Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 807
April 12, 2016
Patrick Stewart goes Oregon white supremacist in the devious thriller “Green Room”
You can, if you want to, draw connections between writer-director Jeremy Saulnier’s terrific indie horror-thriller “Green Room” and recent news headlines out of rural Oregon, where the film is set. But honestly, it’s kind of a stretch. This world of Pacific Northwest white supremacists — a neo-Nazi skinhead encampment, home to a punk club where a D.C. hardcore band called the Ain’t Rights plays what is likely to be their last show — is only distantly related to that of the rural anti-government losers who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January. Mind you, both are scary and armed and stupid and devious. Both hate immigrants and people of color and the federal government, and share some delusional vision of a breakaway all-white nation among the redwood trees. But I bet they don’t like each other too much either. If you’ve never heard of Saulnier or seen his movies, that’s because nobody else has either. “Green Room” ought to change that: It’s gruesome and funny and dark and incredibly tense, and by his standards it’s pretty much a star vehicle. Patrick Stewart, in one of the great casting-against-type roles of recent years, plays Darcy, the avuncular, bespectacled leader of the Nazi skins, faced with the fact that the Ain’t Rights are witnesses to murder and know more about his backwoods operation than they should. We also have Anton Yelchin (Chekov from the “Star Trek” film franchise) as Pat, the Ain’t Rights’ feckless lead singer; British actress Imogen Poots as Amber, a Nazi-skin girl who may or may not be defecting, and Alia Shawkat of “Arrested Development” fame as the slightly butch Sam, who plays bass in the Ain’t Rights and serves as the band’s semi-adult spokesperson. If this movie drives you toward questions like, Who the hell made this? And what else has he made? I can promise you won’t be disappointed. Saulnier feels like a director out of the Hot Tub Time Machine in many ways, making self-consciously unfriendly and even “underground” movies rooted in a deep appreciation for subcultural byways that the rest of the world has either forgotten about or packaged and sold. Admittedly, his hot tub doesn’t smell too fresh and has mysterious lumps floating in it, but that’s a big part of the Saulnier magic. I wouldn’t have heard of him either, except that his hilarious Brooklyn-set horror farce “Murder Party” came out in 2007, when I was following indie genre film obsessively. It jumped out right away as not quite like anything else. (I still giggle when I remember the mad killer armed with an electric chainsaw, which keeps coming unplugged.) It took six years after that for Saulnier to get another feature made; his IMDB profile suggests he’s made his living as a camera operator on “Oprah’s Master Class.” But the wait resulted in “Blue Ruin,” the extraordinary 2013 rural revenge thriller that played the Cannes and Toronto festivals but never found much of an audience. It was perhaps too gory and too downscale for whatever remains of the art-house audience, but also too slow and too morally oblique for the Fantastic Fest genre-movie crowd. I might want to argue that “Blue Ruin” is a better movie than “Green Room” because it’s more original, but that’s only a question of taste. “Green Room” is just as masterfully controlled and just as loaded with black humor and plot twists, but it belongs to a more recognizable genre: This is a cabin-in-the-woods film, not dissimilar to “The Evil Dead” or “From Dusk Till Dawn,” except that our band of roguish heroes are besieged by wannabe commandos from the Fourth Reich rather than literal zombies or demons. I’m not surprised to learn that Saulnier was once in a punk band; if you’ve spent any time on the fringes of that scene you will recognize that the portrayal of the Ain’t Rights and their struggle isn’t satirical or exaggerated in the least. I called them a D.C. band earlier, but Sam corrects a small-town radio interviewer on that one: They’re actually from Arlington, just across the river -- the kind of micro-distinction that can contain multitudes. (I have bitter memories of being derided in San Francisco punk clubs for the gross ideological crime of being from Berkeley.) Their cross-country trek in an ancient Chevy van, largely fueled on gas siphoned out of other people’s parked cars, reaches its nadir in some small Oregon city (is it Bend? Grants Pass? Ashland?) with a “headline gig” in a Mexican restaurant, for which they are paid $35. Faced with a possible beatdown, their local punk-nerd host (David W. Thompson) has a suggestion: His cousin runs a club out in the boonies! Yeah, it’s all “boots and braces” — that is, skinheads with dubious political views — but the Ain’t Rights can make enough money from one gig to buy gas for the entire trip back to Washington (or Arlington). And it all goes great! OK, the whole environment at Darcy’s rural stronghold is scary as hell, but as Saulnier captures brilliantly, this musical form was always rooted in violence and aggression and attracted all kinds of disturbed and disturbing people, but those elements were almost always sublimated. The Ain’t Rights play their set and the crowd pretty much likes them despite their cover version of the Dead Kennedys’ 1981 classic “Nazi Punks Fuck Off.” (Or maybe because of that, who knows?) Anyway, the immanent hostility is kept to a manageable level, the band gets its money in cash and starts to load out. Oh, wait: There’s a dead girl in the green room. We don’t even encounter Stewart’s Nazi-punk paterfamilias Darcy, who hands out “red laces” to his most devoted followers (you can probably figure out how they earn them), until after the discovery of the girl with a knife in her head. Pat, Sam and their bandmates Reece (Joe Cole) and Tiger (Callum Turner) have phoned 911, and the cops are on their way. But Darcy’s reasonable-sounding lieutenant Gabe (Macon Blair) is “handling” the situation, and the band has been confined in the green room with an impressive and armed individual known as Big Justin (Eric Edelstein) — just until things blow over, of course. Darcy is at first just a voice through the door: Yes, things have gone south a little and that’s a shame, but he’s quite sure they can find a solution to this problem. Stewart plays this guy as, well, a Patrick Stewart character, wise, rueful and troubled about the evident amorality of the task before him. Which is somehow much worse than making him a racist lunatic. Amber, Imogen Poots’ character, is locked in with the band (and, of course, Big Justin and the dead girl) and serves as an important X factor in this twisty tale. She knows who killed the girl and why, or says she does; she knows that Darcy’s only possible solution to this problem involves killing them all, but only in a manner than can easily be covered up. There are no magical or supernatural elements to “Green Room”; it only feels like a time-space loop that always brings the diminishing and increasingly damaged cast of characters back to that oppressive little room, with its encrusted levels of neo-Nazi memorabilia and its growing pile of bodies. Only a limited number of things can happen in this kind of movie, of course, but Saulnier manages pace, tone and storytelling so adroitly that you won't quite expect any of them to happen when they do, or even how. It’s a long and delirious night of bloodshed, fire extinguishers, attack dogs (who respond to German commands, of course) and surprising revelations. Faced with imminent death, would you tell the truth about your “desert island band,” or maintain your coolness? One of the characters in “Green Room” shrugs this off; he’s sticking with the Misfits, the hardcore progenitors of the early ‘80s. But another of these trapped and hunted punk-rock misfits furtively whispers, “Madonna.” If you had to guess, which one do you think survives? “Green Room” opens this week at the AMC Lincoln Square and Regal Union Square in New York and the ArcLight Hollywood in Los Angeles, with wider national release to follow.
Bugs that taste “like foie gras”: Eating insects might not save the world, but it could be a healthy start
Can eating bugs save the world? Or can it at least help with sustainability, the slow food movement, and creating bio-diverse systems? Andreas Johnsen’s fascinating (although for some, disgusting) documentary, “Bugs,” which will receive its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival, investigates the work of the Nordic Food Lab in Denmark where Ben Reade and Josh Evans try to make bugs tastier. The pair do fieldwork with indigenous cultures in Australia, Africa, and Latin America. They emphasize that the 9,000 edible insects in the world contain valuable protein sources, even though bugs are not legally recognized as food in many countries. These chefs are not just frying grasshoppers; Ben and Josh create culinary delicacies such as Queen Termite with Mango, or Escamol Tortillas. (Escamol, of course, is ant larvae and pupa) Salon chatted via Skype from Copenhagen with Johnsen about his film, food, and why we should eat bugs. What drew you to this story, and what do you want audiences to feel watching your film? The reason I make documentaries is because I’m a curious person. I want to try everything, I’m not afraid to eat anything, and I like to travel. It was not an obstacle that this story was about eating insects around the world. I’m quite into food—I have a restaurant, ranees.dk in Copenhagen, so this topic was attractive to me. I’m not trying to sell it or disguise it as delicious or convince anyone to eat insects. I just want to show this work of the Nordic Food Lab (NFL). There’s disgusting and amazing stuff. I wanted to show this topic for what it is. It’s been around forever. Two billion people around the world eat insects regularly. The guys at the NFL got into all this, and they started the project as a research in diet and food, solely based on taste and deliciousness. They realized there were all these debates around entomology, and created an industry out of insects for food. So Ben and Josh started questioning all of this. I went on the journey they were on. How did you learn about the work Ben and Josh were doing in the Nordic Food Lab, and what prompted you to make a documentary about it? I started working in a restaurant when I was 12 and through that, I learned about the culture of wine and cuisine. My brother is a wine importer. We’re friends with Noma [a restaurant by the NFL] and knew the NFL. I met Ben and Josh and they told me about what they wanted to do. The first trip was Sardinia for the Cazu Marzu [maggot-filled cheese]. From then on, I felt the guys were strong characters and I wasn’t sure how far they would take the project, but little by little the story became more political. So I thought it was important to make a film about this. How does one become a chef of edible insects? Is there trial and error about what’s dangerous if not just disgusting to eat? Trial and error—yes, definitely. The guys eat everything. I’m curious, but those guys are insane. They tried to fry grasshoppers and eat many different things. Did you deliberately not show a label for what the food (or recipe) was? I thought about having all the recipes listed at the end of “Bugs,” but I wanted to stay away from the film feeling like a cooking program, or solely about food. I wanted it to have a more universal sense. If I gave too much side info, it would lose focus. The website BugsFeed has everything about edible insects and the film as well as the movement. In addition, the NFL is an open source, and will make all the research material, recipes, papers, etc. public. I like the point that eating sushi was once questioned, but now it’s readily available in supermarkets. Of course, I want to know what insects you sampled. I thought the honey from the stingless African bees was appealing, but that’s because I enjoy honey. I’m less inclined to sample maggot-infused cheese/ice-cream even though I like cheese and ice cream. What did you enjoy, spit out, and/or refuse to eat? I love the point when the man in Mexico City says honey is the vomit from bees. It’s vomit from an animal! But the maggots are cheese. They have never been in contact with anything else but the cheese. We have a perception it’s disgusting because we’re not used to it. There were some things I was not keen about eating. In Peru, we had awiwa, which is butterfly larvae. They were easy to gather: you shook a palm tree and the leaves would rain down the insects. It did not have an interesting flavor. The substance of it wasn’t nice. And it’s possible the people that we were with didn’t know how to cook it in a way we’d appreciate eating it. That was not a success. Most of what we tried was amazing. The bush coconut in Australia, which is seen in the montage, it’s full of flies or tiny larvae when you open it, and it taste like melon and honey. It’s amazing. You lick it out. The termite queen was amazing, too. It was like foie gras. Insane! The episode of photokeratitis and information on zinc deficiencies in Africa were disturbing. What can you share about your experiences in the field? Did you ever feel like you got in over your head making this film? You always feel that way! The photokeratitis was so horrible. We slept an hour and a half, and when you woke up the pain was so strong you couldn’t see anything. The light was hurting so much. I never experienced anything like that. I felt blind, and it was quite shocking for us. Going to the factory in Holland where they produce all these different insects was also shocking. I respect these people so much, but I was shocked they never tasted any of the products they were making. They never cooked with these animals for themselves. Why would you want to produce for other humans what you wouldn’t taste yourself? I can see the Escamol Tortillas being sold as street food in Mexico. How much of this food sourcing and preparation is viable in the very cultures where the bugs are being harvested? Escamol is a good example. If more plantations like Jose Carlos Redon’s appear, and are controlled so they don’t get over-harvested, then it’s viable and nutritious. If there are more places like that, then you can make the price go down. But for the huge majority of edible insects, you go out and forage for them and eat on the spot, in situ. Sometimes raw, or you cook it immediately. So it is something that maybe not possible to make into something everyone can eat unless it becomes an industry. But then it loses all of its flavor. Is there a danger of over-sourcing say, Queen termites? If we eat them is there a risk that we will decimate the population of the termite colony? You risk extinction, but every time you take down a termite colony, some termites will fly somewhere else and settle, and start a new colony. Maybe it will produce more colonies and queens? Can you talk about the way edible bugs influence our economy? If companies start using edible insects to greenwash their image and products, there is money to be made. There is money to be spent in scientific investigations, and research to develop institutions. If they can sell it as sustainable, healthy, and nutritious, what else do you need? If they manage to convince people, then they will buy it. I was happy to make this film with these guys because it became important for me that they were actually the only ones questioning this. When we started filming three years ago, no one questioned the Food and Agriculture Organization reports, or what the media wrote about edible insects. I feel lucky I got to go on this journey and that I could ask these questions. I’m not saying we should not make an industry out of it, but reconsider the system we are already using. It is really viable? Is it really sustainable? That’s what I’m asking. “Bugs” certainly changes our way of thinking regarding this topic. Ben insists people have the right to “good tasting, culturally appropriate, available food.” What can you say about this kind of effort being accepted? I’m sure with time the public in the Western world will eat more bugs. We see it in trendy restaurants that they are using edible insects. That’s an easy way to make it acceptable to the general public, and people in the food media/foodie scene will embrace it. But it’s simple: We all want to have a better, “clean” consciousness as well as a healthy life. We can live longer if we eat well. So if the companies or the media or the big organizations sell this as something that is sustainable and healthy and nutritious, we will buy it to satisfy our own needs. There are a lot of cookbooks with edible insects, so if it’s compatible to people’s culture, tradition and taste… It’s easy to sell it.
President Obama is searching for 350,000 permanently disabled Americans to forgive their student loan debt
President Obama's Department of Education is set to take on the huge task of identifying and forgiving the federal student loan debt of 400,000 permanently disabled Americans. The Washington Post reports that beginning next week, the Obama administration plans to forgive $7.7 billion in federal student loan debt for 387,000 people who receive disability payments and have the specific designation of “Medical Improvement Not Expected,” 179,000 of whom are currently in default on their student loans, putting them at risk of having their Social Security benefits garnished. “Too many eligible borrowers were falling through the cracks, unaware they were eligible for relief,” Education Under Secretary Ted Mitchell said in a statement Tuesday. “Americans with disabilities have a right to student loan relief. And we need to make it easier, not harder, for them to receive the benefits they are due.” While by law, anyone with a permanent disability is already eligible to have the government forgive their federal student loans, few have taken advantage in the last several years. According to the Post, "the Department of Education is now taking it upon itself to identify eligible borrowers and guide them through the steps to discharge their loans":
Starting next week, borrowers identified in the match will receive a letter from the government explaining the steps needed to receive a discharge. They will not be required to submit documentation of their eligibility, unlike disabled borrowers who apply for the discharge on their ownPresident Obama's Department of Education is set to take on the huge task of identifying and forgiving the federal student loan debt of 400,000 permanently disabled Americans. The Washington Post reports that beginning next week, the Obama administration plans to forgive $7.7 billion in federal student loan debt for 387,000 people who receive disability payments and have the specific designation of “Medical Improvement Not Expected,” 179,000 of whom are currently in default on their student loans, putting them at risk of having their Social Security benefits garnished. “Too many eligible borrowers were falling through the cracks, unaware they were eligible for relief,” Education Under Secretary Ted Mitchell said in a statement Tuesday. “Americans with disabilities have a right to student loan relief. And we need to make it easier, not harder, for them to receive the benefits they are due.” While by law, anyone with a permanent disability is already eligible to have the government forgive their federal student loans, few have taken advantage in the last several years. According to the Post, "the Department of Education is now taking it upon itself to identify eligible borrowers and guide them through the steps to discharge their loans":
Starting next week, borrowers identified in the match will receive a letter from the government explaining the steps needed to receive a discharge. They will not be required to submit documentation of their eligibility, unlike disabled borrowers who apply for the discharge on their own
U.K. gives cute nicknames to “kill list” targets it blows up with drones, based on cartoons, musicians, porn stars
Britain has a "kill list" too, and it gives cute nicknames to those whom it extrajudicially assassinates with drones, based on cartoons, musicians, actors, porn stars and even drugs. An explosive new report by British human rights organization Reprieve details how the U.K. has worked with the U.S. in its drone program for well over a decade, creating a similar secretive Kill List. "Britain conspired in a U.S.-inspired Kill List soon after 9/11," the report reveals. "Starting in 2002, working closely with the Americans, Britain had played a leading role in the euphemistic Joint Prioritized Effective List." Titled "Britain's Kill List," the ambitious 57-page report documents how the U.K. joined the U.S. in killing targets not only in war zones, but even in allied countries such as Pakistan, where they are not at war. Although the drone program is justified in the name of the so-called War on Terror, the report also shows that the British government not only targeted alleged militants, but also people suspected of being involved in drug trafficking. One of the most intriguing revelations in the report, however, is how British authorities created infantile nicknames for assassination targets. "Some people who are slated for what may be instant death by a Hellfire missile are codenamed based on pornography stars, or prophylactics; some are cartoon characters; some are musicians and actors who might well object to having their names used on a Kill List," Reprieve writes. Among the names given to targets are musicians and bands including Britney Spears, Drake, Johnny Cash, Kiss, Motley Crue, Black Sabbath and The Eurythmics. These celebrities are joined by actors such as Katherine Hepburn, Paul Newman and Robert Redford; along with fictional characters such as Garfield, Iron Man, Krusty the Clown, Newman from "Seinfeld" and the cast of the movie "Anchorman." Others targets are named after wrestlers; drugs, including a strain of marijuana; and candy, such as Starburst, Snickers and more. And some codenames were even based on pornography websites, porn stars and a contraceptive pill. "The naming process of the 'targets' on the Kill List is extraordinary and would, as the serviceman suggests, horrify the public — for the dehumanisation of the process, as well as the puerile quality of the nomenclature," Reprieve writes. The report also shows how the British government has lied about these activities. In September 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron announced in Parliament what he claimed was a "new departure," which Reprieve describes as a "policy of killing individuals the Security Services and the military do not like, people placed on a list of individuals who the U.K. (acting along with the U.S. and others) have identified and systematically plan to kill." "The mere admission that there is a Kill List certainly should, indeed, have been a 'departure' for a country that prides itself on decency," Reprieve commented. It added, "Unfortunately, it was not a 'new departure' at all, as we had been doing it secretly for more than a decade." A recent investigation by VICE News likewise exposed how the U.K. played a "critical" role in the U.S. drone program in Yemen, despite the fact that the British government repeatedly denied allegations that it was involved. VICE found that the U.K. has participated in “hits,” prepared “target packages” and participated in a “joint operations room” with American and Yemeni forces. An unknown number of Yemeni civilians were killed in these strikes. Among them was Nasser Salim, a 19-year-old student who his family said was "torn to pieces." Clive Stafford Smith, the director of Reprieve, said in a statement, “For a country that loudly proclaims its opposition to the death penalty even after a fair trial, the hypocrisy is stunning: now we know that U.K. authorities are deeply involved in executing all kinds of people, including alleged drug dealers, without a trial at all." "If democracy means anything at all, the prime minister must order a full and transparent inquiry into the UK Kill List, starting immediately," he added. For well over a decade, the U.S. has carried out a secretive drone war in numerous countries with which it is not officially at war. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented hundreds and perhaps as many as thousands of civilians killed in the secretive U.S. drone war. The Obama administration has maintained a Kill List for years. The president personally approves targets on the list, which is euphemistically referred to as the "disposition matrix." Reprieve warns policies such as these only help fuel extremism, not fight it. Numerous experts have said the same. Even retired Army Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn, the head of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command, the U.S. military unit that oversees that very program, has admitted as much. The rights group's report opens with a 1758 quote from Swiss philosopher Emer de Vattel, who said “The sovereign who makes use of such execrable means should be regarded as an enemy of the human race.” "If there is one lesson we should have learned in the American-led 'Global War on Terror,' declared by President George W. Bush in response to 9/11, it is this: It is dangerous to jettison decades of gradual evolution of human rights and the rule of law in the heat of the emotional moment," Reprieve writes in the report. "Detention without trial in Guantanámo Bay, and torture in Abu Ghraib, were recruiting sergeants for extremism. Rendition (a euphemism for kidnapping) drained away goodwill. Droning villages in Pakistan’s tribal areas turned the United States into the region’s most hated nation. And then invading Iraq without a U.N. resolution helped to create chaos in the Middle East." It continues: "Lacking any transparency, so much of the official justification of these dreadful policies was essentially propaganda. The detainees in Guantanámo Bay were not the 'worst of the worst' terrorists in the world, as promised by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: it took several years, but when lawyers eventually reached the prison base, more then 9-in-10 were cleared as 'no threat to the U.S. or its allies.'" "Far from the marvellously precise killing machines that were loudly advertised by their proponents, the drones in Pakistan killed an average of nine innocent children for each 'High Value Target' singled out for death," Reprieve adds. "Every time the U.S. has encouraged the world to renounce our basic principles — and the U.K. has followed — our hypocrisy has served as the yeast that fomented further radicalism."
Stop piling on La’Porsha Renae: LGBT Americans don’t need her approval, they need better legal protections
“American Idol” finalist La’Porsha Renae caused a firestorm of controversy this week following comments she made about Mississippi’s recently passed “religious liberty” law. Renae, who finished second in this year’s contest behind Trent Harmon, condemned HB 1523, which many believe is the harshest anti-LGBT law yet. “This is how I feel about the LGBT community: They are people just like us,” she said on a conference call with reporters. “They’re not animals... They’re people with feelings. Although all of us may not agree with that particular lifestyle for religious reasons, whatever the reason is, you still treat each other with respect.” Renee’s comments drew ire, however, when she affirmed that like many Mississippi lawmakers, she “[doesn’t] really agree with that lifestyle.” She continued, “I wasn’t brought up that way. It wasn’t how I was raised. But I do have a lot of friends and a lot of people that I love dearly who are gay and homosexual and they’re such sweet, nice people. We should be able to coexist with one another.” Twitter users from Shane Bitney Cone to Sister Crayon took her to task for the comments, referring to her views as “disappointing.” It’s understandable why so many in the LGBT community were outraged by her statements: Equating same-sex relationships to a “lifestyle,” like driving a Toyota Prius or going to brunch, has long been used to justify discrimination against queer people. It dismisses sexuality as akin to a fad and LGBT people as not worthy of protections or equal rights. After all, does your Prius need non-discrimination legislation? But dogpiling on her unfortunate gaffe misses a salient point: A lack of education about the lived experiences of LGBT people shouldn’t justify discrimination against an entire population, as has recently been the case in states like Mississippi. Renae’s own ignorance isn’t the problem; it’s just the tip of the iceberg. What is an LGBT lifestyle, anyway? Simply put, it’s everything you can think of. Queer people lead incredibly rich, varied lives that often have very little in common with each other. They are transgender, people of color, bisexuals, Jewish, two-spirit, vegetarians, and sometimes even Republicans. Some are raising families with their partners. Others are going to the grocery store in booty shorts and heels. Maybe they’re doing both—or just trying to survive. As CNN’s LZ Granderson argues, “being gay doesn't dictate how people live their lives any more than being straight does.” Thus, it’s impossible and dangerous to generalize about the habits and preferences of an entire community, any more than you would any other population. Because of the wide diversity of LGBT people, what queer folks hear when those outside the community claim that they aren’t down with the “gay lifestyle” is that they aren’t really on board with our lives. “What you are actually saying is that you can’t support me getting up early to make breakfast for [my] kids and pack healthy lunches,” Patheos’ Kimberly Knight writes. “You can’t support me helping a tearful kid through a crappy math assignment or a teenager through a heart-wrenching bout of boyfriend woes. You can’t support me going to work and loving the job I get to do with colleagues I respect.” Challenging the ignorant beliefs of individuals is an important thing to do, especially when these views so often drive anti-gay legislation. The problem is that in a state like Mississippi—the state from which Renae hails—changing the hearts and minds of an entire population may be an incredibly difficult task. A 2015 Gallup poll found that the Magnolia State is the reddest in the nation, with 48.9 percent of respondents claiming to be conservatives. According to the Williams Institute, the state ranks as one of the lowest in support for same-sex marriage, although the bigotry LGBT people face remains high. A 2016 report found that 81 percent of Mississippians thought queer people faced significant discrimination in the state. Much of that bias is written into the laws themselves. In Mississippi, schools are forced to teach students that being gay is a crime in their sex ed curriculum. Texas’ policy on the subject is nearly identical. The Lone Star State compels educators to “state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.” These proclamations against the “homosexual lifestyle” are based on outdated anti-sodomy laws effectively struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that decriminalized same-sex intercourse in all 50 states. LGBT advocates, no matter how hard we fight, will never be able to make everyone recognize our humanity. There will always be those who use their religion or upbringing to rationalize their lack of support for our “choices.” But what we can do is ensure that bigotry doesn’t continue to be written into our laws and work to fight policies like these. According to the Human Rights Campaign, more than 100 anti-LGBT laws are currently in consideration across the country, many of which use similar rhetoric to justify hate. Mississippi’s bill is a key example of that push. Also known as the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” the legislation allows for broad-based discrimination against the state’s LGBT population. If you’re dining out in Jackson, Mississippi with your partner, the proprietor can legally ask you to leave. Should you apply for a job and the hiring manager have objections to your gender identity or sexual orientation, HB 1523 says it’s OK if he tears up your application. If you’re a transgender person who has a heart attack and needs to be rushed to the hospital, the ambulance driver could decline to take you, citing their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The use of the word “belief” here is key. The issue in Mississippi isn’t just that many of its residents still hold prejudicial opinions of those unlike them but that the state’s government—including its Republican governor, Phil Bryant—believes that those personal worldviews trump basic civil liberties. What LGBT people in the Magnolia State need isn’t just greater acceptance but codified tolerance—the legal right to live their lives without being affected by others’ bigotry. Ignorance will always exist in the world, whether it’s Republican lawmakers or an “American Idol” runner-up. What really matters is what we do about it. In a way, La’Porsha Renae is right. It will take decades to create the culture change that Mississippi so desperately needs. This includes both greater education and visibility, as those opposed to LGBT equality across the country meet queer people and find out that everything they thought they knew about the so-called “gay lifestyle” was wrong. But in the meantime, what we all need is to learn a little respect.
“Let me be clear: I do not want, nor will I accept the Republican nomination”: Paul Ryan says count him out for 2016
Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan is officially ruling out a 2016 presidential candidacy, the BBC reports.
Ryan's name has floated as a contender among GOP circles for several weeks following the likelihood that neither Donald Trump, John Kasich nor Ted Cruz will win the 1,237 delegates required to get the nomination. But the House speaker has repeatedly stated he would not run for president this year, even if the GOP ends in a contested convention in July. The speaker made an official announcement on Tuesday. "Count me out. I’ve got a message to relay today. We’ve got too much work to do in the House to allow this speculation to swirl," he said in a news conference. "Let me be clear: I do not want, nor will I accept the Republican nomination." Paul Ryan’s office also posted a link to his full remarks for political journalists and the party establishment. New York state will cast the next primary votes on April 19th, which will futher determine the race and delegates pledged to each candidate. Trump currently holds strong in New York according to polls but the real-estate magnate could still fall short before the convention in Cleveland.Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan is officially ruling out a 2016 presidential candidacy, the BBC reports.
Ryan's name has floated as a contender among GOP circles for several weeks following the likelihood that neither Donald Trump, John Kasich nor Ted Cruz will win the 1,237 delegates required to get the nomination. But the House speaker has repeatedly stated he would not run for president this year, even if the GOP ends in a contested convention in July. The speaker made an official announcement on Tuesday. "Count me out. I’ve got a message to relay today. We’ve got too much work to do in the House to allow this speculation to swirl," he said in a news conference. "Let me be clear: I do not want, nor will I accept the Republican nomination." Paul Ryan’s office also posted a link to his full remarks for political journalists and the party establishment. New York state will cast the next primary votes on April 19th, which will futher determine the race and delegates pledged to each candidate. Trump currently holds strong in New York according to polls but the real-estate magnate could still fall short before the convention in Cleveland.Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan is officially ruling out a 2016 presidential candidacy, the BBC reports.
Ryan's name has floated as a contender among GOP circles for several weeks following the likelihood that neither Donald Trump, John Kasich nor Ted Cruz will win the 1,237 delegates required to get the nomination. But the House speaker has repeatedly stated he would not run for president this year, even if the GOP ends in a contested convention in July. The speaker made an official announcement on Tuesday. "Count me out. I’ve got a message to relay today. We’ve got too much work to do in the House to allow this speculation to swirl," he said in a news conference. "Let me be clear: I do not want, nor will I accept the Republican nomination." Paul Ryan’s office also posted a link to his full remarks for political journalists and the party establishment. New York state will cast the next primary votes on April 19th, which will futher determine the race and delegates pledged to each candidate. Trump currently holds strong in New York according to polls but the real-estate magnate could still fall short before the convention in Cleveland.Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan is officially ruling out a 2016 presidential candidacy, the BBC reports.
Ryan's name has floated as a contender among GOP circles for several weeks following the likelihood that neither Donald Trump, John Kasich nor Ted Cruz will win the 1,237 delegates required to get the nomination. But the House speaker has repeatedly stated he would not run for president this year, even if the GOP ends in a contested convention in July. The speaker made an official announcement on Tuesday. "Count me out. I’ve got a message to relay today. We’ve got too much work to do in the House to allow this speculation to swirl," he said in a news conference. "Let me be clear: I do not want, nor will I accept the Republican nomination." Paul Ryan’s office also posted a link to his full remarks for political journalists and the party establishment. New York state will cast the next primary votes on April 19th, which will futher determine the race and delegates pledged to each candidate. Trump currently holds strong in New York according to polls but the real-estate magnate could still fall short before the convention in Cleveland.
North Carolina begins to back off: Republican governor signs executive order allowing private businesses to opt-out of restrictive anti-LGBT law
Boycotts work. As much as conservatives love to exalt the free market and deride social justice activists, when the one uses the other to make a political statement, it is most often conservatives left on the losing side. Just ask Republican Indiana Governor Mike Pence who was forced to roll back his regressive "religious freedom" bill, allowing businesses the right to discriminate against LGBT customers, after a viral national campaign to boycott the state left him no choice back in 2015. Or Georgia Republican Governor Nathan Deal who saw the impending onslaught when major multi-national corporations like Delta Airlines, Coca-Cola and the National Football League all threatened divestment from the state when its legislature passed its own version of the discriminatory anti-LGBT legislation modeled after the federal so-called religious freedom act. Now, Republican North Carolina Pat McCory is receiving that very same lesson, albeit perhaps too late to undo the damage to the state. On Tuesday, Germany's largest bank, Deutsche Bank, announced it was halting plans to add 250 new jobs in North Carolina, citing the Republican-sponsored new law prohibiting transgender people from using bathrooms that differ from the genders on their birth certificates. North Carolina's governor signed the legislation into law last month and the public backlash to it ever since has been brutal and unrelenting. PayPal announced last week it would scrap a new facility in Charlotte due to the law. Bruce Springsteen cancelled a stop in the state on his tour last Sunday, writing a poignant rebuke of the discriminatory law to explain his decision. By Tuesday afternoon, McCrory was already backpedaling, announcing in a taped message that the discriminatory statewide ban on transgender people using the bathroom facilities of their choice was simply a necessary government response to another instance of government overreach. "I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina," a chipper McCrory said in the video, before explaining that the transgender bathroom ban remains in place for all of North Carolina's students in public schools, but that private businesses are free to discriminate or not as they please: Boycotts work. As much as conservatives love to exalt the free market and deride social justice activists, when the one uses the other to make a political statement, it is most often conservatives left on the losing side. Just ask Republican Indiana Governor Mike Pence who was forced to roll back his regressive "religious freedom" bill, allowing businesses the right to discriminate against LGBT customers, after a viral national campaign to boycott the state left him no choice back in 2015. Or Georgia Republican Governor Nathan Deal who saw the impending onslaught when major multi-national corporations like Delta Airlines, Coca-Cola and the National Football League all threatened divestment from the state when its legislature passed its own version of the discriminatory anti-LGBT legislation modeled after the federal so-called religious freedom act. Now, Republican North Carolina Pat McCory is receiving that very same lesson, albeit perhaps too late to undo the damage to the state. On Tuesday, Germany's largest bank, Deutsche Bank, announced it was halting plans to add 250 new jobs in North Carolina, citing the Republican-sponsored new law prohibiting transgender people from using bathrooms that differ from the genders on their birth certificates. North Carolina's governor signed the legislation into law last month and the public backlash to it ever since has been brutal and unrelenting. PayPal announced last week it would scrap a new facility in Charlotte due to the law. Bruce Springsteen cancelled a stop in the state on his tour last Sunday, writing a poignant rebuke of the discriminatory law to explain his decision. By Tuesday afternoon, McCrory was already backpedaling, announcing in a taped message that the discriminatory statewide ban on transgender people using the bathroom facilities of their choice was simply a necessary government response to another instance of government overreach. "I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina," a chipper McCrory said in the video, before explaining that the transgender bathroom ban remains in place for all of North Carolina's students in public schools, but that private businesses are free to discriminate or not as they please:
Noam Chomsky agrees with Sarah Palin: “When she mocks the ‘hope-y, change-y stuff,’ she’s right”
Elections are rigged by many factors. But as Noam Chomsky explains, policy plays only a small role in electing candidates. “Right after the election, President Obama won an award from the advertising industry for the best marketing campaign and the International Business Press executives were euphoric,” Chomsky recalls in the 2015 documentary Requiem for the American Dream. They said, We’ve been marketing candidates like toothpaste since Reagan. This is the greatest achievement we have.” The 2008 election marked a turning point in social media strategy and Facebook users bombardment of posts that used the new “I Voted” app was just one aspect of this phenomenon. President Obama, in fact, used Twitter to announce that he won - similarly to how 2016’s candidates engage with voters on Snapchat. “Regardless of your political affiliation, one can’t help but admire the Obama campaign’s relentless and successful marketing strategy,” said World Wildlife Fund senior strategist Brigid Milligan, after Obama was reelected in 2012. But to Chomsky, this manipulation is a means of corruption. “I don’t usually agree with Sarah Palin,” Chomsky admitted. “But when she mocks the ‘hope-y, change-y stuff,’ she’s right.” Since the famouse "Obama: Hope" poster was introduced, it has been parodied around the world thousands of times, including during Bernie Sanders’ 2016campaign. But throughout the Obama administration, the poster's creator, Shepard Fairey, has remained critical. In 2015, Fairey expressed disappointment not only in Obama, but in the people. “Obama has had a really tough time, but there have been a lot of things that he's compromised on that I never would have expected” Fairy told Esquire, citing drones and domestic spying as key examples. “I do think the entire system needs an overhaul and taking money out of politics would be a really good first step,” Fairey said, adding, “We also need a public that isn't so uneducated and complacent.” On the other hand, it’s hard to deliver on promises when the policies conflicting with them aren’t a large part of the discussion to begin with. “Obama didn’t really promise anything. That’s mostly illusion,” confirmed Chomsky. “You go back to the campaign rhetoric and take a look at it. There’s very little discussion of policy issues and for very good reason. Because public opinion on policy is sharply disconnected, from what the two party leaders and their financial backers want. Policy more and more is focused on the private interest that fund the campaigns with the public being marginialized.” Watch: Noam Chomsky discusses the many layers of corruption in politics inRequiem for the American Dream:
Elections are rigged by many factors. But as Noam Chomsky explains, policy plays only a small role in electing candidates. “Right after the election, President Obama won an award from the advertising industry for the best marketing campaign and the International Business Press executives were euphoric,” Chomsky recalls in the 2015 documentary Requiem for the American Dream. They said, We’ve been marketing candidates like toothpaste since Reagan. This is the greatest achievement we have.” The 2008 election marked a turning point in social media strategy and Facebook users bombardment of posts that used the new “I Voted” app was just one aspect of this phenomenon. President Obama, in fact, used Twitter to announce that he won - similarly to how 2016’s candidates engage with voters on Snapchat. “Regardless of your political affiliation, one can’t help but admire the Obama campaign’s relentless and successful marketing strategy,” said World Wildlife Fund senior strategist Brigid Milligan, after Obama was reelected in 2012. But to Chomsky, this manipulation is a means of corruption. “I don’t usually agree with Sarah Palin,” Chomsky admitted. “But when she mocks the ‘hope-y, change-y stuff,’ she’s right.” Since the famouse "Obama: Hope" poster was introduced, it has been parodied around the world thousands of times, including during Bernie Sanders’ 2016campaign. But throughout the Obama administration, the poster's creator, Shepard Fairey, has remained critical. In 2015, Fairey expressed disappointment not only in Obama, but in the people. “Obama has had a really tough time, but there have been a lot of things that he's compromised on that I never would have expected” Fairy told Esquire, citing drones and domestic spying as key examples. “I do think the entire system needs an overhaul and taking money out of politics would be a really good first step,” Fairey said, adding, “We also need a public that isn't so uneducated and complacent.” On the other hand, it’s hard to deliver on promises when the policies conflicting with them aren’t a large part of the discussion to begin with. “Obama didn’t really promise anything. That’s mostly illusion,” confirmed Chomsky. “You go back to the campaign rhetoric and take a look at it. There’s very little discussion of policy issues and for very good reason. Because public opinion on policy is sharply disconnected, from what the two party leaders and their financial backers want. Policy more and more is focused on the private interest that fund the campaigns with the public being marginialized.” Watch: Noam Chomsky discusses the many layers of corruption in politics inRequiem for the American Dream:
Robert Reich: Bernie does have a plan to break up the big banks. That’s why the establishment is so rattled
The recent kerfluffle about Bernie Sanders purportedly not knowing how to bust up the big banks says far more about the threat Sanders poses to the Democratic establishment and its Wall Street wing than it does about the candidate himself. Of course Sanders knows how to bust up the big banks. He’s already introduced legislation to do just that. And even without new legislation a president has the power under the Dodd-Frank reform act to initiate such a breakup. But Sanders threatens the Democratic establishment and Wall Street, not least because he’s intent on doing exactly what he says he’ll do: breaking up the biggest banks. The biggest are far larger today than they were in 2008 when they were deemed “too big to fail.” Then, the five largest held around 30 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today they have 44 percent. According to a recent analysis by Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the assets of just four giant banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo – amount to 97 percent of our the nation’s entire gross domestic product in 2012. Which means they’re now way too big to fail. The danger to the economy isn’t just their indebtedness. It’s their dominance over the entire financial and economic system. Bernie Sanders isn’t the only one urging the big banks be broken up. Neel Kashkari, the new president of the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis – a Republican who used to be at Goldman Sachs – is also pushing to break them up, as has the former head of the Dallas Federal Reserve, among others. Recall that just eight years ago the biggest banks were up to their ears in fraudulent practices – lending money to mortgage originators to make risky home loans laced with false claims, buying back those loans and repackaging them for investors without revealing their risks, and then participating in a wave of fraudulent foreclosures. Dodd-Frank addressed these sorts of abuses in broad strokes but left the most important decisions to regulatory agencies. Since then, platoons of Wall Street lobbyists, lawyers and litigators have been watering down and delaying those regulations. For example, Dodd-Frank instructed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to reduce certain risks, but the Street has sabotaged the process. In its first major rule under Dodd-Frank, the CFTC considered 1,500 comments, largely generated by and from the Street. After several years the commission issued a proposed rule, including some of the loopholes and exceptions the Street sought. Wall Street still wasn’t satisfied. So the CFTC agreed to delay enforcement of the rule, allowing the Street more time to voice its objections. Even this wasn’t enough for the big banks, whose lawyers then filed a lawsuit in the federal courts, arguing that the commission’s cost-benefit analysis wasn’t adequate. As of now, only 155 of the 398 regulations required by Dodd-Frank have been finalized. And those final versions are shot through with loopholes big enough for Wall Street’s top brass to drive their Ferrari’s through. The biggest banks still haven’t even come up with acceptable “living wills,” required under Dodd-Frank to show how they’d maintain important functions while going through bankruptcy. Meanwhile they continue to gamble with depositor’s money. Many of their operations are global, making it even harder for U.S. regulators to rein them in – as evidenced by JPMorgan Chase’s $6.2 billion loss in its “London Whale” operation in 2012. Citigroup alone has over 2,000 foreign subsidies. The bottom line: Regulation won’t end the Street’s abuses. The Street has too much firepower. And because it continues to be a major source of campaign funding, no set of regulations will be tough enough. So the biggest banks must be busted up. When I debated former Rep. Barney Frank about this on television recently, he kept asking, rhetorically, what limit I’d put on their size. A good rule of thumb might be to cap the assets of any bank at about 2 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product – or roughly $330 billion. (To put this in perspective, by the end of 2015, Goldman Sachs’s assets exceeded $860 billion.) That cap wouldn’t harm America’s financial competitiveness and it wouldn’t cause bank employees to lose their jobs (at worst, they’ll just become employees of a smaller bank). But it would ensure the safety of the American economy. Extra bonus: It would also reduce the power of Wall Street over our democracy.The recent kerfluffle about Bernie Sanders purportedly not knowing how to bust up the big banks says far more about the threat Sanders poses to the Democratic establishment and its Wall Street wing than it does about the candidate himself. Of course Sanders knows how to bust up the big banks. He’s already introduced legislation to do just that. And even without new legislation a president has the power under the Dodd-Frank reform act to initiate such a breakup. But Sanders threatens the Democratic establishment and Wall Street, not least because he’s intent on doing exactly what he says he’ll do: breaking up the biggest banks. The biggest are far larger today than they were in 2008 when they were deemed “too big to fail.” Then, the five largest held around 30 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today they have 44 percent. According to a recent analysis by Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the assets of just four giant banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo – amount to 97 percent of our the nation’s entire gross domestic product in 2012. Which means they’re now way too big to fail. The danger to the economy isn’t just their indebtedness. It’s their dominance over the entire financial and economic system. Bernie Sanders isn’t the only one urging the big banks be broken up. Neel Kashkari, the new president of the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis – a Republican who used to be at Goldman Sachs – is also pushing to break them up, as has the former head of the Dallas Federal Reserve, among others. Recall that just eight years ago the biggest banks were up to their ears in fraudulent practices – lending money to mortgage originators to make risky home loans laced with false claims, buying back those loans and repackaging them for investors without revealing their risks, and then participating in a wave of fraudulent foreclosures. Dodd-Frank addressed these sorts of abuses in broad strokes but left the most important decisions to regulatory agencies. Since then, platoons of Wall Street lobbyists, lawyers and litigators have been watering down and delaying those regulations. For example, Dodd-Frank instructed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to reduce certain risks, but the Street has sabotaged the process. In its first major rule under Dodd-Frank, the CFTC considered 1,500 comments, largely generated by and from the Street. After several years the commission issued a proposed rule, including some of the loopholes and exceptions the Street sought. Wall Street still wasn’t satisfied. So the CFTC agreed to delay enforcement of the rule, allowing the Street more time to voice its objections. Even this wasn’t enough for the big banks, whose lawyers then filed a lawsuit in the federal courts, arguing that the commission’s cost-benefit analysis wasn’t adequate. As of now, only 155 of the 398 regulations required by Dodd-Frank have been finalized. And those final versions are shot through with loopholes big enough for Wall Street’s top brass to drive their Ferrari’s through. The biggest banks still haven’t even come up with acceptable “living wills,” required under Dodd-Frank to show how they’d maintain important functions while going through bankruptcy. Meanwhile they continue to gamble with depositor’s money. Many of their operations are global, making it even harder for U.S. regulators to rein them in – as evidenced by JPMorgan Chase’s $6.2 billion loss in its “London Whale” operation in 2012. Citigroup alone has over 2,000 foreign subsidies. The bottom line: Regulation won’t end the Street’s abuses. The Street has too much firepower. And because it continues to be a major source of campaign funding, no set of regulations will be tough enough. So the biggest banks must be busted up. When I debated former Rep. Barney Frank about this on television recently, he kept asking, rhetorically, what limit I’d put on their size. A good rule of thumb might be to cap the assets of any bank at about 2 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product – or roughly $330 billion. (To put this in perspective, by the end of 2015, Goldman Sachs’s assets exceeded $860 billion.) That cap wouldn’t harm America’s financial competitiveness and it wouldn’t cause bank employees to lose their jobs (at worst, they’ll just become employees of a smaller bank). But it would ensure the safety of the American economy. Extra bonus: It would also reduce the power of Wall Street over our democracy.The recent kerfluffle about Bernie Sanders purportedly not knowing how to bust up the big banks says far more about the threat Sanders poses to the Democratic establishment and its Wall Street wing than it does about the candidate himself. Of course Sanders knows how to bust up the big banks. He’s already introduced legislation to do just that. And even without new legislation a president has the power under the Dodd-Frank reform act to initiate such a breakup. But Sanders threatens the Democratic establishment and Wall Street, not least because he’s intent on doing exactly what he says he’ll do: breaking up the biggest banks. The biggest are far larger today than they were in 2008 when they were deemed “too big to fail.” Then, the five largest held around 30 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today they have 44 percent. According to a recent analysis by Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the assets of just four giant banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo – amount to 97 percent of our the nation’s entire gross domestic product in 2012. Which means they’re now way too big to fail. The danger to the economy isn’t just their indebtedness. It’s their dominance over the entire financial and economic system. Bernie Sanders isn’t the only one urging the big banks be broken up. Neel Kashkari, the new president of the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis – a Republican who used to be at Goldman Sachs – is also pushing to break them up, as has the former head of the Dallas Federal Reserve, among others. Recall that just eight years ago the biggest banks were up to their ears in fraudulent practices – lending money to mortgage originators to make risky home loans laced with false claims, buying back those loans and repackaging them for investors without revealing their risks, and then participating in a wave of fraudulent foreclosures. Dodd-Frank addressed these sorts of abuses in broad strokes but left the most important decisions to regulatory agencies. Since then, platoons of Wall Street lobbyists, lawyers and litigators have been watering down and delaying those regulations. For example, Dodd-Frank instructed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to reduce certain risks, but the Street has sabotaged the process. In its first major rule under Dodd-Frank, the CFTC considered 1,500 comments, largely generated by and from the Street. After several years the commission issued a proposed rule, including some of the loopholes and exceptions the Street sought. Wall Street still wasn’t satisfied. So the CFTC agreed to delay enforcement of the rule, allowing the Street more time to voice its objections. Even this wasn’t enough for the big banks, whose lawyers then filed a lawsuit in the federal courts, arguing that the commission’s cost-benefit analysis wasn’t adequate. As of now, only 155 of the 398 regulations required by Dodd-Frank have been finalized. And those final versions are shot through with loopholes big enough for Wall Street’s top brass to drive their Ferrari’s through. The biggest banks still haven’t even come up with acceptable “living wills,” required under Dodd-Frank to show how they’d maintain important functions while going through bankruptcy. Meanwhile they continue to gamble with depositor’s money. Many of their operations are global, making it even harder for U.S. regulators to rein them in – as evidenced by JPMorgan Chase’s $6.2 billion loss in its “London Whale” operation in 2012. Citigroup alone has over 2,000 foreign subsidies. The bottom line: Regulation won’t end the Street’s abuses. The Street has too much firepower. And because it continues to be a major source of campaign funding, no set of regulations will be tough enough. So the biggest banks must be busted up. When I debated former Rep. Barney Frank about this on television recently, he kept asking, rhetorically, what limit I’d put on their size. A good rule of thumb might be to cap the assets of any bank at about 2 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product – or roughly $330 billion. (To put this in perspective, by the end of 2015, Goldman Sachs’s assets exceeded $860 billion.) That cap wouldn’t harm America’s financial competitiveness and it wouldn’t cause bank employees to lose their jobs (at worst, they’ll just become employees of a smaller bank). But it would ensure the safety of the American economy. Extra bonus: It would also reduce the power of Wall Street over our democracy.The recent kerfluffle about Bernie Sanders purportedly not knowing how to bust up the big banks says far more about the threat Sanders poses to the Democratic establishment and its Wall Street wing than it does about the candidate himself. Of course Sanders knows how to bust up the big banks. He’s already introduced legislation to do just that. And even without new legislation a president has the power under the Dodd-Frank reform act to initiate such a breakup. But Sanders threatens the Democratic establishment and Wall Street, not least because he’s intent on doing exactly what he says he’ll do: breaking up the biggest banks. The biggest are far larger today than they were in 2008 when they were deemed “too big to fail.” Then, the five largest held around 30 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today they have 44 percent. According to a recent analysis by Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the assets of just four giant banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo – amount to 97 percent of our the nation’s entire gross domestic product in 2012. Which means they’re now way too big to fail. The danger to the economy isn’t just their indebtedness. It’s their dominance over the entire financial and economic system. Bernie Sanders isn’t the only one urging the big banks be broken up. Neel Kashkari, the new president of the Federal Reserve bank of Minneapolis – a Republican who used to be at Goldman Sachs – is also pushing to break them up, as has the former head of the Dallas Federal Reserve, among others. Recall that just eight years ago the biggest banks were up to their ears in fraudulent practices – lending money to mortgage originators to make risky home loans laced with false claims, buying back those loans and repackaging them for investors without revealing their risks, and then participating in a wave of fraudulent foreclosures. Dodd-Frank addressed these sorts of abuses in broad strokes but left the most important decisions to regulatory agencies. Since then, platoons of Wall Street lobbyists, lawyers and litigators have been watering down and delaying those regulations. For example, Dodd-Frank instructed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to reduce certain risks, but the Street has sabotaged the process. In its first major rule under Dodd-Frank, the CFTC considered 1,500 comments, largely generated by and from the Street. After several years the commission issued a proposed rule, including some of the loopholes and exceptions the Street sought. Wall Street still wasn’t satisfied. So the CFTC agreed to delay enforcement of the rule, allowing the Street more time to voice its objections. Even this wasn’t enough for the big banks, whose lawyers then filed a lawsuit in the federal courts, arguing that the commission’s cost-benefit analysis wasn’t adequate. As of now, only 155 of the 398 regulations required by Dodd-Frank have been finalized. And those final versions are shot through with loopholes big enough for Wall Street’s top brass to drive their Ferrari’s through. The biggest banks still haven’t even come up with acceptable “living wills,” required under Dodd-Frank to show how they’d maintain important functions while going through bankruptcy. Meanwhile they continue to gamble with depositor’s money. Many of their operations are global, making it even harder for U.S. regulators to rein them in – as evidenced by JPMorgan Chase’s $6.2 billion loss in its “London Whale” operation in 2012. Citigroup alone has over 2,000 foreign subsidies. The bottom line: Regulation won’t end the Street’s abuses. The Street has too much firepower. And because it continues to be a major source of campaign funding, no set of regulations will be tough enough. So the biggest banks must be busted up. When I debated former Rep. Barney Frank about this on television recently, he kept asking, rhetorically, what limit I’d put on their size. A good rule of thumb might be to cap the assets of any bank at about 2 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product – or roughly $330 billion. (To put this in perspective, by the end of 2015, Goldman Sachs’s assets exceeded $860 billion.) That cap wouldn’t harm America’s financial competitiveness and it wouldn’t cause bank employees to lose their jobs (at worst, they’ll just become employees of a smaller bank). But it would ensure the safety of the American economy. Extra bonus: It would also reduce the power of Wall Street over our democracy.
