigns, could ever stand against those interests and for the interests of the people when they get into office? It seems implicit- if not explicit- in Clinton's attacks on Sanders as his not being a "political realist." Clearly, political realism in Clinton's lexicon puts corporate sovereignty right up there with government sovereignty.

And as I spent hours on the phone talking to people in New York and elsewhere, I found myself addressing in turn each one of the incessantly repeated lies being promoted by the corporate media to discredit Bernie Sanders candidacy:

- Bernie is a socialist and that is dangerous: The democratic socialism that Sanders advocates has already existed in the United States, since the beginning of this country. A program like Social Security from FDR's New Deal recognized that a "single payer" retirement system like Social Security run by the government is the most efficient way to ensure all working Americans and their families are protected throughout their lives with a government guaranteed social safety net.

And in clear example of his platform and in stark contradiction of corporate media's assertion that Sanders ideas are unrealistic, Sanders points out that Social Security's shortfall was caused by the government having invaded the Social Security trust fund and an aging population with lesser worker to retired ratio. Easily, this could be solved as Sanders proposes by simply raising the present $118,000 cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax. Is it really so unreasonable to ask people making more than the present $118,000 cap to have a little more deducted from their paychecks? Or is that just too socialist?

- A free college education at public schools supported by our taxes or a tax on Wall Street: This is not a new idea. In fact, it's an idea that was already instituted, when I went through UCLA in the 1960s. When I graduated in 1969, my tuition for my last quarter was $80.50. What then Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown (present Governor Jerry Brown's dad) understood was that California subsidizing the cost of my education was more than paid back in the taxes collected from a better educated and compensated college graduate. Furthermore, it gave California an advantage when it came to attracting high tech industries to the state based on no small part on our then highly educated workforce. Is it really preferable to now have college graduates come out of school with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and few prospects for gainful employment?

- Rebuilding America's infrastructure and using some of corporate America's record profits to finance it: Again, this is not anew idea. The engine that drove the New Deal in the 1930s was public works projects that not only built the critical infrastructure that cause this country's economy to come out of the depression, but it also gave workers the salaries that in turn stimulated all the goods and services they were able to buy, because FDR was willing to "prime the pump." Now that Sanders wants to do the same, it has somehow become naive?

- Single-payer healthcare: The United States remains the only industrialized country without a (socialist) single-payer healthcare system run by the government. Whether those completely against such a plan like the Republicans or against it like Clinton, who says it is not politically possible, the end result remains the same. The United States continues to pay 34% of every dollar spent on healthcare to an insurance company. While the folks who remain adamantly against a government run program seem to have no problem with a healthcare system run for corporate profit, which has lead to the United States paying twice as much for healthcare as a country like France, while getting healthcare that is objectively inferior by every measure of quality assessment, e.g. infant mortality, longevity, and timely quality of care.

- Endless war and terrorism: Is there not a clear correlation between regime change, supporting dictatorships, and endless war and the rise of terrorism in the Middle East where only corporations like Haliburton continue to profit? If we had not overthrown the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, while supporting the Shah and his secret police, would we now be dealing with fundamentalists in Iran and elsewhere? At the time, Iran was the best educated and most progressive country in the Middle East. And the same is true in Egypt with our longstanding support of an oppressive military dictratorship in open contradiction of the democratic values we continue to tout, but do nothing to support. It seems we will do anything- including the subversion of democracy in Egypt to maintain Western control of the Suez Canal. One must wonder just how much American inspired terrorism would exist today, if rather than spending more than $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting war the United States had rather used the money to build infrastructure in these countries. And yet, when it comes to justifying our continued support for the repressive undemocratic family controlled government of Saudi Arabia, our government remains silent.

The greatest hurtle Bernie Sanders faces is not being unrealistic, but rather the fact that human beings are creatures of habit. We've been doing a variation of violence and intimidation of each other for as long as our species has been around. What has radically changed for the better in recent years is a technological ability that now has the objective possibility of literally dealing with and resolving every problem all humans face. Gross disparities in human well-being no longer need to remain the hallmark of our self-destructive species. What Sanders proposes in no small part is a first step toward implementing this different approach that with the power of the United States behind it just might allow us to survive our baser nature.


Blogs We Love

Do you find the media and their "teachers-suck," "power to principals," "privatization is the best thing that's happened to public schools" disgusting and distasteful? The powers that be may "control" the main media but it's people like us who control the SOCIAL MEDIA. Hungry for more information about crusading educators going against the grain to do what's right for teachers, unions, communities, and children? Check out some more blogs below:

Me encontré haciendo algo hoy que nunca he hecho antes. Fui en línea a: (www.berniesanders.com/phonebank) para llamar a los votantes en el Estado de Nueva York y otros lugares para tratar de animarles a votar por Bernie Sanders en la 19ª primaria abril. A pesar de haber sido dicho sin cesar por los medios de comunicación desde el comienzo de la temporada principal de que, "Bernie Sanders no es un candidato serio y no tener la oportunidad de ganar," Yo, sin embargo, traté de señalar a las personas con las que hablé hoy cómo es que de alguna manera Bernie sigue manteniendo acumular una victoria tras otra con su último el 9 de abril en Wyoming.

Mi objetivo era hacer mi propia pequeña parte a la conquista de medios artificiales del público nutrido apatía que ha intentado marginar Sanders desde el comienzo de la temporada de primarias. Me encontré señalando a las personas con las que hablé que los millones de dólares la campaña Sanders ha planteado con una donación promedio de $ 37 por persona sigue dando Hillary Clinton una carrera por ella- aparentemente interminable suministro de dinero Corporativo-. Dinero derivado de $ 350.000 charlas interminables y cenas con los banqueros, Wall Street y otros intereses corporativos sancionado por Ciudadanos Unidos en su golpe de estado continuando durante los reminents de América democracia. ¿Era realmente parte de nuestros Padres Fundadores intención original para incluir en las corporaciones "Nosotros, el pueblo"?

¿Alguien realmente cree que estos intereses corporativos de recaudación de agrupación para Clinton y todos los otros candidatos presidenciales, excepto Sanders lo están haciendo para promover el proceso democrático? ¿O se trata claramente de mantener el control corporativo de nuestro gobierno y los que siguen a correr por ellos como sus vasallos bien compensada. ¿Alguien realmente cree que los candidatos políticos como Clinton, que están claramente en deuda con los financiadores corporativos de sus campañas, nunca podrían estar en contra de esos intereses y de los intereses de las personas cuando se meten en la oficina? Parece implicit- si no explicit- en ataques de Clinton sobre Sanders como su no ser un "político realista." Claramente, el realismo político en el léxico de Clinton otorga a la soberanía corporativa a la altura de la soberanía del gobierno.

Y ya que pasé horas en el teléfono hablando con la gente en Nueva York y en otros lugares, me encontré frente a su vez cada una de las mentiras repetidas incesantemente siendo promovido por los grandes medios de comunicación para desacreditar Bernie Sanders candidatura:

- Bernie es un socialista y que es peligroso: El socialismo democrático que propugna Sanders ya ha existido en los Estados Unidos, desde el comienzo de este país. Un programa como el de la Seguridad Social a partir del New Deal de Roosevelt reconoció que un sistema de retiro "pagador único" como la seguridad social administrado por el gobierno es la forma más eficaz para asegurar que todos los estadounidenses que trabajan y sus familias están protegidos durante toda su vida con un gobierno garantizó red de seguridad social .

Y en clara muestra de su plataforma y en total contradicción de la afirmación de los medios corporativos que las ideas Sanders no son realistas, Sanders señala que el déficit de la Seguridad Social fue causado por el gobierno de haber invadido el fondo fiduciario de la Seguridad Social y envejecimiento de la población con menor trabajador a la proporción de jubilados . Fácilmente, este podría ser resuelto como Sanders propone simplemente elevando la presente tapa de $ 118,000 en salarios sujetos al impuesto de la Seguridad Social. ¿Es realmente tan poco razonable pedir a las personas que ganan más de la presente tapa de $ 118.000 para tener un poco más deducidos de sus cheques de pago? ¿O es que simplemente demasiado socialista?

- Una educación universitaria gratuita en las escuelas públicas con el apoyo de nuestros impuestos o un impuesto en Wall Street: Esta no es una idea nueva. De hecho, es una idea que ya fue instituido, cuando fui a través de UCLA en la década de 1960. Cuando me gradué en 1969, la matrícula de mi último trimestre fue de $ 80,50. ¿Cuál es entonces el gobernador Edmund G. "Pat" Brown (el padre de la actualidad gobernador Jerry Brown) fue entendido que California subvenciona el coste de mi educación fue restituido mucho más en los impuestos recaudados de un graduado de la universidad mejor educación y compensado. Además, dio a California una ventaja cuando se trata de atraer a las industrias de alta tecnología para el estado basado en gran parte en nuestra fuerza laboral altamente educada continuación. ¿Es realmente preferible tener ahora graduados universitarios salen de la escuela con cientos de miles de dólares en deuda y pocas perspectivas de empleo remunerado?

- La reconstrucción de la infraestructura de América y el uso de algunos de ganancias récord de América corporativa para financiarlo: Una vez más, esto no es un nuevo concepto. El motor que impulsó el New Deal en los años 1930 fue proyectos de obras públicas que no sólo construyeron la infraestructura crítica que causan la economía de este país para salir de la depresión, pero también dio a los trabajadores los salarios que a su vez estimulan todos los bienes y servicios que fueron capaces de comprar, porque FDR estaba dispuesto a "cebar la bomba". Ahora que Sanders quiere hacer lo mismo, se ha convertido de alguna manera ingenua?

- De un solo pagador de cuidado de la salud: Los Estados Unidos es el único país industrializado sin un sistema (socialista) de un solo pagador de la salud dirigido por el gobierno. Si aquellos completamente en contra de un plan de este tipo como los republicanos o contra él como Clinton, quien dice que no es políticamente posible, el resultado final sigue siendo el mismo. Los Estados Unidos sigue pagando el 34% de cada dólar gastado en la asistencia sanitaria a una compañía de seguros. Mientras que las personas que permanecen rotundamente en contra de un programa de funcionamiento del gobierno parecen no tener ningún problema con una ejecución del sistema de salud para las ganancias corporativas, lo que ha llevado a los Estados Unidos de pagar dos veces más por la salud como un país como Francia, al obtener la asistencia sanitaria que es objetivamente inferior por cada medida de evaluación de la calidad, por ejemplo, la mortalidad infantil, la longevidad y la calidad de la atención oportuna.

- La guerra sin fin y el terrorismo: ¿No hay una clara correlación entre el cambio de régimen, dictaduras de apoyo, y la guerra sin fin y el aumento del terrorismo en el Medio Oriente en el que sólo las corporaciones como Halliburton continúan obteniendo beneficios? Si no hubiéramos derrocado al gobierno democráticamente elegido de Mohammad Mosaddeq en Irán en 1953, mientras que el apoyo del Shah y su policía secreta, tendríamos que ahora se trataría de fundamentalistas en Irán y en otros lugares? En el momento, Irán fue el país con mayor formación y progresiva en el Oriente Medio. Y lo mismo es cierto en Egipto con nuestro apoyo desde hace mucho tiempo de un dictratorship militar opresivo en abierta contradicción con los valores democráticos que seguimos para tratar de vender, pero no hacen nada para apoyar. Parece que vamos a hacer algo- incluyendo la subversión de la democracia en Egipto para mantener el control occidental del Canal de Suez. Uno se pregunta hasta qué existiría tanto el terrorismo de inspiración americana de hoy, si en lugar de gastar más de $ 2 billones en Irak y Afganistán, la lucha contra la guerra que Estados Unidos y no había usado el dinero para construir la infraestructura en estos países. Y, sin embargo, cuando se trata de justificar nuestro continuo apoyo al gobierno controlado por la familia antidemocrático represiva de Arabia Saudita, nuestro gobierno se mantiene en silencio.

El mayor hurtle Bernie Sanders enfrenta no está siendo poco realista, sino más bien el hecho de que los seres humanos son criaturas de hábito. Hemos estado haciendo una variación de la violencia y la intimidación de uno al otro durante el tiempo que nuestra especie ha sido de alrededor. Lo que ha cambiado radicalmente para mejor en los últimos años es una capacidad tecnológica que tiene ahora la posibilidad objetiva de, literalmente, tratar y resolver todos los problemas se enfrentan todos los seres humanos. Las disparidades en el bienestar humano, ya no tienen que seguir siendo el sello distintivo de nuestra especie autodestructivas. Sanders lo propone en gran parte es un primer paso hacia la implementación de este enfoque diferente que con el poder de los Estados Unidos, después de que sólo podría permitirnos sobrevivir a nuestra naturaleza más baja.


An excellent piece!


As is always the case, the idea of the underdog opposing the corporations has a certain appeal all its own or at least in movies. But the danger factor is huge given that virtually all politicians depend on the very same major half dozen to a full dozen corporate donors to fund their campaigns. In fact, it’s no secret that these donors play both ends against the middle by funding opposing candidates from either party so that they win no matter who prevails. So rejecting them is a high risk proposition. Just look at what happened to Elizabeth Warren several months ago. She went beyond Sanders in her condemnation of Wall Street and corporate welfare and subsequently went from being an attractive alternative candidate for the democratic party to virtually being forgotten. Nevertheless, Sanders still deserves his due for being his own man. He even criticized Israel for its overkill behavior in Gaza. Well, sort of, anyway. He at least said their actions were too extreme and the that there should be considerable concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people. But that’s another story.
In a way, we shouldn’t be much surprised to see big business pulling the strings in national and world affairs to acquire whatever resources it thinks it needs to carry on the business or making profits. The example of engineering the fall of Mosaddegh during the 1950's in Iran is certainly appropriate to that. But that sort of subversive interference in the affairs of other nations started way before then. I suppose you start in modern times with financing the Bolsheviks to effect the fall of czarist Russia to gain access to Russian or Russian controlled oil fields. You see at that time in industrial history it wasn’t yet clear which source, petroleum or electricity would the prime source for powering locomotion. But oil was cheap and plentiful if not abundant. So the necessary action was taken.
One of the things that we overlook when we attempt to hold the big corporations responsible for what should been seen as criminal activity is that we never see but a few of the men behind the business titles. If we were to take a closer look, we would find that the same families have been the controllers for generations. None of that has changed much. And look where that has gotten us. It’s done nothing but give birth to more and more terrorism and it’s the big money who gets to determine who’s a terrorist and who isn’t. In fact, it’s not unusual to discover that any of these terrorist are using made in the USA weaponry. In reality, it makes no difference whether we know them as al-Qaeda, Hammas, ISIS or the Mossad. They all deal in terror, death, executions, the theft and control of lands and oppression. But those villains are the chessmen that international corporations like to play. And to stand up to them, well, it’s just not commonly done or a healthy practice.

Leave a comment