Our meddling exacerbated the situation in Syria. We drove the Syrian refugees to desperation, and now we don’t want to take them in? It’s partially our mess. We have no moral right to try to wash our hands of the consequences now. Just like a child in a china shop, “You broke it, you bought it.” Didn’t our parents and the china shops teach us anything?
I received this email from Elizabeth Warren.
Bernie2016tv has posted the video Bernie Sanders LIVE from Georgetown University
Bernie’s speech starts around 1:08:13
Bernie Sanders on Thursday will deliver remarks on democratic socialism and his vision for creating an American future based on economic and social justice and environmental sanity. His remarks will also include specific ideas on U.S. foreign policy, how the U.S. can lead the world in defeating ISIS and a long-term strategy to promote a safer and more peaceful world. The speech will take place at The Institute of Politics and Public Service at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy. Following his address, the Democratic Party presidential candidate will respond to questions from Georgetown University students.
Thursday, November 19
2 p.m. Georgetown Speech, Georgetown University, Gaston Hall, 3rd Floor Healy Hall, Washington
Photo credit:
photographer: Rob Pongsajapan
This is a tremendous speech that Bernie Sanders gave. All of it (and then some) is in the attached video. If you want to get directly to the speech, you have to slide the fast forward button until you see scenes of Bernie Sanders. Backup a tad from there, and listen to the whole speech. This may be an historic speech that will be quoted for years into the future.
The Daily Kos has the post France isn’t afraid, why is the Republican Party?
Since Friday’s horrific attacks in Paris, the Republican Party has delighted ISIS by tripping over themselves to declare that the United States shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees because … uh … well, because even if they didn’t have anything to do with the attacks, they are Muslims, so why not equate all of them with the terrorists who murdered at least 129 people last week? After all, their base loves it. French President François Hollande, on the other hand, decided that France would not bow down to terrorists:
The Daily Kos post makes reference to this ABC News tweet NEW: Pres. Hollande commits to taking 30,000 refugees in next 2 years; says France has duty to honor that commitment. “Life must go on.”
ABC News also has the article President Obama Mocks Republicans on Refugee Stance.
All of this may be the proof that we need that Republicans are cowards, just as Bernie Sanders calls them for being too afraid of facing the consequences of letting all of the people vote in fair elections.
See my previous post On Rejecting the Human Intelligence of Syrian Refugees to understand why this Republican stance is not just cowardice, but it is stupid cowardice.
I found the following excerpts from the CBS Democratic debate transcript: Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley in Iowa. Emphasis added by me.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Okay, Governor O’Malley would you critique the administration’s response to ISIS? If the United States doesn’t lead (UNINTEL)?
MARTIN O’MALLEY:
John, I would– I would disagree with– with Secretary Clinton, respectfully, on this score. This actually is America’s fight. It cannot solely be America’s fight. America is best when we work in collaboration with our allies. America is best when we are actually standing up to evil in this world.
And ISIS, make no mistake about it, is an evil in this world. ISIS has brought down a Russian airliner. ISIS is now attacked the western democracy in– in France. And we do have a role in this. Not solely ours. But we must work collaboratively with other nations. The great failing of these last ten or 15 years, John, has been our failing of human intelligence on the ground. Our world in the world is not to roam the globe looking for new dictators to topple. Our role in the world is to make ourselves a beacon of hope, make ourselves stronger at home.
But also our role in the world, yes, is also to confront evil when it rises. We took out the save haven in Afghanistan but now there is undoubtedly a larger safe haven. And we must rise to this occasion in collaboration and with alliances to confront it. And invest in the future much better human intelligence so we know what the next steps are.
.
.
.
MARTIN O’MALLEY:John, may I– may I interject here? Secretary Clinton also said that we left the h– it was not just the invasion of Iraq which Secretary Clinton voted for and has since said was a big mistake, and indeed it was. But it was also the cascading effects that followed that.
It was also the disbanding of– many elements of the Iraqi army that are now showing up as part of ISIS. It was– country after country without making the investment in human intelligence to understand who the new leaders were and the new forces were that are coming up. We need to be much more far f– thinking in this new 21st century era of– of nation state failures and conflict. It’s not just about getting rid of a single dictator. It is about understanding the secondary and third consequences that fall next.
Isn’t it odd that people want to slow down or reject the welcoming of Syrian refugees to this country in light of the terrorist acts in Paris and other cities around the globe? If one of the things we are lacking is human intelligence about the terrorists, wouldn’t bringing in Syrians who are fleeing the terrorists in their own country bring in valuable human intelligence?
There may be some terrorists that sneak in with these refugees, but they may be far outnumbered by true refugees who want these terrorists defeated. The refugees don’t have enough support in Syria for them to fight the battle for peace. However, in the United States of America with the help of our police, military, and intelligence agencies, they could prove to be the balance that turns the tide against the terrorists emanating from Syria.
If human intelligence is what we are so dearly lacking, why would we work against gaining more of what we need? Has our Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker considered what he is rejecting because of his fears? Has he thought of what we could gain by displaying a little courage?
YouTube has some excerpts from Bernie Sanders’ fantastic speech in Cleveland.
Now is not the time for demagiguery and fear mongering.
.
.
.
We are going to be tough, but not STUPID.
Here is the part covering terrorism in France and around the world.
You can watch the full speech including the introduction on C-SPAN. This video takes about 30 seconds to get to the actual coverage of the event.
When you hear the introduction from Nina Turner, you may be listening to the words of a future Vice President for Bernie Sanders.
LinkedIn has the Cass Sunstein article Why They Hate Us.
Social networks are often responsible for terrorism — as, for example, when terrorist leaders create groups of like-minded people, breeding a sense of rage and humiliation, which feeds on and intensifies itself. We cannot understood (sic) the roots of terrorism without understanding the phenomenon of group polarization and the importance of social networks.
This article does an excellent job of identifying and describing a problem. It introduces an idea that was novel to me. However, the article has a flaw that I find in many such books and articles that do an excellent job of identifying and clarifying important ideas. The solutions that they propose are almost always vague and difficult to imagine how to implement.
What are the lessons for policy and for law?
The simplest and most important is that if a nation aims to prevent terrorist activities, a good strategy is to prevent the rise of enclaves of like-minded people. Many of those who become involved in terrorist activities could end up doing something else with their lives. Their interest in terrorism comes, in many cases, from an identifiable set of social mechanisms (generally from particular associations). If the relevant associations can be disrupted, terrorism is far less likely to arise.
In this case, the possible implications of the solution are almost as frightening as the original problem. I am thinking of the context of the political revolution that Bernie Sanders is calling for. I do see the social dynamic described by Cass Sunstein as occurring in groups to which I belong as far as a tending toward more extremism. However, the people who are trying to thwart this political revolution are using exactly the techniques that Sunstein recommends for controlling terrorism.
LinkedIn has the article Please, no more brainstorm sessions. This is how innovation really works.
Imagination is not fragile. It feeds off flaws, difficulties, and problems. Insulating ourselves from failures is to rob one of our most valuable mental faculties of fuel.
I was intrigued by this article because I have participated and facilitated many brainstorming sessions throughout my career. Coincidentally, in a meeting last night, the idea of holding brainstorming sessions was suggested. I took note (literally) of that suggestion.
I am glad to see that this article does not dispose of the idea completely. It only suggests a procedural change in the way these meetings are conducted.
Did you ever notice that Hillary Clinton always has excuses for the failures of her best efforts? Wouldn’t it be better if we could choose a candidate that tried and succeeded instead of one who tried and failed? It’s not the trying that we need to reward, but it is the succeeding.
Bernie Sanders’ exhortation that millions of Americans need to stand up in a political revolution is not just idle rhetoric. It is an actual prescription of what has to happen for him to succeed as President. If he doesn’t help excite people to join the revolution, then he can have excuses like Hillary does, but we won’t be satisfied with those excuses either.
Here are some examples taken from Democratic debate transcript: Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley in Iowa.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, John I think that– we have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated. There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more– open and cooperative way– that we can bring people together.
But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the president has consistently said– which I agree with– is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS. That is why we have troops in Iraq that are helping to train and build back up the Iraqi military, why we have special operators in Syria working with the Kurds and Arabs so that we can be supportive. But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.
JOHN DICKERSON:
But– Secretary Cli– Clinton, the question’s about what– was ISIS underestimated. And I’ll– I’ll just ask– the president referred to ISIS as the JVU in a speech, the council in foreign relations in June of 2014 said, “I could not have predicted the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq.” So you’ve got prescriptions for the future. But how– how do we know if those prescriptions are any good if you missed it in the past?
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, John, look, I think that what happened when we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush– made with the Iraqis to leave– by 2011 is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it.
And then with the revolution against Assad– and I did early on say we needed to try to find a way to train and equip moderates very early so that we would have a better idea of how to deal with Assad because I thought there would be– extremist groups filling the vacuum.
So, yes, this has developed. I think that there are many other reasons why it has in addition– to what’s happened in the region. But I don’t think that the United States– has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.
If Hillary Clinton thought more deeply in advance of the inevitable consequences of the actions that she promoted, she might have better results and need fewer excuses. Bernie Sanders’ saw these inevitable consequences and tried to stop them. Unfortunately, Bernie didn’t have the power at the time that Hillary Clinton did. Imagine if he had been President at the time.
On health care
NANCY CORDES:
Secretary Clinton, back in– (CHEERING) Secretary Clinton, back in 1994, you said that momentum for a single-payer system would sweep the country. That sounds Sandersesque. But you don’t feel that way anymore. Why not–
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, the revolution never came. (LAUGHTER) And I waited and I’ve got the scars to show for it. We now have this great accomplishment known as the Affordable Care Act. And– I don’t think we should have to be defending it amount Democrats. We ought to be working to improve it and prevent Republicans from both undermining it and even repealing it.
Hillary led the fight to reform health care, but she hid her negotiations from the public. She was attacked for this secrecy, and her proposal was defeated. Bernie Sanders knows and has spoken about the need to rally the people to stand in revolution to insist that Congress listen to the people, or else.
Imagine how much better Obamacare would have turned out if President Obama had led a political revolution in public on this issue. Instead he tried negotiating with the implacable Republicans. He let the Democrats in Congress write the bill. He did not publicly fight the Republicans’ propaganda on the bill until the public had fully digested the propaganda. Thinking one step ahead of your opposition (think about the consequences) is always better than coming up with excuses later.
There were a number of issues raised in the November 14, 2015 Democratic debate where Hillary Clinton was just wrong.
What Hillary says about many issues may sound reasonable if you don’t know anything else about the issue than what she says. However, if you have some knowledge about these issues from independent sources, then you can see that she is either very naive and taking advice from the wrong people, or she may be under the influence of her big donors. Of course the reasons why she is wrong may be different from any of the possible reasons I can imagine. Nevertheless, she is wrong.
Excerpts below from the debate are taken from Democratic debate transcript: Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley in Iowa
NANCY CORDES:
Secretary Clinton, back in– (CHEERING) Secretary Clinton, back in 1994, you said that momentum for a single-payer system would sweep the country. That sounds Sandersesque. But you don’t feel that way anymore. Why not–
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, the revolution never came. (LAUGHTER) And I waited and I’ve got the scars to show for it. We now have this great accomplishment known as the Affordable Care Act. And– I don’t think we should have to be defending it amount Democrats. We ought to be working to improve it and prevent Republicans from both undermining it and even repealing it.
I have looked at– (APPLAUSE) I’ve looked at the legislation that Senator Sanders has proposed. And basically, he does eliminate the Affordable Care Act, eliminate private insurance, eliminates Medicare, eliminates Medicaid, Tricare, children’s health insurance program. Puts it all together in a big program which he then hands over to the state to administer.
The United States must join the rest of the industrialized world and
recognize that healthcare is a right of all, and not a privilege. Despite
the fact that more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, we
spend almost twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other
nation*. We need to establish a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.
FeelTheBern.org on health care says:
Medicare is a national social insurance program administered by the federal government. It provides health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older who have worked and paid into the system. It also provides health insurance to younger people with some disabilities like end-stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
This does not sound like Hillary Clinton’s description, Puts it all together in a big program which he then hands over to the state to administer
. Let me repeat the relevant part of the excerpt above – Medicare is a national social insurance program administered by the federal government
.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Governor, if I could just jump in. I– I believe that we should make community college free. We should have debt-free college if you go to a public college or university. You should not have to borrow a dime to pay tuition. I wanna use Pell grants to help defray– the living expenses that often– make a difference whether a young person can stay in school or not.
I disagree with free college for everybody. I don’t think taxpayers should be paying to send Donald Trump’s kids to college. It think it oughta be a compact (?), (APPLAUSE) families contribute, kids contribute, and together, we want to make it possible for our new generation of young people to refinance their debt and not come out with debt in the future.
Here is some basic math that explains why the issue of paying to send Donald Trump’s kids to college
is just a diversion. Donald Trump and his children are part of the top 0.1% of income earners. If we pay to send his children to state colleges and universities, they will use up only 0.1% of the money allocated for making tuition free. The other 99.9% of the money would go to paying tuition for the not so rich. Hillary Clinton seems oblivious to the fact that if she makes it difficult for the 0.1% to get this tuition free benefit, she also makes it tough for the 99.9%. Donald Trump can afford to struggle a bit to get his kids through college. The 99.9% are having massive problems struggling with their college debt burden.
A minor point is that with Donald Trump’s money, he isn’t going to send his kids to state colleges and universities. He will pay, what is for him a trivial amount, to send his kids to the most expensive colleges.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Oh, wait a minute, senator. (LAUGH) You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, I am very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. (APPLAUSE) So I– I represented New York. And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked.
Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy. And it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country. (APPLAUSE)
So, you know, it’s fine for you to say what you’re gonna say. But I look very carefully at your proposal reinstating Glass Steagall is a part of what very well could help but it is nowhere near enough. My proposal is tougher, more effective and more comprehensive because I go after all of Wall Street not just the big banks. (APPLAUSE)
(OVERTALK)
JOHN DICKERSON:
Hold on, hold on, he was attacked. Go–
(OVERTALK)
BERNIE SANDERS:
Here’s– she touches on two broad issues. It’s not just Wall Street. It’s campaigns, a corrupt campaign finance system. And it is easy to talk the talk about ending– Citizens United. But what I think we need to do is show by example that we are prepared to not rely on large corporations and Wall Street for campaign contributions.
And that’s what I’m doing. In terms of Wall Street I respectfully disagree with you, Madame Secretary in the sense that the issue is when you have such incredible power and such incredible wealth, when you have Wall Street spending five billion dollars over a ten year period to get re– to get deregulated the only answer that I know is break them up, reestablish Glass Steagall.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator, we have to get Senator O’Malley in. But no– along with your answer how many Wall Street– veterans would you have in your administration?
MARTIN O’MALLEY:
Well, I’ll tell you what, I’ve said this before, I– I don’t– I believe that we actually need some new economic thinking in the White House. And I would not have Robert Rubin or Larry Summers with all due respect, Secretary Clinton, to you and to them, back on my council of economic advisors.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Anyone (UNINTEL PHRASE).
MARTIN O’MALLEY:
If they were architects, sure, we’ll– we’ll have– we’ll have an inclusive group. But I won’t be taking my orders from Wall Street. And– look, let me say this– I put out a proposal– I was on the front line when people lost their homes, when people lost their jobs.
I was on the front lines as the governor– fighting against– fighting that battle. Our economy was wrecked by the big banks of Wall Street. And Secretary Clinton– when you put out your proposal (LAUGH) on Wall Street it was greeted by many as quote/ unquote weak tea. It is weak tea. It is not what the people expect of our country. We expect that our president will protect the main street economy from excesses on Wall Street. And that’s why Bernie’s right. We need to reinstate a modern version of Glass Steagall and we should have done it already. (APPLAUSE)
KATHIE OBRADOVICH [actually HILLARY CLINTON]:
Well, you know, governor I know that when you had a chance to appoint a commissioner for financial regulation you chose an investment banker in 2010. So for me it is looking at what works and what we need to do to try to move past what happened in ’08.
And I will go back and say again AIG was not a big bank. It had to be bailed out. And it nearly destroyed us. Lehman Brothers was not a big bank. It was an investment bank. And its bankruptcy and its failure nearly destroyed us. So I’ve said if the big banks don’t play by the rules I will break them up.
BERNIE SANDERS:
The big bank–
KATHIE OBRADOVICH [actually HILLARY CLINTON]:
And I will also go after executives who are responsible for the decisions that have such bad consequences for our country. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
Look, I don’t know– with all due respect to the secretary, Wall Street played by the rules. Who are we kidding? The business model of Wall Street is fraud. That’s what it is. And we– we have– (APPLAUSE) and let me make this promise, one of the problems we have had I think all– all Americans understand it is whether it’s republican administration or democratic administration we have seen Wall Street and Goldman Sachs dominate administrations. Here’s my promise Wall Street representatives will not be in my cabinet. (APPLAUSE)
.
.
.JOHN DICKERSON:
Sorry, I’m gonna bring in Nancy Cordes with a question from Twitter about this exchange.
(OFF-MIC CONVERSATION)
NANCY CORDES:
(IN PROGRESS) –about guns but also about your conversation on campaign finance. And Secretary Clinton, one of the tweets we saw– said that I’ve never seen a candidate invoke 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations until now the idea being that, yes, you are a champion of the community after 9/11. But what does that have to do with taking big donations?
KATHIE OBRADOVICH:
Well, I’m sorry that whoever tweeted that– had that impression because I worked closely with New Yorkers after 9/11 for my entire first term to rebuild. And so yes, I did know people. I had a lot of folks give me donations from all kinds of backgrounds, say, “I don’t agree with you on everything. But I like what you do. I like how you stand up. I’m going to support you.” (LAUGH) And I think that is absolutely perfect.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I– if I might– I– I– I think the issue here is that I– I applaud Secretary Clinton. She did. She’s the senator from New York. She worked– many of us supported you in trying to rebuild that devastation. But at the end of the day Wall Street today has enormous economic and political power. Their business model is greed and fraud. And for the sake of our economy they must– the major banks must be broken up.
HILLARY CLINTON:
But–
MARTIN O’MALLEY:
John, I think somewhere between the–
(OVERTALK)
NANCY CORDES:
Senator Sanders, I’m sorry, so what is it in Secretary Clinton’s record– that shows you that she’s been influenced by those donations?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, there–
(OVERTALK)
BERNIE SANDERS:
The issue right now is whether or not we reestablish Glass Steagall. I led (UNINTEL PHRASE) unfortunately unsuccessfully against deregulation because I knew when you merge large insurance companies and investment banks and commercial banks it was not going to be good. The issue now is do we break them up? Do we reestablish Glass Steagall? And Secretary Clinton unfortunately is on the wrong side.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, I’ll tell you who’s on my side, Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist who said my plan for what we should do to reign in Wall Street was more comprehensive and better. Paul Volcker, one of the leading (UNINTEL) of trying to reign in the excesses has also said he does not support reinstating Glass Steagall.
So I mean, this may seem like a bit of an arcane discussion. I have nothing against the passion that my two friends here have about reinstating Glass Steagall. I just don’t think it would get the job done. I’m all about making sure (APPLAUSE) we actually get results for whatever reason.
JOHN DICKERSON:
That’s– a final word– the final word, Governor O’Malley, before we go to commercial.
MARTIN O’MALLEY:
John, there is not– a serious economist who would disagree that the six big banks of Wall Street have taken on so much power and that all of us are still on the hook to bail them out on their bad debts. That’s not capitalism, Secretary Clinton– Clinton, that’s crummy [crony?] capitalism.
That’s a wonderful business model if you place that bet– the taxpayers bail you out. But if you place good ones you pocket it. Look, I don’t believe that the model– there’s lots of good people that work in finance, Secretary Sanders. But Secretary Clinton, we need to step up. And we need to protect main street from Wall Street. And you can’t do that by– by campaigning as the candidate of Wall Street. I am not the candidate of Wall Street. And I encourage–
With respect to Hillary’s statement, Well, I’ll tell you who’s on my side, Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist who said my plan for what we should do to reign in Wall Street was more comprehensive and better. Paul Volcker, one of the leading (UNINTEL) of trying to reign in the excesses has also said he does not support reinstating Glass Steagall.
Neither Paul Krugman nor Paul Volcker are forensic economists. The forensic economist William K. Black thinks that breaking up the big banks is essential.
You will See Black’s name mentioned in the article Failing to Break Up the Big Banks is Destroying America.
The following top economists and financial experts believe that the economy cannot recover unless the big, insolvent banks are broken up in an orderly fashion:
.
.
.
- Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black
You can make all the rules you want, Hillary Clinton, but the crooks on Wall Street will find a way to get around them. If you break up the big banks, then when they innevitably break the rules, they will be too small to do as much harm as they did the last time. So Bernie Sanders’ plan is, in fact, tougher than Hillary Clinton’s plan.
Worcester Magazine has the article WSU, Clark students in Million Student March fight for free education.
I am on the left side of the group in the group picture. I am holding up a Bernie bumper sticker, and holding a sign in support of the black community. Unfortunately I have been cropped.
In the picture below, the back of the head in the white, hooded, jacket belongs to Sharon.
Mike Jerry holds a sign supporting a University of Missouri student who went on a hunger strike as part of protests against racism.
The rally speakers were very inspiring. I now have faith that students will be a large part of the political revolution that is needed to make the essential changes in this country.