Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 813
April 6, 2016
“You can’t be racist and be a Christian! You all have gotta choose”: Ben Harper opens up about activism, racism and how police brutality “threatens democracy in a very specific way”
Ben Harper was at a park in West Los Angeles talking to some young skaters there when it finally hit him: For all the talk about the shooting of young black men, going back to Trayvon Martin, most people were still walking around the issue. To him, these killings were murder, and he wanted the language to be as blunt as possible. When Harper went home, he wrote the song “Call It What It Is,” which became the title track to an album that comes out on April 8, a few days after he begins a tour with the Innocent Criminals. Harper, who grew up in Claremont, a college town east of Los Angeles, has combined folk, blues, reggae and social protest since the early ‘90s; he’s also a first-rate slide guitarist. In 2014 he won a Grammy for his album with Charlie Musselwhite, the blues guitarist, singer, and harmonica player. His last album, “Childhood Home,” was collaboration with his mother, Ellen. Salon spoke to Harper from New York. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. https://youtu.be/IjlzXEtOnh8 Your title track is about a very serious subject. How long have you been aware of the problem of police harassment? Was this was something you experienced in your own childhood? How long does it go back for you? All my life. And I think that’s why the situation bubbles over. The solution doesn’t match the problem. You’d be hard-pressed to interview any black male who has not dealt with it in some form. It’s a problem that’s been suffocated and compressed, and then it’s released. Not to mention the deaths/murders themselves. You grew up in Claremont, right? I did. And you dealt with this problem there. It just goes to show, it’s everywhere. Big cities, small cities; East, West. It’s inescapable. The only way to change things is to be open to being changed. It’s a tough gig; there are incredible individuals in law enforcement who I respect and admire. Without them, it would be freakin’ anarchy in the streets. But that’s not going to pull me away from my resolve that we have a problem. I can definitely see the two things simultaneously. Let’s talk about the title track a little bit. Where did the idea come from – what pushed you over into writing the song? It just came out of conversation and dialogue. There was a time when it seemed to be getting worse, not better. You can’t let situations like that stand. Part of your frustration in the song is that people were saying something bad was happening, but weren’t calling it murder. They were stepping around the problem. Good point. Some tip-toeing was going on. So it was the denial that drove you crazy? There was a consistent collective dialogue – to the point where I just blurted it out. “Why don’t they stop pretending it’s not murder?” I wish we’d just call it what it is. So I just went home and wrote the song. Tell us a little about the video, where you spray paint the lyrics on a wall. That’s my dear friend Andy Dolan. He’s a renowned graffiti artist. Oh man, I could never write that good. I just couldn’t…. It was so different seeing the words on the wall. Your music has been about politics and social issues from the beginning. How did you get interested in extending that tradition? It’s been a part of my family upbringing. I do come by that honestly. My family was always politically active, socially active. It was part of my everyday conversation, what went on at my house every day. Not necessarily with friends: We were allowed to be kids. But dinner-table conversation, in the home, with my parents’ friends, and my grandparents… My family has a music store in Claremont called the Claremont Folk Music Center, and it’s not only for folk music; it’s the center for a good deal of activism and social awareness and dialogue and conversation. It’s amazing how much progressive activity starts out of that kind of dialogue. Sounds like you were aware, growing up, of the roots of politics and folk music. Yeah – very much aware of that. Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Phil Ochs – all the way up to Bob Marley and Rage Against the Machine. Those are the names you want to summon. Your album with Charlie Musselwhite was pretty great. Did that change you musically, deepen your connection to the blues at all? Yeah – for sure. The blues was always my first instincts – the first music I pursued. I just hounded it. In my late teens and early ’20s, it was my life’s mission to sit at the hem of the garment of as many of the remaining true blues men. I spent a winter with Dave Myers of The Aces, in Chicago; I went and sat at the feet of Brownie McGhee up in Oakland… John Lee Hooker, Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal was my first professional paying gig: I was 20-years-old and he invited me to join his band…. In many ways that’s still the top of the mountain for me. Blind Joe Hill, an L.A. blues musician. I just went to it. Now, when you get a chance to collaborate with the guys who lived and breathed it… Yes, it definitely deepened my connection. You can’t collaborate with Charlie Musselwhite and not have your roots with the blues deepened. Let’s go back to politics. You’ve sung a lot of songs about political and social issues over the years. Is there one you’re especially proud of, that had a real impact? I’m really proud of “Better Way.” I think that’s the optimistic side of all of it. The Dixie Chicks are closing their shows with it right now, which I was incredibly honored to hear. Now I’m just bragging, so pardon that. But it’s a point of excitement – my songs don’t get covered all that often. Also “With My Own Two Hands” is another kind of optimistic song…. But at the same time, “Call It What it Is,” “Black Rain,” “Like a King,” “How Many Miles Must We March”… It’s hard or me to pick on, you know? “Call It Like It Is” is not optimistic, but it’s powerful. How do you hope people will cone out of hearing that song? Do you want to enrage people? You can’t let what’s going on – whether it’s Michael Brown or Walter Scott, where the guy just casually drops a taser near a dead body… It can’t stand! It can’t go unchecked. We can’t – it’s just too dangerous. Race relations is just too integral a part of modern democracy. And this threatens democracy in a very specific way. And it’s just a matter of music being the people’s justice, in a way. Music can make people feel comfortable, it can make people feel angry, it can make people want to join together in a group… And it can also be nothing but background noise – and I understand all of that. What do I hope for the song? This is not what I hope for the song – it’s what I hope for the country, for the planet, for America. That it shifts policy. There has to be policy implementation for racial relations in this country. Whether that’s in education – at public and private, staring at grade zero – or whether that’s in the way law enforcement deal with race relations. You’re hoping for change at every level. Let’s not be foolish enough to think a song is gonna do that! This is just what I want for our country. But it all starts with us calling it what it is. Well I hope the song stirs people up. And also: You can’t be racist and be a Christian! You all have gotta choose! ... You have to choose what you’re gonna be. You can’t be both.Ben Harper was at a park in West Los Angeles talking to some young skaters there when it finally hit him: For all the talk about the shooting of young black men, going back to Trayvon Martin, most people were still walking around the issue. To him, these killings were murder, and he wanted the language to be as blunt as possible. When Harper went home, he wrote the song “Call It What It Is,” which became the title track to an album that comes out on April 8, a few days after he begins a tour with the Innocent Criminals. Harper, who grew up in Claremont, a college town east of Los Angeles, has combined folk, blues, reggae and social protest since the early ‘90s; he’s also a first-rate slide guitarist. In 2014 he won a Grammy for his album with Charlie Musselwhite, the blues guitarist, singer, and harmonica player. His last album, “Childhood Home,” was collaboration with his mother, Ellen. Salon spoke to Harper from New York. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. https://youtu.be/IjlzXEtOnh8 Your title track is about a very serious subject. How long have you been aware of the problem of police harassment? Was this was something you experienced in your own childhood? How long does it go back for you? All my life. And I think that’s why the situation bubbles over. The solution doesn’t match the problem. You’d be hard-pressed to interview any black male who has not dealt with it in some form. It’s a problem that’s been suffocated and compressed, and then it’s released. Not to mention the deaths/murders themselves. You grew up in Claremont, right? I did. And you dealt with this problem there. It just goes to show, it’s everywhere. Big cities, small cities; East, West. It’s inescapable. The only way to change things is to be open to being changed. It’s a tough gig; there are incredible individuals in law enforcement who I respect and admire. Without them, it would be freakin’ anarchy in the streets. But that’s not going to pull me away from my resolve that we have a problem. I can definitely see the two things simultaneously. Let’s talk about the title track a little bit. Where did the idea come from – what pushed you over into writing the song? It just came out of conversation and dialogue. There was a time when it seemed to be getting worse, not better. You can’t let situations like that stand. Part of your frustration in the song is that people were saying something bad was happening, but weren’t calling it murder. They were stepping around the problem. Good point. Some tip-toeing was going on. So it was the denial that drove you crazy? There was a consistent collective dialogue – to the point where I just blurted it out. “Why don’t they stop pretending it’s not murder?” I wish we’d just call it what it is. So I just went home and wrote the song. Tell us a little about the video, where you spray paint the lyrics on a wall. That’s my dear friend Andy Dolan. He’s a renowned graffiti artist. Oh man, I could never write that good. I just couldn’t…. It was so different seeing the words on the wall. Your music has been about politics and social issues from the beginning. How did you get interested in extending that tradition? It’s been a part of my family upbringing. I do come by that honestly. My family was always politically active, socially active. It was part of my everyday conversation, what went on at my house every day. Not necessarily with friends: We were allowed to be kids. But dinner-table conversation, in the home, with my parents’ friends, and my grandparents… My family has a music store in Claremont called the Claremont Folk Music Center, and it’s not only for folk music; it’s the center for a good deal of activism and social awareness and dialogue and conversation. It’s amazing how much progressive activity starts out of that kind of dialogue. Sounds like you were aware, growing up, of the roots of politics and folk music. Yeah – very much aware of that. Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Phil Ochs – all the way up to Bob Marley and Rage Against the Machine. Those are the names you want to summon. Your album with Charlie Musselwhite was pretty great. Did that change you musically, deepen your connection to the blues at all? Yeah – for sure. The blues was always my first instincts – the first music I pursued. I just hounded it. In my late teens and early ’20s, it was my life’s mission to sit at the hem of the garment of as many of the remaining true blues men. I spent a winter with Dave Myers of The Aces, in Chicago; I went and sat at the feet of Brownie McGhee up in Oakland… John Lee Hooker, Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal was my first professional paying gig: I was 20-years-old and he invited me to join his band…. In many ways that’s still the top of the mountain for me. Blind Joe Hill, an L.A. blues musician. I just went to it. Now, when you get a chance to collaborate with the guys who lived and breathed it… Yes, it definitely deepened my connection. You can’t collaborate with Charlie Musselwhite and not have your roots with the blues deepened. Let’s go back to politics. You’ve sung a lot of songs about political and social issues over the years. Is there one you’re especially proud of, that had a real impact? I’m really proud of “Better Way.” I think that’s the optimistic side of all of it. The Dixie Chicks are closing their shows with it right now, which I was incredibly honored to hear. Now I’m just bragging, so pardon that. But it’s a point of excitement – my songs don’t get covered all that often. Also “With My Own Two Hands” is another kind of optimistic song…. But at the same time, “Call It What it Is,” “Black Rain,” “Like a King,” “How Many Miles Must We March”… It’s hard or me to pick on, you know? “Call It Like It Is” is not optimistic, but it’s powerful. How do you hope people will cone out of hearing that song? Do you want to enrage people? You can’t let what’s going on – whether it’s Michael Brown or Walter Scott, where the guy just casually drops a taser near a dead body… It can’t stand! It can’t go unchecked. We can’t – it’s just too dangerous. Race relations is just too integral a part of modern democracy. And this threatens democracy in a very specific way. And it’s just a matter of music being the people’s justice, in a way. Music can make people feel comfortable, it can make people feel angry, it can make people want to join together in a group… And it can also be nothing but background noise – and I understand all of that. What do I hope for the song? This is not what I hope for the song – it’s what I hope for the country, for the planet, for America. That it shifts policy. There has to be policy implementation for racial relations in this country. Whether that’s in education – at public and private, staring at grade zero – or whether that’s in the way law enforcement deal with race relations. You’re hoping for change at every level. Let’s not be foolish enough to think a song is gonna do that! This is just what I want for our country. But it all starts with us calling it what it is. Well I hope the song stirs people up. And also: You can’t be racist and be a Christian! You all have gotta choose! ... You have to choose what you’re gonna be. You can’t be both.
Obama’s SCOTUS selection begins to crack up conservatives: Chuck Grassley delivers stunning rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts on the Senate floor
President Obama clearly had the longish game in mind when he nominated moderate judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in spite of intractable Republican opposition to the President naming any Antonin Scalia successor. Perhaps feeling a bit of the pressure the President intended to place on Senate Republicans in leadership and up for reelection in naming less of a firebrand, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley took to desperately attempting to deflect from Republicans' historic obstructionism by daring to lash out at Republicans' favorite conservative punching bag, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts -- this time from the well of the Senate floor. On Tuesday, the Iowa Republican who faced a delegation of constituents knocking down his office door in Washington, D.C., urging the conservative to finally hold hearings on Garland's nomination, and a stern op-ed back in his hometown newspaper accusing him of being the reason for stalemate on the nation's highest court, decided to distract from the growing chorus calling on him to do his job by criticizing how another man is handling his. "I think he is concerned with the wrong problem," Grassley said of Roberts in a speech on the Senate floor. Grassley was ostensibly reacting to a speech the conservative chief justice delivered just days before the passing of the most controversial figure on the bench in decades. Speaking at New England Law ten days before Scalia's death, Roberts pointed to the three most recently appointed Supreme Court justices to argue that "the [nomination] process is not functioning very well.” Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Alito are "extremely well qualified for the court," Roberts insisted, adding that their partisan confirmation votes "suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.” On the Senate floor Tuesday, Grassley said "the chief justice should resist" interjecting himself in the nomination debate, perhaps understanding that if Roberts likely considered liberal Obama nominated Justices Kagan and Sotomayor "extremely well qualified," he'd likely say the same of Garland -- who some have described as the most qualified nominee in history. "The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court itself has drifted from the Constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences," Grassley said of Roberts, taking a not-so-veiled swipe at his Obamacare decision. "In short, the justices themselves have gotten political." Grassley continued: "He would be well-served to address the reality, not perception, that too often there is little difference between the actions of the court and the actions of the political branches. So, physician, heal thyself." Despite his tirade against the chief justice, Grassley has already been pressured into meeting with Garland next Tuesday after initially refusing to consider any Obama nominee. Garland will also meet with three other Republican Senators next week and has already met with Republican Illinois Senator Mark Kirk who has since called for hearings on his nomination.
The talk-radio godfather of Trumpamania: What Michael Savage can tell us about America’s white working class
Republicans who want to sideline Donald Trump may think that all of the GOP's problems can be solved by his defeat. But Trump did not cause the great GOP divide, he's merely exploiting it. At its core, the alienation of the party's elite from a huge portion of its base stems from a deep sense of betrayal these voters feel at the hands of the Republican politicians they sent to Washington. All too often these GOP incumbents, just like their Democratic colleagues, would cash in on their public service to make fortunes as lobbyists, doing the bidding of big business and even of foreign interests, pushing global trade deals that dismantled tens of thousands of factories and idled millions. At the same time, this disaffected base watched as the national government bailed out the banks, squandered the military, abused veterans, built up China, and ran up the national debt in the process. So, just what portion of their oath of office did they keep? (There is something similar at work between the Sanders insurgency and the professional Democrats, but not nearly as combustible.) Long before Trump's arrival on the scene, it was conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, the idealogical godfather of “Trumpism,” who galvanized this insurgency. Savage gave it a voice and a powerful narrative, one that proved extremely helpful to those, like iconoclastic Senator Ted Cruz, who rose to prominence taking on the very same GOP beltway insiders that Donald Trump is now making so nervous. Years before Trump, Savage had already redefined the nature of the American political landscape when he blew up the Republican Party establishment's hold on its working class base. Trump can come or go, but this insurgency has a depth and breadth that can't be ignored. I have been a longtime listener to Savage because I think that, as a journalist, you risk being blindsided if you ignore someone to whom millions of your fellow Americans are tuning in. I saw the rise of Trump coming several months ago precisely because I know how deep the support runs in so much of America for Savage’s nativist mantra, that the very survival of the nation is threatened by the erosion of our “borders, language, and culture.” Between American multinationals, who do everything and anything to avoid taxes, and American politicians, who so often trade on their office to amass vast fortunes, regular working class Americans feel abandoned. For decades, as businesses have increasingly exploited undocumented immigrants for cheap labor or moved operations out of the country entirely, these voters have become resentful, watching their wages stagnate and full-time jobs with benefits become scarcer by the day. For many of them, Savage's "Savage Nation" is a kind of sanctuary. In his running commentary, he's gone after the duopoly of Republican and Democratic elites. While Trump was still playing nice in polite society and donating money to Democrats, Savage was building a huge audience skewering political correctness and going after what he perceived as the excesses of both parties. Savage calls liberalism “a mental disorder,” and blames it for the disintegration of a national cohesion that gave America the backbone to conquer fascism in the Second World War, and the persistence to outlast the Soviet Union in the Cold War that followed. For Savage, the classical foundations of western civilization are innately superior to whatever else is out there. Yet, he will go on populist rants denouncing U.S. multinationals for outsourcing tech jobs. He has zeroed in on the bi-partisan tradition of elected officials that go on to enrich themselves by doing the bidding of corporations, and even foreign interests. Savage is a raconteur of many parts, with roots in New York City, where he grew up. He is a bestselling New York Times author, has a master’s degree in medical anthropology and a Phd from the University of California at Berkeley in epidemiology and nutrition sciences. He says he is an avid conservationist and animal lover, yet dismisses global warming as a hoax. His extemporaneous musings about his daily comings and goings, his 11-pound poodle Teddy, and about his days growing up in working class New York, are poignant and display a rich emotional arc. Unlike his rightwing colleagues, that rant on politics exclusively, Savage’s dynamic range makes him engaging company. He can talk to listeners about what he had to eat and drink the night before, and, in the process, share the vicissitudes of growing older with millions intimately. He’s speaking to you and only you, especially if you fit his key demographic, the disaffected white conservative voter. Back in a flattering 2009 New Yorker profile Savage’s show was described as “one of the most addictive programs on radio, and one of the least predictable.” I first started listening to Savage back in 2006, when I was a reporter for National Public Radio affiliate WNYC assigned to cover a press conference convened by Senator Charles Schumer. Schumer was sounding the alarm about the Bush Administration’s approval of a $6.8 billion dollar deal to have Dubai Ports World -- owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates -- take over operations at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. Critics of the deal, like Schumer, pointed out that, despite the close relationship between the U.S. and the UAE, two of the 9/11 hi-jackers, who had UAE passports, also used UAE banks; and that the UAE government was one of the handful of nations in the world to recognize the Taliban’s dominion over Afghanistan. The port transaction had been approved on an expedited basis by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-agency panel convened by the Secretary of the Treasury for the purpose of determining if the sale of American assets to overseas-based companies is, or isn’t, in the best interest of America’s national security. But all too often in these deliberations, the commercial interests beat out both the consideration of national security and the longterm economic wellbeing of the American worker. This time it would be different. As I listened to Schumer, not far from the site of the World Trade Center, I was struck by the seeming incoherence of the Bush Administration’s quick approval of the deal, and their post-9/11 Homeland Security imperative, which they had used to reorganize American society while putting the nation on a trajectory of perpetual war. Even as the rest of the media was stumbling around to flesh out the details of the port deal, Michael Savage was charging to the air, like a 21st century Paul Revere, dubbing the deal “Portgate” and urging his millions of loyal listeners to take to the ramparts and loudly register their disapproval. The globalists had to be stopped. Each day Savage turned the heat up on the beltway, recounting how the sell-off of another critical piece of U.S. infrastructure to Arabs was being facilitated by lobbyist-traitors from both parties. The Washington Post reported that Dubai Port World was enlisting the likes of former Senator Bob Dole and former Congressman Tom Downey and his wife, former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, both Democrats. At first the Bush White House, clueless about the outright rebellion that awaited them, defended the deal. Boosters dismissed the critics concerns over foreign ownership as just ignorance. "Why, didn’t these simpletons know that the Chinese run a Pacific Coast port?" went the conventional wisdom. By the time Savage was done hammering the Bush Administration over “Portgate,” the White House’s only refuge was to say President Bush was only aware of the deal after it was approved. The deal had produced something that was by then already exceedingly rare in Washington, an overnight bipartisan outrage. Congress stampeded to stop the deal. In the end, Savage prevailed and Dubai Ports World went packing. For the swelling ranks of the Savage Nation, that was the beginning of the end for the Bush brand of mercantile Republicanism. Savage, elected by nobody, had moved the nation and stopped a deal that all the smart money was convinced would sail through. He had undermined a sitting Republican president with a big chunk of the base that had elected him. Savage has been assailed as a racist for frequent comments he’s made about Islam, Arabs and the undocumented, but, as we have seen more recently with Donald Trump, the more over the top his rhetoric has become, the more popular he has become as well. These days Savage's hate and vilification of President Obama is so unrelenting that it often crosses over into being disrespectful of the institution of the Presidency itself, and the electoral process by which President Obama came to occupy the office. No doubt riding this wave of anger is great for Savage Nation, but pretty dicey for the country as a whole. But that's assuming, of course, that you want to keep it whole.
Hillary’s world collapsing around her: Wisconsin, Bernie’s surge and FBI probe poised to derail her White House bid
Wisconsin represents more than just Bernie’s sixth straight win, or the likelihood of seven straight wins after Wyoming, right before New York. This political revolution, ignited by Bernie Sanders and fought for by people of all races, faiths, and ethnic backgrounds across the U.S. has been bolstered by political momentum. It’s not current delegate count or prior poll numbers, it’s unprecedented political momentum that will win Sanders the Democratic nomination. It’s the fact Bernie Sanders isn’t going to be interviewed by the FBI like Clinton, and also the fact Wisconsin has kept political momentum alive at a crucial time in the Democratic Primary race. Since Sanders does better against GOP competition than Clinton, he’ll win the presidency when elected Democratic nominee. Clinton’s “FBI Primary” is around the corner and Wisconsin symbolizes the continuation of something profound. Had Clinton won Wisconsin, America’s political establishment would have tried to nail the coffin shut on a political movement that is just getting started. Had Bernie lost Wisconsin, the naysayers would gleefully have remarked that ideals and principles are nice, but FBI investigations and Iraq votes define pragmatism. In short, Wisconsin kept the flame alive, despite attempts by DNC and progressive naysayers in the media (you know who they are, the same people who can’t stand H. A. Goodman) to dim the lights. Thus, the “adults” in the room, as they like to be called, must come to the realization that Clinton isn’t only battling the FBI, but also Bernie Sanders and millions of voters opposed to status quo politics. In addition, this movement is bolstered by women and younger voters. 82% of voters ages 18-29 went to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin. 66% of voters 30-44 went to Sanders. Sure, but the older, more experienced voter chose Clinton, right? Well, Clinton only won voters 45-64 by a margin of 54% to 46%. Most importantly, 57% of voters were female, and the women of Wisconsin sided with Bernie Sanders over Clinton, 50% to 49%. 50% of female voters chose Bernie Sanders. 49% of female voters sided with Clinton. The smartest people in the room also never imagined Bernie Sanders would be raising more money than Hillary Clinton. The professional “inevitability press” failed to predict Bernie Sanders battling a political juggernaut and former Secretary of State in April of 2016, and certainly never predicted Sanders would have earned over 1,000 pledged delegates at this point. Political momentum from Wisconsin will result in even more money for the Sanders campaign. Bernie’s ability to outraise even Hillary Clinton is highlighted in a U.S. News & World Report" piece titled "Bernie Sanders: the Fundraising Front-Runner":
Say what you will about the viability of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy at this stage in the campaign. He is an undisputed fundraising machine. Sanders raised $43.5 million in February, according to filings to the Federal Election Commission, more than any candidate in either party.Yes, the “undisputed fundraising machine” has raised “more money than any candidate in either party.” With all of Clinton’s Wall Street ties and prison lobbyist donors, Bernie Sanders soundly defeats the former Secretary of State and other Republicans in terms of fundraising. Bernie’s Wisconsin victory will no doubt add even more money to the Sanders campaign. Like the inability of pundits to predict his ascent in national polls, and the Vermont Senator’s current political momentum, establishment critics never predicted the cascade of money flowing to Bernie Sanders. An article in The Washington Post titled "Bernie Sanders outraises Hillary Clinton for third consecutive month" highlights what poll numbers can’t tell you:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s fundraising juggernaut outraised Hillary Clinton’s campaign in March, surpassing her for the third consecutive month. Clinton announced on Monday that her campaign had raised $29.5 million for the month compared with the $44 million raised by the Sanders campaign. Sanders’s March fundraising haul surpasses the campaign’s own record-setting $43.3 million raised in February. Sanders has made a point to raise a vast majority of his money from small-dollar contributors who donate online — an average of $27 each, according to the campaign. He has also criticized Clinton for devoting time to fundraising from the wealthy. “What this campaign is doing is bringing together millions of people contributing an average of just $27 each to take on a billionaire class which is so used to buying elections,” Sanders said in a statement on Friday. “Working people standing together are going to propel this campaign to the Democratic nomination and then the White House.”With an average of only $27, the Sanders campaign has outraised everyone in 2016. Not only has Sanders defeated Clinton in six straight contests, but he’s raised more money in three consecutive months. While Bernie Sanders just won Wisconsin and will continue to outraise everyone else, Hillary Clinton must contend with the FBI. Years from now, somebody will be reading this and wondering how Americans could possibly vote for a person at risk of DOJ indictments. Yes, future readers, as of today establishment Democrats still think Clinton’s experience overshadows an FBI investigation. I explain what Hillary Clinton thinks of the FBI in the following YouTube segment. Nonetheless, there are people questioning the logic of voting for a person linked to an FBI investigation. An article by Ronald J. Sievert in USA Today titled "Hillary’s ‘classified’ smokescreen hides real crime" highlights the case for DOJ indictment:
Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling ‘national defense information,’ classified or not. Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.” The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with ... any document ... or information relating to the national defense ... through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case. The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.Bernie Sanders is indeed the real Democratic front-runner, especially since Clinton doesn’t have a genuine defense for her upcoming FBI interview. Intelligence within emails doesn’t have to be marked classified, can indeed become retroactively classified, and should never have been on Clinton’s unguarded private server. Once the FBI clears the “smokescreen” that establishment Democrats have allowed blur their vision, Clinton will likely concede the race to Sanders. Finally, I explain in a recent CNN International appearance that Clinton faces potential FBI indictment. I also discuss on CNN New Day that Clinton’s email fiasco is the epitome of white privilege. Ultimately, Wisconsin just elected Bernie Sanders president, and the momentum from this win will lead to further landmark victories. While Bernie is raising more money than anyone, Clinton is facing potential FBI and DOJ indictment. Clinton’s excuses regarding retroactive classification won’t impress the FBI and very soon, Bernie Sanders will be the official Democratic front-runner. Wisconsin continued the momentum at a critical point and helped elect President Bernie Sanders. Wisconsin represents more than just Bernie’s sixth straight win, or the likelihood of seven straight wins after Wyoming, right before New York. This political revolution, ignited by Bernie Sanders and fought for by people of all races, faiths, and ethnic backgrounds across the U.S. has been bolstered by political momentum. It’s not current delegate count or prior poll numbers, it’s unprecedented political momentum that will win Sanders the Democratic nomination. It’s the fact Bernie Sanders isn’t going to be interviewed by the FBI like Clinton, and also the fact Wisconsin has kept political momentum alive at a crucial time in the Democratic Primary race. Since Sanders does better against GOP competition than Clinton, he’ll win the presidency when elected Democratic nominee. Clinton’s “FBI Primary” is around the corner and Wisconsin symbolizes the continuation of something profound. Had Clinton won Wisconsin, America’s political establishment would have tried to nail the coffin shut on a political movement that is just getting started. Had Bernie lost Wisconsin, the naysayers would gleefully have remarked that ideals and principles are nice, but FBI investigations and Iraq votes define pragmatism. In short, Wisconsin kept the flame alive, despite attempts by DNC and progressive naysayers in the media (you know who they are, the same people who can’t stand H. A. Goodman) to dim the lights. Thus, the “adults” in the room, as they like to be called, must come to the realization that Clinton isn’t only battling the FBI, but also Bernie Sanders and millions of voters opposed to status quo politics. In addition, this movement is bolstered by women and younger voters. 82% of voters ages 18-29 went to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin. 66% of voters 30-44 went to Sanders. Sure, but the older, more experienced voter chose Clinton, right? Well, Clinton only won voters 45-64 by a margin of 54% to 46%. Most importantly, 57% of voters were female, and the women of Wisconsin sided with Bernie Sanders over Clinton, 50% to 49%. 50% of female voters chose Bernie Sanders. 49% of female voters sided with Clinton. The smartest people in the room also never imagined Bernie Sanders would be raising more money than Hillary Clinton. The professional “inevitability press” failed to predict Bernie Sanders battling a political juggernaut and former Secretary of State in April of 2016, and certainly never predicted Sanders would have earned over 1,000 pledged delegates at this point. Political momentum from Wisconsin will result in even more money for the Sanders campaign. Bernie’s ability to outraise even Hillary Clinton is highlighted in a U.S. News & World Report" piece titled "Bernie Sanders: the Fundraising Front-Runner":
Say what you will about the viability of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy at this stage in the campaign. He is an undisputed fundraising machine. Sanders raised $43.5 million in February, according to filings to the Federal Election Commission, more than any candidate in either party.Yes, the “undisputed fundraising machine” has raised “more money than any candidate in either party.” With all of Clinton’s Wall Street ties and prison lobbyist donors, Bernie Sanders soundly defeats the former Secretary of State and other Republicans in terms of fundraising. Bernie’s Wisconsin victory will no doubt add even more money to the Sanders campaign. Like the inability of pundits to predict his ascent in national polls, and the Vermont Senator’s current political momentum, establishment critics never predicted the cascade of money flowing to Bernie Sanders. An article in The Washington Post titled "Bernie Sanders outraises Hillary Clinton for third consecutive month" highlights what poll numbers can’t tell you:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s fundraising juggernaut outraised Hillary Clinton’s campaign in March, surpassing her for the third consecutive month. Clinton announced on Monday that her campaign had raised $29.5 million for the month compared with the $44 million raised by the Sanders campaign. Sanders’s March fundraising haul surpasses the campaign’s own record-setting $43.3 million raised in February. Sanders has made a point to raise a vast majority of his money from small-dollar contributors who donate online — an average of $27 each, according to the campaign. He has also criticized Clinton for devoting time to fundraising from the wealthy. “What this campaign is doing is bringing together millions of people contributing an average of just $27 each to take on a billionaire class which is so used to buying elections,” Sanders said in a statement on Friday. “Working people standing together are going to propel this campaign to the Democratic nomination and then the White House.”With an average of only $27, the Sanders campaign has outraised everyone in 2016. Not only has Sanders defeated Clinton in six straight contests, but he’s raised more money in three consecutive months. While Bernie Sanders just won Wisconsin and will continue to outraise everyone else, Hillary Clinton must contend with the FBI. Years from now, somebody will be reading this and wondering how Americans could possibly vote for a person at risk of DOJ indictments. Yes, future readers, as of today establishment Democrats still think Clinton’s experience overshadows an FBI investigation. I explain what Hillary Clinton thinks of the FBI in the following YouTube segment. Nonetheless, there are people questioning the logic of voting for a person linked to an FBI investigation. An article by Ronald J. Sievert in USA Today titled "Hillary’s ‘classified’ smokescreen hides real crime" highlights the case for DOJ indictment:
Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling ‘national defense information,’ classified or not. Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.” The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with ... any document ... or information relating to the national defense ... through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case. The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.Bernie Sanders is indeed the real Democratic front-runner, especially since Clinton doesn’t have a genuine defense for her upcoming FBI interview. Intelligence within emails doesn’t have to be marked classified, can indeed become retroactively classified, and should never have been on Clinton’s unguarded private server. Once the FBI clears the “smokescreen” that establishment Democrats have allowed blur their vision, Clinton will likely concede the race to Sanders. Finally, I explain in a recent CNN International appearance that Clinton faces potential FBI indictment. I also discuss on CNN New Day that Clinton’s email fiasco is the epitome of white privilege. Ultimately, Wisconsin just elected Bernie Sanders president, and the momentum from this win will lead to further landmark victories. While Bernie is raising more money than anyone, Clinton is facing potential FBI and DOJ indictment. Clinton’s excuses regarding retroactive classification won’t impress the FBI and very soon, Bernie Sanders will be the official Democratic front-runner. Wisconsin continued the momentum at a critical point and helped elect President Bernie Sanders.
Never apologize for carrying a Weezer lunch box! Amazing #IndieAmnesty confessions are nothing to be embarrassed about
Indie rock has moved to the margins of the music world, as hip hop, R&B, country, and various kinds of electronic music have come to dominate the charts and the media conversation. It's been a long time since the intense side-taking of Oasis vs. Blur, for instance, and a lot of music fans turned on the Decemberists a few years ago. So it’s surprising to see indie taking over at least one corner of Twitter today. The good news is that indie is acquiring mass social-media visibility like it rarely has. The bad news is that most of these confessions are things we should not need amnesty for. Each individual post is intended to be gently self-mocking, but read them all together and they add up to a kind of loss of faith in the whole indie project. Like this one: https://twitter.com/grxce_wxtts/statu... or this one: https://twitter.com/grxce_wxtts/statu... or this: https://twitter.com/CatrinSaran/statu... These should actually be points of pride, not apology. If indie really means something, it’s not a youthful phase but a life commitment. So why make yourself feel bad for loving Belle & Sebastian and vinyl? Seriously. Some of the rest of these are indeed pretty funny. They either show bad judgment, selfishness, or just how insular indie rock can get, especially in Britain. Or they're just really clever. https://twitter.com/grimmers/status/7... https://twitter.com/totallywould/stat... https://twitter.com/BrandyLJensen/sta... https://twitter.com/gravesmeredith/st... https://twitter.com/laurasnapes/statu... And this one really is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/liamketters/statu... This may make you cringe, and this guy is smart to come clean. https://twitter.com/davidegreenwald/s... Indie is about standing up for overlooked artists, pledging a deep love to the music, and avoiding what the mainstream is shoving down out throats. It all gets a little overwrought at a certain point – no question. Kudos to #indieamnesty for teasing the tribal obsessiveness. But what does it means when indie’s most prominent appearance on social media in ages is to become a punchline? Allegiance to indie rock certainly involves its share of rituals, saints, sinners, and forbidden behavior. “The appeal of independent music over corporately funded pop is its promise of authenticity,” Ryan Bort writes in Newsweek. “While the latter may as well have been developed in a lab by suited executives dreaming of ad dollars and synergy, indie music is, ostensibly, made ‘for the right reasons.’ “ That makes it easy to make fun of. But it’s also one of the few subgenres that’s not obsessed with money and power. And despite what Brits call “landfill indie” – the production of an enormous amount of forgettable, derivative guitar rock – there’s plenty of good work still coming out. And let's not forget this: https://twitter.com/WillBlackWriter/s... Indie types should be able to make fun of themselves, especially when they lapse into major poser-hood. But it shows just how cynical the web conversation has gotten if dedication to an obscure band has become something that requires confession. Next time indie fans take over Twitter, I’m hoping it’s because they’re excited about an emerging musician or a great new album. If we’re just here to make fun of our younger selves, the corporate rock and boy bands really have won.Indie rock has moved to the margins of the music world, as hip hop, R&B, country, and various kinds of electronic music have come to dominate the charts and the media conversation. It's been a long time since the intense side-taking of Oasis vs. Blur, for instance, and a lot of music fans turned on the Decemberists a few years ago. So it’s surprising to see indie taking over at least one corner of Twitter today. The good news is that indie is acquiring mass social-media visibility like it rarely has. The bad news is that most of these confessions are things we should not need amnesty for. Each individual post is intended to be gently self-mocking, but read them all together and they add up to a kind of loss of faith in the whole indie project. Like this one: https://twitter.com/grxce_wxtts/statu... or this one: https://twitter.com/grxce_wxtts/statu... or this: https://twitter.com/CatrinSaran/statu... These should actually be points of pride, not apology. If indie really means something, it’s not a youthful phase but a life commitment. So why make yourself feel bad for loving Belle & Sebastian and vinyl? Seriously. Some of the rest of these are indeed pretty funny. They either show bad judgment, selfishness, or just how insular indie rock can get, especially in Britain. Or they're just really clever. https://twitter.com/grimmers/status/7... https://twitter.com/totallywould/stat... https://twitter.com/BrandyLJensen/sta... https://twitter.com/gravesmeredith/st... https://twitter.com/laurasnapes/statu... And this one really is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/liamketters/statu... This may make you cringe, and this guy is smart to come clean. https://twitter.com/davidegreenwald/s... Indie is about standing up for overlooked artists, pledging a deep love to the music, and avoiding what the mainstream is shoving down out throats. It all gets a little overwrought at a certain point – no question. Kudos to #indieamnesty for teasing the tribal obsessiveness. But what does it means when indie’s most prominent appearance on social media in ages is to become a punchline? Allegiance to indie rock certainly involves its share of rituals, saints, sinners, and forbidden behavior. “The appeal of independent music over corporately funded pop is its promise of authenticity,” Ryan Bort writes in Newsweek. “While the latter may as well have been developed in a lab by suited executives dreaming of ad dollars and synergy, indie music is, ostensibly, made ‘for the right reasons.’ “ That makes it easy to make fun of. But it’s also one of the few subgenres that’s not obsessed with money and power. And despite what Brits call “landfill indie” – the production of an enormous amount of forgettable, derivative guitar rock – there’s plenty of good work still coming out. And let's not forget this: https://twitter.com/WillBlackWriter/s... Indie types should be able to make fun of themselves, especially when they lapse into major poser-hood. But it shows just how cynical the web conversation has gotten if dedication to an obscure band has become something that requires confession. Next time indie fans take over Twitter, I’m hoping it’s because they’re excited about an emerging musician or a great new album. If we’re just here to make fun of our younger selves, the corporate rock and boy bands really have won.
“Here, I feel very alive and like my voice is being heard”: Meet Ballez, a dance company for transgender, lesbian and queer stories
When Katy Pyle founded Ballez in 2011, she was looking for a comfortable dance space. She felt excluded from traditional ballet narratives and sought to create a dance company that celebrated transgender, queer and lesbian stories and bodies. Meet the dancers and watch them in action in our video. Visit their kickstarter page for their upcoming show "Sleeping Beauty & The Beast." When Katy Pyle founded Ballez in 2011, she was looking for a comfortable dance space. She felt excluded from traditional ballet narratives and sought to create a dance company that celebrated transgender, queer and lesbian stories and bodies. Meet the dancers and watch them in action in our video. Visit their kickstarter page for their upcoming show "Sleeping Beauty & The Beast."
5 disturbing facts the food industry doesn’t want you to know
From mercury in tuna and wood pulp in parmesan cheese to ground beef treated with ammonia to retard E. coli (“pink slime”), the press does a good job exposing the dangerous and deceptive practices of Big Food. The problem is, the public forgets about the food risk or contamination, assuming that reform is in the works and that is just fine with Big Food. Often nothing changes. For example, many thought the problem of mercury in tuna had been solved since it has been so widely reported. But Time recently wrote “the latest analysis shows that eating fish the way the government recommends is exposing people, especially pregnant women, to unsafe levels of mercury.” And two years after the nation’s stomach was turned by pink slime, its manufacturer Beef Products, Inc. had reopened plants and even filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC and Diane Sawyer. Who are you calling pink slime? Here are some hidden-in-plain-sight facts Big Food doesn’t want you to know. 1. Meat preservatives cause cancer. Did you ever wonder why bacon, hot dogs, ham, cold cuts, Slim Jims and most processed and cured meats taste salty, look pink and stay on the shelves indefinitely? Because food processors use the preservatives nitrite and nitrate which produce the pink color, delay bacterial growth and rancid taste and smell and impart a cured or smoked meat flavor. Researchers have known since the 1970s that the preservatives become "nitrosamines" in the body—compounds that cause cancer. Following a 2008 American Institute for Cancer Research/World Cancer Research Fund report that found just one hot dog a day increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 21 percent, there were calls to ban such processed meat, especially in schools. Last year, the World Health Organization reignited the controversy and declared processed meats Group 1 carcinogens, the highest risk category that exists. WHO researchers, who analyzed 800 studies, defined processed meat as “anything transformed to improve its flavor or preserve it, including sausages, beef jerky and anything smoked,” reported the Boston Globe. Researchers identified links from processed meats to colon, prostate and pancreatic cancers. Scientific articles also link nitrosamines to lung cancer, kidney cancer, stroke, coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus. The American Cancer Society tells people not to eat them. Still, the industry-influenced USDA remains agnostic about the dangers of nitrosamines in its new Dietary Guidelines rolled out this year. "We are pretty disappointed the report doesn't recommend limiting red and processed meat because of the link to cancer," said Katie McMahon of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. 2. Shrimp are a safety disaster waiting to happen. Most people do not realize the majority of shrimp sold in the U.S. are neither domestic nor wild-caught. They are imported from countries like Thailand, India and Indonesia where they are "farmed" in crowded, filthy pools with antibiotics, disinfectants and parasiticides that are banned in the United States. The shrimp themselves have their eyes removed before being raised in pools so dense and dirty that many die. The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of such imported shrimp for human consumption, yet over 96 percent of shipments are not opened or even checked when they arrive on the dock in the United States. Instead, exporters' identities are stored in the FDA Automated Commercial System (ACS) system and only if a country or company has had prior problems will it receive receive inspections. Even then, the so-called inspection may only be a look at documents or a visual inspection, not lab tests for dangerous substances. FDA inspectors admit that blocked exporters can “transship” their products from another country to fool inspectors. Is anyone surprised that banned drugs and mislabeled products including pet shrimp find their way to U.S. dinner tables? Like so many food products that are bad for consumers, intensively farmed shrimp also harm the environment, workers and animals. A recent, award-winning Associated Press series exposes slave labor used in the commercial seafood industry in Indonesia and Thailand—and the actual incarceration of captive workers in Myanmar in cages. U.S. officials and human rights activists call on Americans to “stop buying fish and shrimp tied to supply chains in Thailand.” Intensive shrimp farming also harms sensitive mangrove areas. 3. Antibiotic use in livestock is getting worse. By now, most conscientious eaters know that Big Food uses tons of antibiotics to make animals gain weight with less feed thus driving antibiotic resistant bacteria and infections. Antibiotics are also used to prevent illness in the extremely crowded and unsanitary conditions of “factory farms.” What people may not realize is that Big Food has repeatedly defeated government attempts to regulate and prohibit antibiotic use, and that Big Pharma and Big Food, not the government, actually call the shots. In 2008, the egg, chicken, turkey, milk, pork and cattle industries stormed Capitol Hill over the proposal to prohibit the use of Cefzil and Keflex (important human drugs called cephalosporins), claiming they could not “farm” without the drugs. They won. In 2014, the FDA tried regulation again, proposing a voluntary plan in which drug makers would agree to remove the use of “growth promotion and feed efficiency” on antibiotic labels and the drugs would only be used to prevent disease. Did the government really think Big Pharma and Big Meat would undercut their own profits and meat producers would comply? Soon after the announcement, Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, told me it was likely Big Pharma would simply replace “growth production" with "disease prevention" on the labels and continue the routine antibiotic use. Cattle producers could continue to feed grain instead of grass to animals even though it produces more liver abscesses, then treating them with the antibiotic Tylosin to "prevent disease," he told me. So far, according to the FDA’s 2014 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, domestic sales and distribution of livestock cephalosporins increased by 57 percent between 2009 through 2014, antibiotics like clindamycin by 150 percent and antibiotics like gentamicin by 36 percent. Thanks for nothing, FDA. 4. Mad cow disease is still with us. There is probably no disease Big Food fears as much as “mad cow,” a fatal, incurable highly contagious disease transmitted by particles called prions that are not killed by heat, ammonia, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, phenol, lye, formaldehyde or even radiation. They are said to remain infectious in the soil for years. Within 24 hours of discovery of the USDA’s first mad cow in 2003, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, South Korea, and 90 other countries banned U.S. beef—wiping out 98 percent of the $3 billion overseas beef market. Subsequent mad cow scares have caused the biggest beef recall in U.S. history, terrified medical patients (when news of a patient with a related human brain disorder, CJD, in a hospital surfaced) and destroyed futures markets in minutes. Driving the panic are questions about how cows get the disease, whether the feed is safe and where herd mates and offspring are. But in recent years, Big Food has mitigated the problem by terming new mad cow cases "atypical"—meaning they “just happen.” Since the pathogenesis is spontaneous, the feed sources and herd mates no longer have to be traced and the story will soon drop from the news and consumers' concerns. Yet the disease is far from gone. Last year, a likely new case of mad cow turned up in Ireland and both Norway and Canada reported “atypical” cases. This month a suspected mad cow was found in France. Last year, two people died from the mad cow-related version of CJD in Italy and Tampa had two cases of CJD whose origins were not determined. 5. Bird flu and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus are worse than reported. Do you remember the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv) outbreak in 2013 or the bird flu epidemic of 2015? Chances are no, because Big Food managed to prevent the public from seeing dumpsters full of the dead livestock lest people ask what is happening on factory farms, why are so many animals sick, what drugs are they taking and why should we eat products from such sick animals. News reports instead focused on farmers' financial losses, price increases in the products and farmers' needs to "restock." At least one tenth of U.S. pigs died in 2013 and 2014 from PEDv, though Big Food assures food consumers the disease is unlikely to jump species and infect people. Almost 50 million flu-stricken chickens and turkeys died in 2015, "piled up in dumpsters, attracting flies and emitting a stench. Only recently has the disposal crisis abated, with the help of "round-the-clock incinerators and crews in hazmat suits," reported Fortune. While egg layers were dosed with carbon monoxide, floor-reared turkeys and broiler chickens were herded into an enclosed area and administered a propylene glycol foam that suffocates them. Neither of the outbreaks are gone. In January, the bird flu was back at an Indiana turkey farm where all the birds were slaughtered and their carcasses destroyed. Pork producers say PEDv will likely never be gone in the U.S. and other diseases also loom.
From mercury in tuna and wood pulp in parmesan cheese to ground beef treated with ammonia to retard E. coli (“pink slime”), the press does a good job exposing the dangerous and deceptive practices of Big Food. The problem is, the public forgets about the food risk or contamination, assuming that reform is in the works and that is just fine with Big Food. Often nothing changes. For example, many thought the problem of mercury in tuna had been solved since it has been so widely reported. But Time recently wrote “the latest analysis shows that eating fish the way the government recommends is exposing people, especially pregnant women, to unsafe levels of mercury.” And two years after the nation’s stomach was turned by pink slime, its manufacturer Beef Products, Inc. had reopened plants and even filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC and Diane Sawyer. Who are you calling pink slime? Here are some hidden-in-plain-sight facts Big Food doesn’t want you to know. 1. Meat preservatives cause cancer. Did you ever wonder why bacon, hot dogs, ham, cold cuts, Slim Jims and most processed and cured meats taste salty, look pink and stay on the shelves indefinitely? Because food processors use the preservatives nitrite and nitrate which produce the pink color, delay bacterial growth and rancid taste and smell and impart a cured or smoked meat flavor. Researchers have known since the 1970s that the preservatives become "nitrosamines" in the body—compounds that cause cancer. Following a 2008 American Institute for Cancer Research/World Cancer Research Fund report that found just one hot dog a day increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 21 percent, there were calls to ban such processed meat, especially in schools. Last year, the World Health Organization reignited the controversy and declared processed meats Group 1 carcinogens, the highest risk category that exists. WHO researchers, who analyzed 800 studies, defined processed meat as “anything transformed to improve its flavor or preserve it, including sausages, beef jerky and anything smoked,” reported the Boston Globe. Researchers identified links from processed meats to colon, prostate and pancreatic cancers. Scientific articles also link nitrosamines to lung cancer, kidney cancer, stroke, coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus. The American Cancer Society tells people not to eat them. Still, the industry-influenced USDA remains agnostic about the dangers of nitrosamines in its new Dietary Guidelines rolled out this year. "We are pretty disappointed the report doesn't recommend limiting red and processed meat because of the link to cancer," said Katie McMahon of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. 2. Shrimp are a safety disaster waiting to happen. Most people do not realize the majority of shrimp sold in the U.S. are neither domestic nor wild-caught. They are imported from countries like Thailand, India and Indonesia where they are "farmed" in crowded, filthy pools with antibiotics, disinfectants and parasiticides that are banned in the United States. The shrimp themselves have their eyes removed before being raised in pools so dense and dirty that many die. The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of such imported shrimp for human consumption, yet over 96 percent of shipments are not opened or even checked when they arrive on the dock in the United States. Instead, exporters' identities are stored in the FDA Automated Commercial System (ACS) system and only if a country or company has had prior problems will it receive receive inspections. Even then, the so-called inspection may only be a look at documents or a visual inspection, not lab tests for dangerous substances. FDA inspectors admit that blocked exporters can “transship” their products from another country to fool inspectors. Is anyone surprised that banned drugs and mislabeled products including pet shrimp find their way to U.S. dinner tables? Like so many food products that are bad for consumers, intensively farmed shrimp also harm the environment, workers and animals. A recent, award-winning Associated Press series exposes slave labor used in the commercial seafood industry in Indonesia and Thailand—and the actual incarceration of captive workers in Myanmar in cages. U.S. officials and human rights activists call on Americans to “stop buying fish and shrimp tied to supply chains in Thailand.” Intensive shrimp farming also harms sensitive mangrove areas. 3. Antibiotic use in livestock is getting worse. By now, most conscientious eaters know that Big Food uses tons of antibiotics to make animals gain weight with less feed thus driving antibiotic resistant bacteria and infections. Antibiotics are also used to prevent illness in the extremely crowded and unsanitary conditions of “factory farms.” What people may not realize is that Big Food has repeatedly defeated government attempts to regulate and prohibit antibiotic use, and that Big Pharma and Big Food, not the government, actually call the shots. In 2008, the egg, chicken, turkey, milk, pork and cattle industries stormed Capitol Hill over the proposal to prohibit the use of Cefzil and Keflex (important human drugs called cephalosporins), claiming they could not “farm” without the drugs. They won. In 2014, the FDA tried regulation again, proposing a voluntary plan in which drug makers would agree to remove the use of “growth promotion and feed efficiency” on antibiotic labels and the drugs would only be used to prevent disease. Did the government really think Big Pharma and Big Meat would undercut their own profits and meat producers would comply? Soon after the announcement, Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, told me it was likely Big Pharma would simply replace “growth production" with "disease prevention" on the labels and continue the routine antibiotic use. Cattle producers could continue to feed grain instead of grass to animals even though it produces more liver abscesses, then treating them with the antibiotic Tylosin to "prevent disease," he told me. So far, according to the FDA’s 2014 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, domestic sales and distribution of livestock cephalosporins increased by 57 percent between 2009 through 2014, antibiotics like clindamycin by 150 percent and antibiotics like gentamicin by 36 percent. Thanks for nothing, FDA. 4. Mad cow disease is still with us. There is probably no disease Big Food fears as much as “mad cow,” a fatal, incurable highly contagious disease transmitted by particles called prions that are not killed by heat, ammonia, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, phenol, lye, formaldehyde or even radiation. They are said to remain infectious in the soil for years. Within 24 hours of discovery of the USDA’s first mad cow in 2003, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, South Korea, and 90 other countries banned U.S. beef—wiping out 98 percent of the $3 billion overseas beef market. Subsequent mad cow scares have caused the biggest beef recall in U.S. history, terrified medical patients (when news of a patient with a related human brain disorder, CJD, in a hospital surfaced) and destroyed futures markets in minutes. Driving the panic are questions about how cows get the disease, whether the feed is safe and where herd mates and offspring are. But in recent years, Big Food has mitigated the problem by terming new mad cow cases "atypical"—meaning they “just happen.” Since the pathogenesis is spontaneous, the feed sources and herd mates no longer have to be traced and the story will soon drop from the news and consumers' concerns. Yet the disease is far from gone. Last year, a likely new case of mad cow turned up in Ireland and both Norway and Canada reported “atypical” cases. This month a suspected mad cow was found in France. Last year, two people died from the mad cow-related version of CJD in Italy and Tampa had two cases of CJD whose origins were not determined. 5. Bird flu and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus are worse than reported. Do you remember the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv) outbreak in 2013 or the bird flu epidemic of 2015? Chances are no, because Big Food managed to prevent the public from seeing dumpsters full of the dead livestock lest people ask what is happening on factory farms, why are so many animals sick, what drugs are they taking and why should we eat products from such sick animals. News reports instead focused on farmers' financial losses, price increases in the products and farmers' needs to "restock." At least one tenth of U.S. pigs died in 2013 and 2014 from PEDv, though Big Food assures food consumers the disease is unlikely to jump species and infect people. Almost 50 million flu-stricken chickens and turkeys died in 2015, "piled up in dumpsters, attracting flies and emitting a stench. Only recently has the disposal crisis abated, with the help of "round-the-clock incinerators and crews in hazmat suits," reported Fortune. While egg layers were dosed with carbon monoxide, floor-reared turkeys and broiler chickens were herded into an enclosed area and administered a propylene glycol foam that suffocates them. Neither of the outbreaks are gone. In January, the bird flu was back at an Indiana turkey farm where all the birds were slaughtered and their carcasses destroyed. Pork producers say PEDv will likely never be gone in the U.S. and other diseases also loom.
April 5, 2016
“Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet — he is a Trojan horse”: Spoiled Donald Trump throws a temper tantrum after losing Wisconsin primary
Wisconsinites just don't like Donald Trump very much. On Tuesday, Republican voters rejected the loud-mouthed billionaire for the more demure but no less radical Texas Senator Ted Cruz and boy did that make Trump pretty upset. Shrugging off his disastrous performance in recent weeks, the Republican presidential frontrunner predicted a win in Wisconsin a day before voters in the Badger State headed to the ballot boxes, despite polling showing a likely upset by Cruz. Campaigning in the state on Monday, Trump pointed to a key endorsement for one-time rival and also-ran Marco Rubio in the early state of South Carolina. "It was over and then I won in a landslide," Trump reminded supporters in Wisconsin. But when the Associated Press declared Cruz, not Trump, the winner in Wisconsin, the thin-skinned candidate snapped and sent out a press release that reads like the tantrum of a 12-year-old, as the real-estate magnate turned reality-TV star hasn't faced an election day without a win since losing the first contest in Iowa. "Lyin' Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him," a Trump campaign press release reads, accusing the Tea Party Senator of illegally coordinating with a supportive super PAC and the Republican Party of unethically working to sabotage Trump's campaign. Trump, seemingly sensing an overwhelming loss in the Badger State, did not hold any campaign events Tuesday night but also didn't hold back from lashing out at Cruz and accusing the Republican Party of conspiring to unduly deny him the nomination. "Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet -- he is a trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump": https://twitter.com/costareports/stat... For his part, Cruz mostly kept focused on the enemies he's spent an entire career attacking -- Democrats. "Tonight, Wisconsin has lit a candle guiding the way forward. Tonight, we have hope for the future," Cruz said during his victory speech, calling his win in Wisconsin a "turning point." A top Cruz adviser, however, did comment on Trump's snappy statement to Washington Post's Robert Costa: “Donald Trump has a real problem when he gets his tail kicked"
