Chris Hedges's Blog, page 412

White House Lays Out Draconian New Press Rules

The Trump White House conceded defeat in its authoritarian effort to revoke CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials on Monday, but with that concession came yet another attack on the media’s ability to simply do its job—this time in the form of press “decorum” rules that one commentator denounced as “dictatorial.”

According to the new restrictions—which were met with a mixture of bafflement and outrage by reporters and civil libertarians—journalists will only be permitted to ask a “single question” with no follow-ups, unless explicitly allowed by Trump or the White House official running the press briefing.

Reporters will then be required to yield the floor by “physically surrendering” the microphone to White House staff.

If journalists refuse to comply with these rules, the White House decreed, they may be suspended or have their press passes revoked.

The White House has new “decorum” rules for reporters: pic.twitter.com/Sl1SpKh0DV

— Tarini Parti (@tparti) November 19, 2018

In response to the new rules, which were crafted without any input from the White House press corps, the ACLU wrote, “The White House belongs to the public, not the president, and the job of the press is to ask hard questions, not to be polite.”

“These rules give the White House far too much discretion to avoid real scrutiny,” the ACLU continued. “Asking an ‘unauthorized’ follow-up question cannot be the basis for excluding a reporter. The rules should be revised to ensure that no journalist gets kicked out of the WH for doing her job.”

While some journalists and commentators floated the now-common suggestion that reporters should just stop going to White House press briefings entirely, others argued that reporters should show solidarity and push back against the Trump administration by not allowing the White House to dodge and lie by simply moving on to the next question.

The White House Correspondents need some new rules.

1. When the President avoids answering a question, the next journalist will follow up.

2. Likewise when the President tells a known lie. https://t.co/Fiw8WXTbqj

— James Gleick (@JamesGleick) November 19, 2018

After the White House unveiled its “decorum” rules, CNN anchor and chief media correspondent Brian Stelter asked three people who have worked closely with Trump what the new restrictions mean and whether they can actually be enforced.

While the anonymous individuals expressed uncertainty about the substance of the rules, one person predicted that it is “only a matter of time” before Trump tries to use the restrictions as a pretext to revoke other journalists’ press credentials.

Katie Townsend, legal director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, expressed similar concerns in an interview with The Atlantic, noting that “these ‘rules’ suggest that a reporter could jeopardize her or his hard pass simply by attempting to ask a single follow-up question without permission.”

“How these ‘rules’ will be applied is entirely unclear,” Townsend continued, “and the way they are written leaves wide open the possibility that the White House will use them as an excuse to avoid answering questions it does not like, or—as it did with Mr. Acosta and CNN—to punish particular reporters and news outlets based on what the White House views as unfavorable coverage of the administration.”

The Mainstream Media Is Lying About the California Fires

I don’t like accurately predicting the future. But it happens to me sometimes. And it’s never a good thing.

Not once have I predicted that I would stumble upon a great sum of money or that a friendly squirrel would mysteriously leave a fresh, delicious scone on my windowsill. No, the things I’ve said that have come true years later have always been utterly awful. And the latest one has to do with California.

This week, Donald Trump has continued to blame the horrific fires in California on forest mismanagement—basically saying that if the parks service had just raked up a few more dry leaves, then countless people, homes and buildings would not have been incinerated. I unintentionally predicted this kind of idiocy. I said something similar in a 2011 stand-up comedy album titled “Chaos For The Weary.”

To paraphrase, I said, “You notice no matter how close they say the major effects of global warming are, it doesn’t change how we all behave. … Soon they’ll be saying, ‘People in California are ON FIRE!’ and everyone will be like, ‘They probably live in a very fiery area. They’re probably storing dry stuff in their homes—like old magazines and elderly people.”

And sure enough, here we are. People in California are on fire, and the president is saying it’s because they stored too many dry pine needles around their homes. Trump is able to do this because most of the mainstream media are allowing him to fill a void—a void that represents the answer to these questions: “Why is this happening? Why is our nation turning into one of the lower circles of hell?”

Don’t get me wrong—the corporate media have extensively covered that California is ON FIRE. They have. They just can’t bring themselves to say the words “climate change” very often. No. It gets caught in their throat like a dry falafel puck. They look like they want to say it but just can’t—like a dog that wants to tell you it has a thorn in its paw. But it’s just impossible.

Take, for example, “NBC Nightly News.” You can’t get a finer news program anywhere (in the building where they tape). I watched a full six-minute segment last week covering multiple California fires, the destruction, the loss of life; they even had reporters on the ground. And yet throughout the entire report, they never uttered the words “climate change,” “global warming” or even simply, “We are fucked.” Instead, they made it sound like fires are a tragic yet common occurrence, and the cities will rebuild.

Never speaking the words “climate change” while whole towns literally go up in flames is like covering the drowning death of someone and never mentioning he was being waterboarded at the time. The real cause of these fires is at least half the story, if not more.

NBC host Kate Snow did say these fires are “ones for the history books,” but I guess those books are going to get shorter and shorter because “1,000-year fires” are quickly becoming “5-year fires.” Saying these fires are “ones for the history books” implies that 20 years from now, the children in California will be reading about the Great fires of 2018.

But they won’t.

They won’t be in the history books—because in 20 years the history books will be ON FIRE. And the great fires of 2018 will look like nothing but a warm day with a piña colada. Here’s an example of what I mean: A headline from HuffPost read, “California’s Wildfires This Year Have Been Breaking Records—The state has experienced some of the biggest and deadliest fires in its history this year.”

Sounds pretty accurate, doesn’t it? The only problem is that article is from December 2017. LAST year. Did they go down in the history books? How often does everyone huddle under the blankets and take turns telling scary tales about the 2017 fires?

Acting like each year’s fires are a fluke that will never happen again—that in and of itself is denying climate change. It is lying to the American people in order to cover up that we are promoting a system based on big oil, big factory farming and big environmental destruction. A new Media Matters report found the mainstream media only say “climate change” in reports about these recent fires 4 percent  of the time.

Now, some of you may be thinking, “You can’t prove these fires were caused by climate change.” And you’re right. I can’t. But the Union of Concerned Scientists can.

They said, “The effects of global warming on temperature, precipitation levels, and soil moisture are turning many of our forests into kindling during wildfire season.” The scientists also pointed out that wildfires are increasing and that the wildfire season is getting longer in the U.S. In terms of forest fires over 1,000 acres in size, in the 1980s, there were 140. In the 1990s, there were 160. And from 2000 to 2012, there were 250. And as mentioned before, 2017 was California’s worst wildfire season. … Until 2018.

So if they’re not willing to talk about the obvious causes of our pop-up infernos, what was “NBC Nightly News” reporting on? Well, they spent a good amount of time on the firefighters—correctly informing viewers that these men and women are heroes, and they’re putting their lives on the line to try to save people they’ve never met. Good job, NBC. You only missed one thing. You somehow failed to say that many of the firefighters you highlighted are PRISONERS LOCKED AWAY IN CALIFORNIA’S CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM!

Estimates are that 30 percent of the state’s firefighters are prisoners, and it’s clear from the uniforms that many of the ones NBC filmed were indeed inmates. Sure, they volunteered for that job, but many of them are locked up for small crimes and see no way out of the misery and hardship of prison other than to “volunteer” for fire duty. It’s kind of like how I “volunteered” to give my wallet and shoes to that guy with a gun when he casually noted that he liked my wallet and shoes.

Furthermore, the inmates are working as firefighters for roughly $1 per hour.

ONE DOLLAR PER HOUR.

They get paid less than the amount of money most people are willing to bend down to pick up if they see it in a puddle. But NONE of this is said by “NBC Nightly News” even as they show video of the inmates fighting fires. This would be like showing Nike sweatshop workers in Indonesia and saying, “These fine craftsmen are making your shoes. Oh man, do they love making shoes. They volunteered to do it.”

Are you starting to get the point? Kate Snow’s job—like most of those in mainstream media—is to cover up your reality. Her job is to make you think we live in a system that can recover from this carnage WITHOUT large-scale changes, without a new economic paradigm that doesn’t reward waste and planned obsolescence and profiting off the lives of others. Generally speaking, the job of mainstream corporate outlets is to ignore the harsh reality that our endless consumption and furious appetite for fossil fuels are burning our country, turning it into a desert wasteland—and the easiest response is to throw slave labor at the problem.

On the other hand, it’s the job of you and me to see through the propaganda, through the spectacle and the bullshit, and to fight for a better world.

Maybe it will help if I predict that 20 years from now we all will have woken up from this mass delusion and switched to a sustainable, green, egalitarian economic system.

It’s about time I had a positive prediction come true.

—If you’d like to hear my other latest predictions, check out my brand new stand-up comedy special “Super Patriotic Very Uncle Sam Comedy Special Not Allowed On American TV.” It’s only available at LeeCampComedySpecial.com. 

This column is similar to a monologue I wrote and performed on my TV show “Redacted Tonight.”

Shooting at Chicago’s Mercy Hospital Leaves 4 Dead

Truthdig update: Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson said at a press conference that Monday’s slayings started with domestic violence in which the gunman killed a physician he previously had a relationship with, CNN reported. The doctor, Tamara O’Neal, was shot outside Mercy Hospital, where she worked.

CHICAGO — An argument outside a Chicago hospital turned deadly when a man pulled out a gun and killed an emergency room doctor with whom he was having a domestic relationship, then ran into the hospital and fatally shot a pharmacy resident and a police officer, authorities said.

The attacker also died Monday but it was not clear if he took his own life or was killed by police at Mercy Hospital on the city’s South Side, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said.

Chicago “lost a doctor, pharmaceutical assistant and a police officer, all going about their day, all doing what they loved,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said, fighting back tears. “This just tears at the soul of our city. It is the face and a consequence of evil.”

Mercy Hospital said the staff who died were Tamara O’Neal, 38, an emergency room physician who never worked on Sunday because of her religious faith, and Dayna Less, 25, a first year pharmacy resident who had recently graduated from Purdue University.

The slain officer was identified as Samuel Jimenez, 28, who joined the department in February 2017 and had recently completed his probationary period, Johnson said. Police said he was married and the father of three children.

The identity of the gunman was not immediately released.

The chain of events that led to the shooting began with an argument in the hospital parking lot involving the gunman and O’Neal, police said.

When a friend of O’Neal tried to intervene, “the offender lifted up his shirt and displayed a handgun,” Johnson said.

The friend ran into the hospital to call for help, and the gunfire began seconds later, with the attacker killing O’Neal.

After O’Neal fell to the ground, the gunman “stood over her and shot her three more times,” a witness named James Gray told reporters.

When officers arrived, the suspect fired at their squad car and then ran inside the hospital. The police gave chase.

Inside the medical center, the gunman exchanged fire with officers and “shot a poor woman who just came off the elevator” before he was killed, Johnson said, referring to pharmaceutical assistant Less.

“We just don’t know how much damage he was prepared to do,” Johnson said, adding that Less “had nothing to do with nothing.”

Jennifer Eldridge was working in a hospital pharmacy when she heard three or four shots that seemed to come from outside. Within seconds, she barricaded the door, as called for in the building’s active shooter drills. Then there were six or seven more shots that sounded much closer, just outside the door.

“I could tell he was now inside the lobby. There was screaming,” she recalled.

The door jiggled, which Eldridge believed was the shooter trying to get in. Some 15 minutes later, she estimated, a SWAT team officer knocked at the door, came inside and led her away. She looked down and saw blood on the floor but no bodies.

“It may have been 15 minutes, but it seemed like an eternity,” she said.

Maria Correa hid under a desk, clutching her 4-month-old son, Angel, while the violence unfolded. Correa was in the waiting area of the hospital for her mother-in-law’s doctor appointment when a hospital employee told them to lock themselves in offices.

She lost track of how many shots she heard while under the desk “trying to protect her son” for 10 to 15 minutes.

“They were the worst minutes of our lives,” Correa said.

The death of Jimenez comes nine months after another member of the Chicago Police Department, Cmdr. Paul Bauer, was fatally shot while pursuing a suspect in the Loop business district.

Mercy has a rich history as the city’s first chartered hospital. It began in 1852, when the Sisters of Mercy religious group converted a rooming house. During the Civil War, the hospital treated both Union soldiers and Confederate prisoners of war, according to its website.

___

Associated Press Writer Michael Tarm contributed to this report.

___

For the latest developments in this story: https://apnews.com/b86560bd9fd8414eaf... .

Ginsburg’s Ribs and the Future of SCOTUS

Editor’s note: This article was initially published by The Progressive.

The biggest story coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court these days is no longer the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. It’s the tumble Ruth Bader Ginsburg took in her office earlier this month, which resulted in three fractured ribs.

Although Ginsburg is out of the hospital and expected to return to work soon, the incident is a stark reminder that, despite the Democratic takeover of the House in the midterms, Trump and the GOP still control appointments to the Supreme Court. And with that appointment power comes the ability to shape the course of American law.

Even before Ginsburg’s accident, the prospect of her departure from the court prompted calls from liberal activists and some prominent law professors to revive Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing plan of the New Deal era. Some writers on the left, like Current Affairs columnist Vanessa Bee, argue that “court packing is necessary to save democracy.”

While no doubt controversial, such a plan may be the best—and possibly only—way to counter conservative domination of the Supreme Court, which will otherwise continue for decades to come. But implementation won’t be easy. It will require the Democrats to take back both the presidency and the Senate in 2020. It will also require a concerted effort to educate the public about the dangers of leaving the Supreme Court in conservative hands for the foreseeable future.

To assess the wisdom of reviving Roosevelt’s plan, it’s necessary to look back at the original.

In 1937, FDR proposed adding up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, boosting the total number from nine to fifteen. He pressed for the plan because the court had invalidated critical components of his economic reform program, including the National Recovery and Agricultural Adjustment Acts.

Shortly after FDR unveiled the plan in a fireside chat, however, the court began to reverse its stance on several New Deal measures—the fabled “switch in time that saved nine.” In due course, the court approved a number of reforms that eventually became staples of our political landscape, such as Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act.

The court-packing plan, which never attracted widespread support, was rendered moot by the court’s turnaround. It was sent back to committee after briefly making it to the Senate floor, and never enacted.

It’s easy to understand the reasons behind the plan’s current revival, especially in view of renewed concerns about Ginsburg’s age and medical history. At 85, she is well past the average retirement age of eighty for justices who have left the high court since 1986. She is also a survivor of both colon and pancreatic cancer, and she sustained two cracked ribs in an earlier injury in 2014. Stephen Breyer, the panel’s next senior member and one of its four remaining Democratic appointees, is eighty.

Both Ginsburg and Breyer are hardy souls, but few expect either of them to soldier on much beyond 2020. Whether they retire before or after the 2020 elections, Trump and the GOP will have a virtually free hand in naming their replacements if Trump remains president and the GOP retains the Senate.

Under the Constitution’s “advice and consent” clause, only the Senate has the power to approve or reject federal judicial nominations. Because the Senate eliminated the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominations in 2017 to clear the way for Neil Gorsuch’s elevation, the upper chamber exercises that power by a simple majority vote. The House gets no say.

With the Supreme Court already tilting decisively to the right, any further attrition of its liberal membership could make the tribunal more conservative than it has been at any time seen since the Gilded Age. Even with the court’s present five-four conservative majority, a host of core liberal precedents are at risk, ranging from affirmative action and abortion rights to environmental protections, wage and hour standards, voting rights, and same-sex marriage.

Not even Social Security and Medicare are safe from GOP threats to cut back on entitlements. On the fringes of the conservative movement today, rightwing law professors and pundits are reviving long-dormant attacks on both programs, contending that Congress never had the constitutional authority to implement them.

The danger of this happening is real, not theoretical.

For better or worse, federal judicial appointments are for life. On average, since 1970, Supreme Court justices have served 26.1 years on the bench. According to a recent study published by the Harvard Business School, given increasing life expectancy in the U.S., the average tenure is expected to rise over time to 35 years. As Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik noted in a column on court-packing published in June:

“The members of the conservative bloc on the court are spring chickens, as Supreme Court justices go. Clarence Thomas is 70, Chief Justice John Roberts 63, Samuel Alito 68 and Neil Gorsuch, the first Trump appointee, only 50.” Kavanaugh, appointed after Hiltzik penned his op-ed, is a scant 53.

Short of retirement, death, or a constitutional amendment lifting lifetime tenure, the only way to remove a Supreme Court justice is through impeachment. And impeachment is an ineffective remedy, requiring conviction by a two-thirds majority in a trial before the Senate. Only one Supreme Court Justice in our history has been impeached—Samuel Chase, who was cited in 1804 for political bias. Chase was acquitted by the Senate the following year.

The advantage of expanding the number of Supreme Court justices is that expansion only requires an act of Congress.

The Constitution does not establish the number of justices. That determination is up to Congress. Throughout our history, the number of justices has varied from six when the Constitution was ratified to seven from 1807 to 1839, nine from 1837 to 1863, ten from 1863 to 1866, and seven again from 1866 to 1869, when the number was raised to the present nine.

If the Democrats reclaim the Senate and hold onto the House, they could abolish or amend the remaining filibuster rules that still apply to pending legislation and increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court by a majority vote in both chambers. A Democratic president could then sign enabling legislation into law.

Raising the number of justices—say, to eleven—would not only allow for Ginsburg and Breyer to step down, if they so choose, but would also permit the appointment of younger justices who would be capable of preventing the present conservative bloc from returning American jurisprudence to the late 19th century.

This is, admittedly, no easy task. First the Democrats have to win the next election. Then, they have to get serious about remaking the nation’s highest court. The alternative is to hope that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh experience a liberal epiphany akin to the “switch in time.”

It wasn’t long ago that we hoped the GOP would give Obama’s last Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, a hearing. Look where that got us. Banking on hope, unfortunately, is a fool’s errand.

BuzzFeed’s Jonah Peretti Wants to Join With Rivals

The year 2017 was, as Derek Thompson wrote in The Atlantic, “A uniquely miserable year in the media business.” He pointed to a 30 percent cut in the editorial budget at Vanity Fair, a $20 million drop in advertising revenue at The New York Times, and 500 layoffs at Oath, the corporate parent of Yahoo and AOL. This year hasn’t been much better, with layoffs at Upworthy, The Outline, McClatchy and the New York Daily News. Local media, especially, is suffering. In July, Kyle Pope wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review that “America’s local news has reached its death spiral phase.”

Given this landscape, BuzzFeed’s chief executive, Jonah Peretti, believes he has the solution, at least to his own company’s survival: a merger with rival internet publishers. According to an interview with The New York Times published Monday, Peretti said, “You have Vice and Vox Media and Group Nine and Refinery. … There’s tons of them that are doing interesting work.”

Peretti pointed to concerns about the spread of disinformation on social media platforms and believes that “[h]aving some bigger companies that actually care about the quality of the content feels like something that’s very valuable.”

The Times’ Edmund Lee sums up Peretti’s arguments: “A larger entity could lobby for better business terms from Facebook and Google, and in turn supply them with videos and articles safe for users and friendlier for advertisers.”

Lee writes that Peretti’s optimism is challenged by the reality of the varying sizes and ownership structures of the other companies, as well as their focus and content: “Any deal would be difficult to pull off given the number of investors involved and the compounding losses that would result from combining several money-losing start-ups. Staff cuts would be inevitable.”

According to the Times, only very limited discussions have taken place.

The companies Peretti names in his merger wish list have all been struggling with either layoffs or labor problems of their own.

Refinery 29 laid off approximately 10 percent of its staff at the end of October, its second round of layoffs this year. Vice recently was roiled by accusations of sexual harassment. Its last layoffs occurred in 2017, but the company announced a hiring freeze in early November, aiming, as The Wall Street Journal reported, “to shrink its workforce by as much as 15% through attrition and cut its selection of digital sites by at least half.”

Union members from Thrillist, one of Group Nine Media’s properties, went on a brief strike this summer, before renegotiating their contract. Vice, too, has a union, and its next bargaining session is in December, before the current contract expires on the 31st of that month. BuzzFeed has its own issues with both declining revenue (it missed targets in 2017 by about $90 million, earning $260 million instead of the hoped-for $350 million) and labor. BuzzFeed’s own media reporter, Steven Perlberg, tweeted from an all-staff meeting that when asked about unions, “@peretti says he is not personally anti union but says he doesn’t think unionization is right for BuzzFeed, per sources.”

Executives from several of the companies Peretti named were supportive but noncommittal regarding a merger. Benjamin Lerer, the chief executive of Group Nine, said there is a “natural camaraderie” between companies and that “I don’t believe my competition is BuzzFeed or Vox or Vice. … We compete on a day-to-day basis for business, but the ultimate competition here is us against traditional TV and also protecting ourselves against the big platforms.”

Vox acknowledged that consolidation may be inevitable, as did Refinery 29, though neither company commented directly on prospects for joining with BuzzFeed. Vice did not respond to the Times’ request for comment.

Who’s Really Leading the Democratic Rebellion Against Pelosi?

It’s impossible to understand the Democratic rebellion against Nancy Pelosi without understanding the way power works in the House of Representatives. To understand the self-serving men behind this rebellion, heed the words of the late screenwriter William Goldman: Follow the money.

There is discontent with Pelosi’s ideology on the left, and that’s understandable. But ideology is not driving this campaign, and this is no populist rebellion. In fact, its leaders have no discernible ideology at all.

That’s how corporate money rolls in the Democratic Party. It lays low, hides its true colors, and pretends it only wants to “get things done.”

The anti-Pelosi insurgency is not a movement. It’s a cabal, orchestrated by the appropriately hashtagged #FiveWhiteGuys, a group of self-self-interested players with big money behind them. These white males resemble nothing so much as the next-generation terminator played by Robert Patrick in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” They’re cunning, aggressive, shape-shifting, and so reflective that anyone who looks at them sees only a distorted image of themselves.

If you’re looking to change politics, they don’t reflect you.

Rebel Without a Cause

This ersatz rebellion’s most visible leader is Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, a custom-crafted biography in a suit who appears to hold no core beliefs. That’s undoubtedly a plus for the political operatives who recruited and promoted him. An early profile has Moulton variously calling himself “a progressive Democrat,” a “pragmatic Democrat,” and a “frustrated Democrat”—and that was just during his first primary.

Moulton was reportedly recruited to run for Congress by “New Politics,” a group that seeks to elect both Democratic and Republican veterans. It describes itself as “bipartisan,” a word will come up again in the story of the anti-Pelosi rebellion. New Politics’ other success story is Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who notably blamed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, rather than the ill-advised Iraq war, for the rise of ISIS.

Moulton, who reportedly backed that tragic misadventure, enjoyed the early support of two generals who helped lead it, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal. (Unfortunately, both are now disgraced: McChrystal for disrespecting the civilian chain of command, and Petraeus for revealing secrets to an extramarital lover as he cheated on his wife, a crime that would have likely led to criminal indictment for a less well-connected official.)

As the Washington Post reports, Moulton “has aligned with Republicans on some policy bills, ranging from a ban on the gun accessories used in last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas to a recent legislation allowing veterans to use medical marijuana.”

Moulton had praise for Pelosi when he was asked about her last year, saying she had achieved an “awful lot.” He told Politico’s Michael Kruse that he thought much of the Republican criticism of her was “unfair,” but added, “the reality is that we’re losing.”

Well, Pelosi’s winning now. What’s his rationale for opposing Pelosi today? “If that many seats change hands,” Moulton said after the election, “that’s just all the more reason the American people are calling out for change.”

Heads, he wins. Tails, Pelosi loses.

The FIRE Brigade

Moulton’s given to making hazy statements like: “Congress needs a new leader. Period.”

The only concrete thing about him appears to be the money he’s raised for like-minded candidates. “Thanks to a network of donors rooted in the financial centers of Boston and New York,” reports the Post, “Moulton’s Serve America PAC and related political committees raised a combined $8 million for the election cycle.”

Moulton has been well-rewarded for his ideological plasticity. During his short political career, Moulton has received a total of $1,723,870 from the investor class that comprises the so-called “FIRE” sector—financial, insurance, and real estate. He has also received more than $160,000 from Pharma. (These figures come from Open Secrets.)

Moulton isn’t the only member of the five-man anti-Pelosi band, of course. The rhythm section is composed of Colorado’s Ed Perlmutter, Oregon’s Kurt Schrader, and Bill Foster of Illinois. The three men have received $4,082,803, $987,050, and $2,747,969 respectively from the FIRE sector. Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, who mounted a longshot challenge to Pelosi in 2016, is the band’s other leader—the Keith Richards, if you will, to Moulton’s would-be Jagger.

Ryan isn’t running this time around. Instead, Ryan recently insisted that there are “plenty of really competent females that we can replace her with.”

For sheer tone-deafness in gender relations, that phrase belongs with Mitt Romney’s 2012 comment about the “binders full of women” he hoped to appoint as president. It may be worse, in fact, since it suggests females can’t be assumed to be competent. The remark will have an added sting for Democratic women who remember Ryan’s past positions on reproductive rights.

Why does Ryan say Pelosi has to go? “We need a brand change,” Ryan told Rolling Stone. For content-free criticism, that’s about as empty—and as cringeworthy—as it gets.

No Labels, No Point

The rhetorical style of these Democratic “rebels”—vague on the issues, big on cliches and platitudes, the rhetorical equivalent of cotton candy—comes with a pedigree. It is the hallmark of “centrism,” the billionaire-funded political faction that serves its financial backers by selling themselves as “non-ideological,” “technocratic” architects of “bipartisan” consensus who can “break the gridlock” and “solve problems.”

For this crowd, “solving problems” always winds up meaning the same thing: cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and an unwarranted obsession with the federal deficit that always—just accidentally, mind you!—winds up helping corporations and the billionaire class.

The “centrist” political style claims to be “above parties and partisanship”—which, in the end, is another way of saying it’s free of any principles except the interests of its paymasters. It often comes in the guise of patriotism, as when Seth Moulton says he places “country over party”—a comment that, implicitly, is a deep insult to those who believe one party’s proposals would serve the country better than the other’s.

The anti-Pelosi campaign is being supported by one of the mainstays of the corporate centrist world—the cynical political ploy known as “No Labels,” which I wrote about in 2012, and its creation, the “Problem Solvers Caucus.” If you called “No Labels” a guaranteed-employment plan for Republican and Democratic political hacks, you would not be wrong.

Besides, the Problem Solvers Caucus—which, predictably, promised to “break the gridlock” and get things done—hasn’t solved any problems. Given their agenda, that’s a good thing—but it’s hardly a mandate to lead.

It’s Not About the Speakership —It’s About Blocking Progressive Change

The No Labels crowd is throwing its public influence (negligible) and its ability to muster campaign cash (considerable) behind the anti-Pelosi effort for a reason: they see this as an opportunity to weaken the Democrats’ newfound power in the House. That’s especially urgent for the big-money crowd at a time when nearly half of successful new candidates ran on Medicare for All and more than 100 House Democrats have joined the Expand Social Security Caucus.

The “centrist” campaign may help explain why Pelosi plans to impose a new rule making it harder to raise middle-class taxes. This rule would make it harder to achieve either Medicare for All or expanded Social Security, even though any new taxes would leave the working class much better off financially than it is today.

Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, has already indicated he could back Pelosi if more such changes were put in place. The caucus’ additional proposed changes, roughly outlined here, would effectively give Republicans veto power over progressive legislation.

It is noteworthy that there was no serious attempt to implement these rules when Republicans ran the House.

Even more than the speakership, this procedural power grab motivates the anti-Pelosi crowd and its backers. They might even withdraw their opposition to her if they could seize this power for themselves and their “centrist” allies in both parties.

No wonder these “rebels” are vague about their goals. Given the massive support for Medicare for All (more than 70 percent of the public, 85 percent of Democrats) and expanding Social Security, they know their agenda is extremely unpopular. If they truly believed in “country over party,” they would support programs that most of the country wants and needs.

How Power Works

Here’s how power really works in the House of Representatives. The Speaker holds enormous power, but only serves at the pleasure of her caucus. The representatives in that caucus are not her employees; they are her constituents. Anyone who wants to become Speaker has to win their support.

One very effective way to do that is by raising money, as Pelosi has prodigiously done. Another is by managing the House, and the caucus, effectively enough to rack up a list of accomplishments that will help those representatives win reelection.

Here’s something else worth knowing about Democratic power in the House: Its party organizations are still deeply hierarchical, and are built on deeply embedded relationships. If the Moulton/Ryan gang succeeds in unseating Pelosi, the speakership will not go to someone the left supports. Sure, it would be great to see Barbara Lee become Speaker, but that simply isn’t going to happen. Besides, she’s not even running. (Lee is running for the House’s number five position.)

The Five Guys (not to be confused with the burger chain of the same name) and their backers are almost certainly looking for one of two outcomes: either Pelosi accedes to their demands, which will paralyze the Democratic agenda, or Pelosi is replaced with someone who will. But if Pelosi goes down, that replacement will probably not be Rep. Marcia Fudge, despite her public expressions of interest (as of this writing) and Moulton’s professed support for her.

The Five Guys may block Pelosi, but they will not choose her successor. Instead, in the chaos that would follow a Pelosi defeat, the speakership will probably go to the second-highest member of the Democratic hierarchy: Steny Hoyer.

End Game

The left is distressed with Pelosi, and that’s understandable. Pelosi’s commitment to “pay as you go” funding is a political and procedural mistake of the first order. The new tax rule is, as MoveOn.org and others have said, “a staggeringly bad idea”—although that may have been forced on her by the Five Guys crowd. (Progressives should note, however, that this rule could be waived at any time to pass progressive programs.)

A Hoyer speakership would be a catastrophe for the left, for reasons Politico’s Bill Scher lays out here. Hoyer represents the worst of the corporate-backed, “centrist,” economically neoliberal party elite. His faction’s disastrous policies and muddled messaging led it into the political wilderness. With this election, the party has only begun to make up some of the ground lost under its rule.

Progressives should mobilize to defeat Hoyer and replace him, preferably someone who can serve as an heir apparent. And if the left wants a more progressive House Speaker, it needs to run candidates in more primaries. When House Democrats are more progressive, Pelosi or her successor will either change accordingly or be replaced.

Yes, Pelosi’s a big fundraiser. She reportedly raised $135.6 million for this election cycle. A cynic might say that this figure, when compared to Moulton’s $8 million, makes her about 17 times more likely to win this speakership fight.

Pelosi raises that money, from a variety of sources, because she plays to win in the current system. Nancy Pelosi can’t, and won’t, lead the fight to get money out of politics. But then, the Democratic left needs to stop waiting for politicians to fight their battles. That’s what movements are for.

This country needs a mass movement that will demand fundamental political change. But nobody needs the Five Guys’ corporate-backed chaos, or the reactionary regime it seeks to impose on the House of Representatives.

If some leftists don’t want Pelosi to win, that’s understandable. But they should hope with all their hearts that her opponents lose.

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.

The Ominous Return of the IMF to Latin America

On December 1, Mexico will have a new president—Andrés Manuel López Obrador. He will take over the presidency from the lackluster Enrique Peña Nieto, whose administration is marinated in corruption. Peña Nieto’s legal office has already asked the Supreme Court to shield his officials from prosecution for corruption. The elite will protect itself. López Obrador will not be able to properly exorcize the corrupt from the Mexican state, let alone from Mexican society. Corrupt weeds grow on the soil of capitalism, the loam of profit and greed as well as of rents from government contracts.

López Obrador comes to the presidency as a man of the left, but the space for maneuvering that he has for a left agenda is minimal. Mexico’s economy, through geography and trade agreements, is fused with that of the United States. More than 80 percent of Mexico’s exports go to its neighbor to the north, while Mexico’s financial sector is almost entirely at the mercy of Northern banks.

Already, López Obrador has had to deal with the leash from Northern banks that sits tightly around Mexico’s throat. On October 28, after the election, López Obrador canceled the project to build a new airport for Mexico City. This new airport—at a cost of US$13.4 billion—is seen as far too expensive (Istanbul has just inaugurated a new airport, far bigger, for almost US$2 billion less). The peso fell, the Mexican stock market fell, Fitch downgraded Mexico to “negative,” and international investors frowned.

Then, in early November, legislators from López Obrador’s party—Morena—proposed laws to limit bank fees. Mexico’s stock market collapsed. It was the worst single-day loss of the BMV stock index in seven years. The bankers sent López Obrador a message: don’t rock the boat.

Hastily, López Obrador’s choice for the finance ministry—Carlos Urzúa—scolded the legislators and winked to the banks. Urzúa, an economist, has spent years consulting for the World Bank and other such agencies. It is hard to find an economist these days who has not put his fingers into a consultancy for either the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The economics profession has slid almost wholesale into the pocket of international agencies that are committed to a very asphyxiating version of public policy—one that goes by the name of neoliberalism. It is a policy framework that favors multinational corporations over workers, one that seeks to control inflation rather than find ways to improve the livelihood of people. Finance is the religion, while Money is God.

López Obrador and Urzúa do not have the political power to challenge the order of things.

IMF Comes to Mexico City

Just a month before López Obrador takes office, the IMF sent a team to Mexico. This team came to do a study based on the IMF charter’s Article IV. Its report set limits on what López Obrador’s government can do. There is the usual verbal concern expressed for inequality and poverty, but this is just window-dressing. Nothing in the IMF staff statement indicated a policy that would tackle Mexico’s grave problems of poverty and inequality.

What the report details instead is a caution that López Obrador must not try to invest funds in infrastructure that benefits the Mexican people—investment, for instance, in the sclerotic oil industry (Pemex). Mexico, an oil exporting state, imports oil because it has limited refining capacity. López Obrador has said he wants Mexico to properly develop the state-run oil firm Pemex. But the IMF staff statement says that “further improvements of Pemex’s financial situation are a prerequisite before new investments in refining can be contemplated.” López Obrador will be forced to make drastic cuts in Pemex and to continue to drain the exchequer to import oil. No structural change is going to be possible here without a negative IMF report, which would further encourage an investment strike into Mexico.

Someone should encourage the IMF to stop sending staff teams into countries like Mexico. Each report is identical to the previous one. Nothing seems to be learned by these teams. Years ago, a senior IMF economist told me that when he arrived in a Central Asian country he knew nothing of that country, he got to see nothing of it when he was there and he knew virtually nothing when he drafted the Article IV review. All he did in the country was sit in one air-conditioned room after another, listen to canned reports from nervous finance ministry officials and then develop the report based on the IMF’s same old recipe—make cuts, target welfare, privatize and make sure that the banks are happy.

Latitude for creative policy making is simply not available. The IMF comes to town to tell new governments to behave. López Obrador and his cabinet will have to listen. Any deviation from the IMF recipe will make investors flee and foreign investment dry up. It is so easy these days to suffocate a country.

IMF Comes to Buenos Aires

For the past two decades, the IMF had found it difficult to dictate terms in Latin America. From 2002 to 2007, left-leaning governments governed most of the region, where economic activity was helped along by high commodity prices (including oil prices) and high remittance payments.

Even Mexico’s conservative President Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) had to lean into the prevailing winds of Bolivarianism. In 2011, at the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Calderón championed integration of Latin America—something that is least to be expected from a Mexican head of government, because Mexico is firmly integrated into the United States.

The world financial crisis from 2007 hit Latin America hard. Calderón went to Davos the next year and said that Latin America would be insulated from the crisis. Far from it, Mexico had already begun to suffer job loss as the economy of its main trade partner—the United States—contracted. An IMF study found that Latin America lost 40 percent of its wealth in 2008. Public finances contracted, and public investments declined. Inflation led to higher poverty rates and to social instability.

A quick summary: Why did Latin America’s economies suffer a crisis after 2007? It was not because of the left-leaning governments and their policies. It was because of the over-leveraged financial system, only one of whose asset bubbles—U.S. housing prices—collapsed. Deep integration into and reliance upon the U.S.-dominated financial system, and poor diversification of their economies from the U.S. market, meant that as the U.S. banks contracted, Latin America felt the pain. Over 80 percent of Argentina’s private debt was in dollars in 2002, while only a quarter of Argentina’s economy was geared toward exports. This was the fuel that was fated to burst into flame. It is this dollar reliance that could not be corrected.

The exported economic problem had a political impact. It weakened the left-leaning governments, even as these governments tried to ameliorate the crisis. Many of these governments—from Argentina to Brazil—lost elections, while social turmoil struck others—from Venezuela to Nicaragua. It is in this context that the International Monetary Fund returned to Latin America with a vengeance.

After two decades of relative absence, the IMF has now returned to Argentina (on which please see this dossier from Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research). Its Article IV staff statement from December last year pointed to the problems of high borrowing in foreign currency, a problem that was recognized in 2001-2002. But the power of international finance—centered at Wall Street and the City of London—prevented any easy pivot out of this problem. It was easier to demand cuts from the already meager incomes of ordinary people.

In 1994, Mexico suffered from what became known as the “tequila crisis,” as the peso collapsed when international capital fled the country. The government would not place capital controls to protect the peso against currency speculators. The “tequila effect” then spread to South America. No one was prepared to stand up to the dollar and the speculators. From the forests of Chiapas, Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatistas spoke out in favor of the pockets of the forgotten, the people who did not cause the crisis but who would bear the cost of these financial shenanigans. Once more, with help from the IMF, the pockets of the forgotten from Argentina to Mexico will suffer so that finance is left intact.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

White House Ramps Up War on Acosta, Political Press

CNN requested an emergency hearing Monday after the White House warned reporter Jim Acosta that it would again suspend his press pass after a two-week restraining order expires.

Three days after a federal judge ordered the administration to restore Acosta’s press pass allowing him to attend briefings and report on the White House, officials sent the reporter a letter warning that his rights would soon be suspended again.

“The White House is continuing to violate the First and 5th Amendments of the Constitution,” CNN said in a statement after Acosta received the letter. “These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and the president.”

Acosta has been on the receiving end of much of the Trump administration’s crusade against the free press, but other critics joined the network in saying the White House’s latest attack on him represents a threat to the press at large.

As a nationwide community of novelists, journalists, editors, and writers, PEN America holds that President Trump’s efforts to use the power of the state against the media are not only unbecoming a US President—they’re unconstitutional. https://t.co/q5nJXduJn2

— PEN America (@PENamerican)

Revoking access to the White House because the President objects to questions posed by a credentialed journalist is an act of retaliation prohibited by the 1st Amendment and represents a dangerous development in this Administration’s attack on free and independent press. https://t.co/1D7pGtoC3J

— George Lehner (@GALehner) November 8, 2018

Acosta’s press pass was revoked on November 7 after the White House falsely accused him of aggressively putting his hands on an intern who was attempting to take a microphone away from him to stop him from questioning President Donald Trump.

After critics derided the administration for using a doctored video to make its point, the White House changed its story, saying last week that Acosta’s pass was revoked only because he had “refused to surrender” the microphone.

After CNN filed a lawsuit, federal Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted the network a temporary restraining order forcing the White House to restore Acosta’s press pass—emphasizing the “limited nature” of the ruling but also saying CNN would likely win its larger case against the administration.

On Sunday, the president told Fox News that the White House still planned to “throw [Acosta] out” if he was seen as “misbehaving” during a press conference. Trump also said the White House would be writing new “rules and regulations for conduct” that journalists would be required to follow, echoing Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ statement on Friday that “There must be decorum at the White House”—a call that was mocked by critics who pointed out the marked lack of respect the president has shown his opponents.

Fresh off decrying lack of “decorum” among members of the press, Trump mocks a Democratic congressman’s stature and misspells his name to call him a piece of excrement.

How’s that antibullying campaign going, @FLOTUS? pic.twitter.com/ldp1B7tcSo

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 18, 2018

.@PressSec says there must be “decorum at the White House” for “fair & orderly press conferences.”

Note: Pres Trump often interrupts reporters’ q’s & reporters must then stand, as I did, & keeping talk to complete q’s & get in more q’s.

Not quite orderly but that’s the job.

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) November 16, 2018

Germany Rescinds Approval for Saudi Arms Sales

WASHINGTON — The Latest on the slaying of journalist Jamal Khashoggi (all times local):

8:05 a.m.

The German government says it has halted previously approved arms exports to Saudi Arabia amid the fallout from the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Germany said a month ago it wouldn’t approve any new weapons exports to Saudi Arabia, but left open what would happen with already approved contracts.

Germany’s economy ministry oversees the authorization of arms exports. Ministry spokesman Philipp Jornitz said Monday that “the German government is working with those who have valid authorizations with the result that there are currently no (weapons) exports from Germany to Saudi Arabia.”

Also on Monday, Germany’s foreign minister said Berlin has banned 18 Saudi nationals from entering Europe’s border-free Schengen zone because they are believed connected to Khashoggi’s killing. Heiko Maas said there are still “more questions than answers.”

___

6 a.m.

Germany’s foreign minister says Berlin has banned 18 Saudi nationals from entering Europe’s border-free Schengen zone because they are believed to be connected to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Heiko Maas told reporters in Brussels on Monday that Germany issued the ban for the 26-nation zone in close coordination with France, which is part of the Schengen area, and Britain, which is not.

He says “as before, there are more questions than answers in this case, with the crime itself and who is behind it.”

Maas says the 18 are Saudis who are “allegedly connected to this crime” but gave no further information.

In Berlin his office said they can’t release the names due to German privacy protections.

___

12:30 a.m.

President Donald Trump said there is no reason for him to listen to a recording of the “very violent, very vicious” killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which has put him in a diplomatic bind: how to admonish Riyadh for the slaying yet maintain strong ties with a close ally.

Trump, in an interview that aired Sunday, made clear that the audio recording, supplied by the Turkish government, would not affect his response to the Oct. 2 killing of Khashoggi, a columnist for The Washington Post who had been critical of the Saudi royal family.

Trump said he “was fully briefed on it, there’s no reason for me to hear it.” Trump is expecting a full report on the situation soon.

U.K.’s May Confronts Party Rebels as EU Prepares Brexit Summit

LONDON — British Prime Minister Theresa May sought to seal business support for her Brexit deal with the European Union on Monday, but remained on a collision course with a group of lawmakers seeking to unseat her.

The draft agreement has triggered an avalanche of criticism in Britain and left May fighting to keep her job, even as she races to firm up the final deal before a crucial EU summit.

May told business lobby group the Confederation of British Industry that “an intense week of negotiations” lay ahead to finalize the framework for future relations between Britain and the bloc before EU leaders meet on Sunday to rubber-stamp the deal.

Last week — after a year and a half of tense negotiations — Britain and the EU agreed on the terms of their divorce. But while the 585-page, legally binding withdrawal agreement is complete, Britain and the EU still need to flesh out their far less detailed seven-page declaration on future relations.

May told her business audience Monday that the “core elements” of the future relationship were in place. She said the deal “fulfils the wishes of the British people” to leave the EU, by taking back control of the U.K.’s laws, money and borders.

May confirmed the government’s plan to end the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in the U.K., saying Britain’s future immigration policy will be based on skills, rather than nationality.

“It will no longer be the case that EU nationals, regardless of the skills or experience they have to offer, can jump the queue ahead of engineers from Sydney or software developers from Delhi,” May said.

The deal has infuriated pro-Brexit lawmakers in May’s Conservative Party and sparked a leadership crisis. The Brexiteers want a clean break with the bloc and argue that the close trade ties called for in the agreement will leave Britain a vassal state, bound to EU rules it has no say in making.

Two Cabinet ministers, including Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, resigned in protest, and rebels are trying to gather the signatures of 48 lawmakers needed to trigger a no-confidence vote.

One of the rebels, Simon Clarke, on Monday urged wavering colleagues to help trigger a leadership challenge.

“It is quite clear to me that the captain is driving the ship at the rocks,” Clarke said.

Even if May sees off a leadership challenge, she still has to get the deal approved by Parliament. Her Conservatives don’t have a parliamentary majority, and it’s not clear whether she can persuade enough lawmakers to back her agreement.

May argues that abandoning the plan, with Britain’s withdrawal just over four months away on March 29, could lead to a disorderly and economically damaging “no deal” Brexit — or to a situation in which Britain’s exit from the EU is postponed indefinitely.

Some Conservative Brexiteers, including Raab, say May should stay in post but try to renegotiate the deal — something May and other EU leaders insist is impossible.

Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok said Monday that “the withdrawal treaty is as good as it will get,” while Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn also said there is “no better” Brexit deal for Britain.

“We must make it understood today that this deal which is now on the table is the best one possible. There is no better one for this crazy Brexit,” Asselborn said as EU foreign ministers met in Brussels before a leaders’ summit on Sunday at which the bloc intends to sign off on the deal.

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier said the EU ministers “have agreed to the principle” of a one-off extension of the post-Brexit transition period if the two sides need more time to finalize a trade deal. Under the divorce agreement, Britain agrees to be bound by EU rules during the transition, due to end in December 2020.

Barnier wouldn’t give a specific end-date for the extension. It’s a delicate issue for May, because some in her party worry the extension could be used to trap Britain in the EU’s rules indefinitely.

May says any extension must be finished before the next U.K. election, scheduled for the first half of 2022.

Striking a defiant note, May said “we have in view a deal that will work for the U.K. And let no one be in any doubt – I am determined to deliver it.”

In Brussels, Austria’s minister for Europe, Gernot Bluemel, struck a more melancholy note.

“A painful week in European politics is starting,” he said. “We have the divorce papers on the table; 45 years of difficult marriage are coming to an end.”

___

Casert reported from Brussels.