“America is in trouble, and a lot of that trouble–perhaps most of it–has to do with race. Everywhere we turn, there is discord, division, death and destruction.
When we survey the land, we see a country full of suffering that it cannot fully understand, and a history that it can no longer deny. Slavery casts a long shadow across our lives…
Black and white people… seem to occupy different universes with worldviews that are fatally opposed to one another… What, then, can we do?
What I need to say can only be said as a sermon… I offer this sermon to you, my dear white friends… I do so in the interest of healing our our nation through honest, often blunt, talk… Without white America wrestling with these truths and confronting these realities, we may not survive.
To paraphrase the Bible, to whom much is given, much is expected. And, you my friends, have been given so much. And the Lord knows, what wasn’t given, you simply took, took, and took, and took.
But the time is here for reckoning with the past… and moving together to redeem the nation for the future.”
— Excerpted from the Chapter 1, “Call to Worship” (pages 3-7)
Michael Eric Dyson teaches Sociology at Georgetown University, and is the prolific author of 20 best-sellers and a popular face on the TV talk show circuit. Many might forget that Professor Dyson got his doctorate in Religion from Princeton University.
In his new book, Tears We Cannot Stop, he reminds us that, “Although I am a scholar, a cultural and political critic, and a social activist, I am, before, and above anything else, an ordained Baptist minister.” That helps explain the profusion of captivating, flowery rhetoric whenever the brother’s been handed a microphone.
While his previous works were aimed at a black audience, this is his first intended to be read by whites. It is also written in a unique literary style, namely, as a sermon designed to keep Caucasians standing on their feet like an inspiredcongregation of holy rollers.
The chapters are even laid out like a church service, starting with the “Call to Worship,” followed by “Hymns
of Praise,” an “Invocation,” and the “Scripture Reading” leading to the “Sermon,” and concluding with the “Benediction.” The meat of the message can be found in the Sermon section which opens with the iconoclastic suggestion that there is no such thing as a white race.
Professor Dyson’s point there is that whiteness is an arbitrary (as opposed to a scientific) construct which affords one group advantages and privileges at the expense of others. He argues that “whiteness is made up, and that white history disguised as American history is a fantasy, as much a fantasy as white superiority and white purity.”
If I were Dyson, I wouldn’t be holding my breath for a positive reception from his intended audience, given the ascension of Donald Trump and the celebration of rednecks in the runaway best seller, Hillbilly Elegy. He might be better off redirecting his sermon to the African-American community and changing his incendiary opus’ subtitle to “Preaching to the Choir!”
Eboni K. Williams is a popular political and legal commentator you can catch on numerous FOX News Channel programs like Hannity, The O’Reilly Factor and The Kelly File. She also frequently serves as a co-host on Outnumbered and The Five. Prior to joining FOX, she worked as a correspondent at CBS News, as a contributor at the HLN network, and as a talk show host in L.A. on radio station KFI (640 on the AM dial).
Raised by a single-mom, Eboni received a B.A. in Communications and African-American Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and her J.D. from Loyola University College of Law in New Orleans. She began her professional career in Louisiana, clerkingfor the Secretary of State and the Attorney General’s Office as a law student. She worked for various politicians, too, including assisting City Council members in the New Orleans rebuilding effort in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Eboni subsequently specialized in Family Law and Civil Litigation, providing legal counsel on high-profile divorce, spousal support and child custody cases. In 2008, she transitioned to Public Defender before returning to private practice in 2010. Over the course of her career in Criminal Defense, Eboni represented clients in murder, rape, drug, sex crime and federal offense cases.
Here, she shares her thoughts about the election of Donald Trump.
Kam Williams: Hi Eboni, thanks for the interview. I really appreciate this opportunity.
Eboni Williams: Oh, no, thank you, Kam.
KW: I have to start by asking what was your immediate reaction to the election results?
EW: [Chuckles] Well, like most Americans, including Trump supporters and probably Donald Trump himself, I was surprised. I was surprised because the data leading up to the election didn’t show a lot of ways that this could happen. But a year ago, even six months ago, I did see the potential for this outcome. In fact, I bet a lawyer friend of mine a steak dinner that Trump would win, specifically, by changing the electoral map in Rust Belt states with industrial populations like Indiana, Pennsylvania and Michigan. So, I saw the potential for a Trump victory, but as the campaign went on, I felt that he was his own worst enemy. Even back during the primary season, I said the only person who can beat Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Though he prevailed in the primaries, I thought he’d done enough damage to himself to take himself out of the game. But, on that point, I was wrong. He had a lot of different messages, but I would say the one that registered with most voters I spoke to was “Drain the swamp!” It was a forceful call for change and indictment of everything that’s been going on in Washington for several decades now. America’s just sick and tired of the gridlock in Congress and of the inaction at every level of government. People found Trump’s message of change to be such a complete antidote to that and so compelling that they wrote this man a blank check. Think of all the things he could do and not lose their support. Whether it was the Access Hollywood tape or statements he made about communities of color or what not, people ultimately chose to overlook it, because they so believed in his ability to be a change agent.
KW: I heard you say the other day that your own mother voted for Trump.
EW: My mother has been on the Trump train since day one. And even though I, like many in the media, might not have seen the likeliness of Trump’s success as far back as the primaries, her being such an avid Trump supporter from the start did help me keep my finger on the pulse. What many people felt was most important to them was change in Washington.
KW: Tell me a little about your mom.
EW: She’s a small business owner and the only parent that raised me. Everything I am I owe to her. She’s a brilliant businesswoman, not formally educated. But she has incredible instincts when it comes to business and leadership. She gives me counsel all the time in my career and other dealings. And look, she called the election. She said, “You know what? He’s imperfect… He brags… He’s even rude… I’m totally appalled by some of the things he says about brown and black people and by the way he describes our community. However, I really like and appreciate his toughness, his authenticity, his authenticity and his leadership qualities.” She likes his prosperity and that he was unapologetic about finding ways to escape paying personal and corporate income taxes. And clearly, a lot of other Americans felt the same way.
KW: How would you describe yourself politically? Most African-American commentators on Fox are either way to the left or way to the right, but with you, it’s hard to discern where you stand.
EW: I am a proud, registered independent. I have voted for candidates from both the Democratic and Republican Parties. I was a two-time Barack Obama supporter. In this election, I wrote in a candidate. I rejected both of the major party candidates, and I wasn’t impressed by any of the third-party candidates. I’ve been very clear about the fact that my politics don’t follow party lines. they follow policy. I’m a lawyer by trade, and I’m particularly concerned about policies that make life better for communities I feel are underrepresented… whether that’s communities of color… women… or young people. But I’m really concerned about all people, because we’re all Americans, and I want opportunity for all of us. “Opportunity” is the key word. I think the Democratic Party really got it wrong when they started describing their economic policy in terms of “income inequality.” Well, in my playbook, income should reflect work effort which is not always equal. We don’t all work the same, so why should all of our incomes be the same? What I think is fairer is “opportunity equality.” What we all should be afforded is the opportunity to determine our own income. That is very important to me.
KW: What did you think of Trump’s “What have you got to lose?” appeal to the black community?
EW: Did he make that urban renewal proposal for black votes or did he do it for white people who might have worried whether he might be racist? Maybe we’ll never know. But now that he’s about to become president, we’ll find out real quickly how sincere he was about those policy proposals. As a first-generation college graduate, I’m deeply concerned about his education agenda. I’m very much about school choice, because my mother pushed, pushed, pushed for me to have the very best public education opportunity, since she was a single mom and couldn’t afford much better. I’m also about vocation, because she became a successful business owner after putting herself through beauty school and opening a beauty salon. And she now owns a trucking company, and employs people in her community who are CDL licensed truck drivers. So I know vocational training works and I believe in it wholeheartedly, because I’ve seen it in my own life. And I am offering myself up to be a part of President-elect Trump’s plans around bringing school choice and vocational training and any other betterment opportunities to inner-city communities. I’m very much about that.
KW: What do you make of all the demonstrations and the tidal wave of fear of Trump we see among minorities in the wake of the election?
EW: It doesn’t surprise me at all. I knew, just based on my social media network which is diverse but probably predominantly African-American that there was a strong, visceral reaction against Donald Trump leading up to the election. So, I’m not surprised to see people literally crying, mourning, protesting or saying “He’s not my president.”
KW: Why is it that you don’t seem as frightened of him as so many other African-Americans?
EW: Maybe it’s the lawyer in me, maybe I’m just a more pragmatic person. In the same way that I could fight a District Attorney tooth-and-nail, and 30 minutes later hammer out a very favorable, plea bargain agreement for my client, I am happy, willing and able to work with this new president.
KW: Do you think the press, in general, went overboard in demonizing Trump and his constituency instead of taking his candidacy seriously?
EW: Yes, I think the press did themselves a huge disservice by making a mockery of his candidacy. It’s ironic that this was a billionaire with an Ivy League education who came from a rich family, and he was allowed to fashion himself throughout the campaign as a self-made man of the people.
KW: As a blue-collar billionaire.
EW: Absolutely! It’s really quite fascinating when you think about, especially when you consider how his wealth was really the death of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012. But in 2016, we had media that came off as very smug, elite, self-righteous and all-knowing. And the media attempted to tell America that Trump was not to be taken seriously. The Huffington Post even went so far as to refuse to cover Trump in the Political section of the website, because it decided he belonged in the Entertainment section. I think that strategy completely backfired. It only served to fuel Donald trump’s candidacy, because Americans really resented being talked down to.
KW: Editor/Legist Patricia Turnier asks: What inspired your transition from lawyer to journalist?
EW: My favorite thing about being a lawyer was being a voice for the voiceless because, as you have probably noticed, I have a loud voice and a lot to say. But effecting change inside our judicial system is a very slow process, because you can pretty much only do one case at a time. So, I switched to journalism in order to be able to continue advocating for the underdogs but on a macro level. What better way to do that than by getting into media where instead of effecting change one client at a time, I could hopefully do it for thousands or even millions of people.
KW: Patricia also asks: What was the best decision you made to advance your career, moving to FOX News?
EW: I don’t know. You tell me, Patricia. I didn’t really seek out FOX. FOX came to me while I happened to be covering the George Zimmerman verdict for radio. Someone with The O’Reilly Factor happened to hear my segment and asked me to come on the show that night to discuss my reaction to and legal analysis of the verdict. I had never seen The O’Reilly Factor before I went on the show, so I didn’t know enough to be intimidated, though I quickly learned. But I really, really enjoyed my interaction with Bill. I was on with him and another gentleman. We had a very candid discussion about a delicate, but critically important topic. And after that night, I was hooked. That’s really how my association with FOX came about, and I’ve been doing FOX News and FOX Business all the time ever since. It’s not all roses and sunshine, but I really appreciate FOX for the opportunities that I get to go on. And no one has ever told me what to say or what position to take. I’m there to present positions that make good, common sense to me, and to bring clarity where I can share my expertise as an attorney and policy maker.
KW: What’s fun about watching you is that you’re not predictable.
EW: I know for a fact that I frustrate many of my colleagues, because they feel that i don’t represent a true liberal, or that I am not a conservative. That frustrates them, because they don’t know how to engage on-air with me sometimes. I simply push back against the idea that it’s my job to represent a really liberal point-of-view when, like on The Five, I’m the most liberal person appearing on a panel alongside four conservatives. I say, “I’m not here to represent liberal views. I’m here to represent myself. And if you trust me, my goal when I’m on any show, is to add something unique, specific and nuanced to the conversation.
KW: I think you certainly have a very distinct and intelligent voice, and a quick witin much the same way that legendary pundits like Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich do. That’s why I think it’s just a matter of time before you get your own show, whether on Fox on another network.
EW: Thank you, Kam. That’s high praise.
KW: You deserve it. Lastly, Patricia’s would like to hear your analysis, as a woman and and as a reporter, of Hillary Clinton’s failureto break the glass ceiling in the presidential election. Did you feel any disappointment?
EW: My answer to that is a little more complicated than I usually like to give, but I’ll be authentic. I never supported secretary Clinton. I was very vocal about that. But I will tell you that on the morning of the election a lot of the TV coverage showed women going to the polls in their Suffragette whites, putting stickers on the headstone of Susan B. Anthony, and talking about Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first woman ever to run for the Democratic presidential nomination.That, at some point, got to me, not to the point that I would consider voting for Hillary, but in the sense that there was a bit of an expectation in terms of that being a positive aspect of the day. That did connect and resonate with me. But when I put my political analyst hat on, I felt that playing the “Woman Card” was one of the most compelling pieces of the Hillary Clinton argument, the idea that she was a change agent, at least in that regard. I thought that was brilliant, and needed to be played up sooner and more frequently. But here’s the thing. As much as they wanted to position her as the first woman president, that was an impossible task, because she would always be dogged down by the Clinton legacy which she could never escape.
KW: Finally, what’s in your wallet?
EW: Oh gosh! [Laughs] My license and other typical stuff, but I also have my AKA sorority membership card in my wallet.
KW: The pink and green!
EW: Yes, sir! You know it. I’m going to look, actually… My mother just gave me this wallet for my birthday. It’s fabulous! I have a little bit of cash… a gift card to J. Crew… my UNC check-cashing card… my Metro card… and some gum
KW: Well, thanks again for the time, Eboni.
EW: I really enjoyed it, Kam.
To hear Eboni explain why Hillary didn’t get the same percentage of the black vote in 2016 as President Obama did in 2008 and 2012, visit:
As Americans enter the 21st century, we have been leaning on diverse set of candidates for the highest office — a businessman, a social democrat, and a woman civil servant.
Electing the first black American president took more than two centuries, yet political polarization is “at a post-Reconstruction high in the House and Senate.”
Now, as Americans seem ready to entrust the first woman candidate, we have the widest gender gap in modern political history. Women are voting for Hillary Clinton and men for Donald Trump in unprecedented numbers.
What is driving these landmark changes? The twin engine of social transformation is the demographic reality and the forces of globalization, gradually transforming the United States of America (US) into ‘a global village.’
Yet, Americans are bitterly divided, seemingly coming apart at the fault lines — largely coalescing along the intersection of race, class, education and especially gender.
Trumping the Woman Card
While trying to make sense of the current election, the issue is not just what Trump is calling “the woman card.” A tweeting satirist described an imaginary Trump book report, “The Hunger Games are rigged, folks. Everyone knows Katniss won because she played the woman card. Nasty woman. Very rigged.”
The women’s vote has existed almost a century, yet women, despite their numbers, do not always vote their gender into office. Race trumped gender in 2008 Democratic primaries, an interesting phenomenon given African Americans secured the right to vote (Fifteenth Amendment, 1870) before women (Nineteenth Amendment, 1919).
“Presidential candidacy reflects hard-fought gains in gender equality so widespread” that younger women do not feel the urgency to crash the gender barrier. However, any hints of “war on women” might create an upsurge at the ballot box for a woman presidential candidate, especially, when she is running against an alpha-male with a reported history of alleged assault.
Brain evidence also suggests that women and men react differently to affective messages. When confronted with a threat to the community or ‘fight or flight’ signal of the amygdala, women react by gathering in groups (Stronger Together). Women are better at reducing stress, feeling safe by connecting. Men have the opposite response, withdrawal to themselves and prepare to fight (America First; Make America Great Again).
When challenged, men may more quickly display a combat mentality, whereas women tend to connect to the circle of life. Brain evidence suggests the corpus callosum is thicker in women, enabling them to use language and emotional centers in both hemispheres: this capacity is important to respond to the issues of today—not only of the US but the global village.
Widest Gender Gap
Despite a century of women’s rights activism, rampant discrimination remains. Many say they are ready—at least in theory—to elect a woman president, but will they actually vote for a qualified candidate who happens to be the first woman on a major party ticket? We shall find out on Nov 8, 2016.
When we examine the gender gap, we find that men still dominate. Women perceive the electoral environment as highly biased, receive fewer suggestions to run for office, can be more impacted by modern campaign politics when running, and some still face traditional child-rearing or household pressures.
Starting in the 1980s, women have strong preference for democratic candidates, ranging from a 4% to 11% gender gap. In 2012, women preferred Obama by almost 10% margin compared to Romney (55% vs. 44%). A larger percentage of women are self-identified as Democrats. Women also view democratic presidents more favorably than men do. The 2016 projections of the gender gap between Hillary vs. Trump range from 11% to 22%.
Women’s voter turnout has been higher than men’s since the 1980’s. In 2012, almost 10 million more women voted than men (71.4 vs. 61.6 million). Eligible women voters went to the polls in higher proportions in 2012 than eligible men voters (63.7% vs. 59.8%). Finally, almost 10 million more women registered to vote than men in 2012 (81.7 vs. 71.4 million). On the basis of early voting patterns, an upsurge in the woman’s vote appears to give Hillary Clinton an advantage.
Based on the 2012 and 2014 turnout data, black women are the most reliable voting segment followed by Latinos, young people, and unmarried women. Women invariably feel concerned about the economic well-being of their families, drawing them to the polls in higher numbers.
As Kelly Ditmar points out in her research, “Women and men are political actors with distinct political preferences. … in vote choice, party identification, and presidential performance ratings.” Nate Silver predicted recently, the electoral map will look “blue” if only women voted and almost completely turn “red” if men had their way.
From Glass Ceiling to Glass Houses
In many societies, the bias over centuries has been for men to wield the power, and one may construe that forces against powerful women arise to reinforce patriarchal structures. As a bevy of recent researchers confirms, women who gain in power are often increasingly disliked—subjected to “distinct social penalties for doing the very things that lead to success.”
Comparative politics suggests the first woman head of state follows a rough path in office. Women of power across the centuries have often met with dire circumstances, extreme hardship, or even at times unfortunate ends to their power or their lives. When considering history in Doomed Queens, Kris Waldherr reflects, “Despite the perks of royalty, it’s usually not good to be queen.”
The US began as a country borne of a revolution against aristocracy. Citizens of a representative democracy may be inclined to vote against family dynasties. Yet, Stephen Hess has shown American democracy has gained from political dynasties, from the Adams to the Clintons. Or, not realizing patriarchy’s undertow, the more cynical may actually find appealing the fictional offer of England’s Queen for the US to rejoin the UK from Borowitz’s clever satire.
Still, many democracies around the world have let in at least one woman head of state only to quickly shut the door behind her. The ambivalence Americans feel over electing a woman candidate — reflected in the ugly, sexist debates — may not subside on election night even if Hillary wins. Congressional investigations have commenced to bloody her footsteps into the oval office, including the reopening of email investigations.
First woman heads of state can expect to face unprecedented depths of suspicion and misogyny. Recent examples include the charges against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil by male peers with their own questionable pasts, and the misogynistic ousting of Julia Gillard in Australia in 2013.
“The fastest way to lance a country’s anxieties about women and power is to appoint a female leader,” suggested an editorial.
In polytheistic India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, women democratic leaders have become strong symbols of feminine power—Shakti or Bodhisatvva. Nevertheless, as women in South Asia have accrued more influence, the female leader often seems “dangerous”, sometimes meeting deadly ends (Benazir Bhutto and Indira Gandhi) or extended house arrest or exile (Ang Sang Suu Kyi and Sheikh Hasina).
Western democracies emerged from Judeo-Christian heritage, with monotheistic cultural history, where the image of the sacred feminine is usually marginalized. Women rarely assume powerful positions in religion and politics as spiritual archetypes, more often seen as sex symbols, facing daunting challenges to win the patriarchal “hunger games.” To appease male power brokers and govern effectively, a first woman president must have a coterie of male sponsors and collaborators in the men’s club.
Recent examples from EU democracies provide a path forward — Merkel in Germany, as well as Thatcher and May in UK.
The Dalai Lama recently remarked that “the Western woman can save the world.” We can imagine that the world is calling for women—with brains, power and consciousness of the body politic–to balance the scales of globalization, widen the circle of democracy, and help heal the planet.
Dr. Dinesh Sharma is an author, consultant, and social scientist with a doctorate in psychology and human development from Harvard University. He is an Associate Research Professor at the Institute of Global Cultural Studies, SUNY Binghamton, and Fordham University’s Industrial Organization and Leadership Program in NYC. His recent books include “Barack Obama in Hawaii and Indonesia” (2012), “The Global Obama” (2014) and “The Global Hillary” (2016).
Elizabeth Leach is Principal of Awareness Communications LLC. She is graduate of Brown University with a concentration in Religious Studies and holds a master’s degree from New York University School of Social Work.
Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton with author Dinesh Sharma
GREG PALAST’S “THE BEST DEMOCRACY MONEY CAN BUY: A Tale of Billionaires and Ballot Bandits”
WHO: Greg Palast, Rolling Stone/BBC investigative reporter films a real, live detective thriller about the upcoming theft of the 2016 election and the hunt for billionaires behind it.
With Shailene Woodley, Willie Nelson, Rosario Dawson, Ed Asner and Robert F. Kennedy with “detectives” Ice-T and Richard Belzer
Are black voters at risk of becoming an endangered species? Gonzo investigative reporter Greg Palast’s (BBC, Rolling Stone) documentary detective thrillerThe Best Democracy Money Can Buy “ Billionaires and Ballot Bandits busts theNEW Klux Klan – the billionaire bandits that lurk in the shadows with clear intentions to purge one million voters of color in November.
This film clandestine vote stealing trickery hatched by billionaires are shredding the shards of our flailing democracy. It is a cautionary tale of technology, power, intended consequences, morality, and those who reap the profits from our electile dysfunction. The Republican Crosscheck purge system is wiping out minority registrations in 29 states.
Shailene Woodley, Willie Nelson, Rosario Dawson, Ed Asner and “detectives” Ice-T and Richard Belzer,John Lewis Robert F. Kennedy, help investigative reporter Palast track down the secret billionaires and their craven addiction to power while our profit-addicted American media ignore the hard news.
In The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, a Tale of Billionaires and Ballot Bandits,all the dots are connected. Palast’s investigation takes him from the Arcticwhere he is clued in to the heist by a foul-mouthed Eskimo and the Koch Bros. connection, then on to a speed boat to a high class event in the Hamptons to the ballot rustler known as “The Vulture” Paul Singer, to Kansas where he finds out what is the matter with the state, (clue it is its Secretary of State and again the Kansas-based Koch Brothers) . The dirty trail continues with one of the Trump’s biggest sugar daddies: John Paulson, hedge-fund manager, and Wall Street high roller who used a Bermuda-based entity to dodge US taxes and run up “one of the biggest fortunes in Wall Street history” at the same time Trump was complaining “hedge fund guys are getting away with murder.” Paulson’s a specialist in “distressed securities.” Make a note. His name will come up again.And Paulson is on Trump’s board of hedgy economic advisors. He has made more money than anyone since the Egyptian Pharaohs. In 2008, he hauled in 5 billion dollars from distressed properties alone. Perhaps the secret behind the Trump wagon might be the one who’s wants to push the cart behind the potential President of the United States?
Voter suppression and election fraud is a subject that lurks in the shadows. Like a computer virus, causing much harm in its wake. One reason it eludes our scrutiny is because of the media blackout that follows each election. -Our lack of information and attention compound the problem. Palast has caught America’s press puppies in delicto bedded down with their corporate patrons. Instead of covering the elections, they cover it up. Palast explains this lascivious twist in the creation of the Corporate New Entertainment complex. He shows the media has become a weapon on mass distraction for the American people.
It was Greg Palast who busted Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush in 2000 when they swiped the Florida election by purging tens of thousands of eligible voters- mostly guilty of voting while black – using electronically generated “scrub” lists produced by a Texas firm paid millions to screen out felons, yet not required by any official to verify the accuracy of its data. With remarkable audacity and felonious foresight, the list even includes felons that will be arrested seven years in the future.
Florida’s use of an outside firm to in effect privatize voting rights plays into Palast’ central theme of how corporate powers are riding roughshod over our democracy. From the “cash for access” scandals to the revolving door between the Koch Brothers and their trophy government henchmen, Palast lays bare patterns of corruption that have become so sadly commonplace.
White House for Sale. Cheap. Tons of buyers. Hundreds of offers. Nailing Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kolbach for his “I’m for Sale, thank you Koch Brothers” actions, Palast vividly shows how this self-anointed guardian of our voting rights has pocketed corporate money to pre-select candidates before even a single vote was recorded and how that has influenced the policies and platforms of his corporate sponsors, all the while denying the necessities of the American people
Perhaps no one in history has straddled the political divide more than Greg Palast. As an investigative reporter for the BBC and the Guardian who nailed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ fake felon purge that stole the election for Bush in 2000, and revealed in his best selling book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy . One might as well plant the flags of billionaires Donald Trump or Paul Singer when one “counts” the votes. Elections now have everything to do with a ravenously greedy elite class that play with the treasure of our nation, risking our future, risking democracy itself . And all the while, our compliant and cuckolded media stand silently by.
The venerated Palast has been called “courageous ” by Michael Moore. John Pilger says Palast “facts are like hand grenades”. With Palast’s inimitable style(“funnier than Michael Moore, more substantial than Naomi Klein”—the Guardian) Palast, says Jim Hightower, is a “cross between Sam Spade and Sherlock Holmes” and this documentary investigation shows just how true that statement is. Rev. Al Sharpton likens Palast to an Oreo cookie: white on the outside, black on the inside.” Noam Chomsky reports: Palast upsets all the right people. Michael Moore : Palast’ work is that funny, heartbreaking,. And, Jason Alexander thanks Palast for “f#@king up my life with truth”.
As an investigative journalist, he has uncovered scandal, corruption and vast lies in the highest seats of power from the White House to corporate America. Known and respected in Britain as “The most important investigative journalist of our time” (Tribune Magazine) Palast has broken some of the biggest stories including:
. How Bush killed the FBI’s investigation of the bin Laden family prior and after 9/11
. How the Bush Family stole the 2000 Election.
. How Enron cheated, lied and swindled its way into an energy monopoly
These provocative exposes are pure Palast territory- as well as grounding breaking reports on the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organization, Wal-Mart and much, much more.Screened with Palast’s gutsy in-your-face style with animation by Keith Tucker (“Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” ) and photography by Academy Award nominee Richard Rowley, this is not just a documentary – it is a REAL-LIVE AS-IT-HAPPENS DETECTIVE STORY. Joined by his sidekick Ms. Badpenny, Palast names the major ballot bandits and shines a light on the shadowy tactics employed by their trophy GOP officials who do their blind bidding. He is the dogged outsider, a former working class gumshoe from Los Angeles who has gained his fame through multiple best sellers with his revelations about Corporate America for the BBC and The Guardian. Palast’ disturbing indictment of the major media as purveyors of corporatized infotainment must serve as a wake-up call to journalists, and everyone who cares about a well-informed citizenry as a basis for democracy.
With The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, a Tale of Billionaires and Ballot Bandits, Palast breaks ground on the debate before we become No Country for Black Voters. Or for Hispanic voters. Or Muslim Voters. Or Women voters. Or YOU.
See this Film. Act Accordingly. Our country is in the midst of a civil war between the alarmingly uninformed and the just plain alarmed because they are informed. Greg Palast’s documentary asks questions the media/propaganda machine purposefully don’t ask. In typical Palast style, he details in pull-no-punches Palastian prose how the assault on our entire voting system is widespread and relentless. Determining our actions today can move us towards either a stronger, more positive future, or a future shrouded in fear, poverty, war. This film should act as a primer for people of all ages, all classes who want answers and solutions. Viewer beware. Ignore the facts at your own peril!
As a person who lives in the great Southwest, who is not of Mexican descent—and I say this, because I want no eyes rolling or tongues barking at this article; it is important to note that one and ALL people in the Southwest (if they not already do) than should feel the same—Donald Trump’s recent visit to Albuquerque was a real joke.
Do I agree with violent protests? Absolutely not. Good people get harmed for a blowhard’s words, which is not fair. In fact, it’s a lot like a Jim Jones camp where people start “following” a leader who has no idea what’s going on. Trump came to an area after already stating many a time that if he gets elected, the U.S. of A. will become all Native Americans. I mean…he must have said that. After all, everyone but the Native Americans are immigrants, so he must not be singling out any particular ethnicity…right? Yeah, think on that.
We now have been told by Mr. Trump that a “sea of regulations” will be handed down when he’s president. Regulations to change all these silly things that harm America. Some things that are, apparently, not even real. That’s right, California! You may be seeing something, but it’s not actually there.
“There is no drought.” Those are the words Trump told voters in what everyone knows as an extremely drought-plagued state of California. Trump said this was all a mighty conspiracy, just like all singling out immigrants, yet not the rest of the immigrants. He stated that he is definitely going to solve the water problem because, of course, it’s not a problem. “You have a water problem that is so insane,” he went on to say to farmers in Fresno (by the way). “It is so ridiculous where they’re taking the water and shoving it out to sea.”
Five years of drought and a bunch of people in power have just been pushing water out to sea? Gosh, that is stupid. Of course it makes total sense that the people who run California would definitely want to sustain costs accompanied with this horrendous drought to…keep people in line? With what, exactly? Agriculture has paid a heavy price for the past five years which does not help the state one bit. Even with the El Niño event (another conspiracy, perhaps) that added an increase in snow packs last year that are actually responsible for supplying one-third of California’s water, 86 percent of the state is still in drought status.
A fake one, as far as Trump is concerned. According to your Republican man, state officials are mismanaging the water policy at the cost of their own farmers and crops. Now, yes, the farmers have criticized the state’s irrigation policies, after cuts to water allotments made them leave a million+ acres of farmland uncultivated.
Water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta flows into the San Francisco Bay and then out into the ocean. The delta is a key source for farms in the fertile Central Valley region, and Trump says that by federal regulations saving habitats over farmland is what’s making them go belly-up.
Trump said that California is burying their farmers to save their Delta smelt (three-inch fish) that are threatened. “If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water, so that you can have your farmers survive so that your job market will get better,” the reality TV personality not educated, able to work with all organizations and get them to meet in the middle presidential candidate told the crowd.
Not surprisingly, he did not state how he would regulate and make state officials give the water back to the farmers and divert it away from already federally-protected land. Not to mention, he gave no facts, figures, or scientific explanations that would support the fact that a drought never hit California in the first place.
What he did say is that he’s received, “many, many environmental rewards and awards,” telling the world that he has, “done very well environmentally. I’m all for it.” This is the same week where he hooked up with Republican Kevin Cramer, a drilling advocate and climate change scoffer, making Cramer his energy advisor this month. In other words, a very non-environmental guy holding the reins of a very environmental man? Seems odd, doesn’t it? Not really, when you realize they are just both big-businessmen.
In the end, we shall see if any actual “proof” comes from any of the statements Trump has made about what his role would be and how he would actually accomplish it. Maybe he’ll combine the two promises. That strategy would work. I’m sure the water problem will be solved once he “sends back” everyone who is not a “real” American to their home countries. The Native Americans should have a much easier time when the rest of us are sent back to where we originally came from.
Politics involves actions behind words, everyone. If words were it, everyone from Poe to Jane Austen would’ve held the office by now. And, mark my words, both would have done far better speeches than this one has.
I’m Will Roberts, and this is the Daily Scream! ahhhh, here we go!
Now there is a reason PT Barnum and Buffalo Bill Cody went down in history, other than the fact that they produced The Greatest Shows on Earth. The other reason is they were top showmen, which is just another word for a salesman. Now I can tell you, it takes one to know one and I have often said that I can sell ice to the Eskimos, in water form so that I can spot um! Then to hear the latest news about Donald Trump running for President, again doesn’t surprise me in the least bit. And his speech that sounded more like a boxer the day before the big fight doesn’t surprise me.
But what does surprise me, is why you have people that will follow you, Mr. Trump. Maybe it’s The Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome. Which means; you’re the only one who thinks you have something, and the rest of us are enjoying The Greatest Show on Earth!
Or maybe they know you’ll throw all the cool parties. Supporting Donald Trump It’s kind of like going to a casino with a friend who pays you to lose their money, why not. But Mr. Trump, I have a suggestion for folks that do what to back you, and that is; They should be true friends and not give you money. Instead, give some sound advice, like don’t run.
* This ad was brought to you by Americans with common sense, which ain’t so common anymore!
It will always remain – or, at least for a while longer – that no matter who plays, leads, or wins in a golf tournament, it is the face and game of Tiger Woods that everyone wants to know about.
Last week back pain halted his attempt at success, and he walked from the green at the Cadillac Championship in excruciating pain. People were saying how difficult it was that the cash prize wouldn’t be his; not, apparently, understanding that Tiger Woods being low on cash is not a fact in 2014.
Woods did make sure to hit one of those unimaginable shots – a 91-foot putt on the par-3 No. 4 hole for birdie – before he walked away. This was the longest putt on the PGA Tour in the last three seasons, and also the longest one for Tiger, himself, since he hit a 120-footer back in 2001 and became a ‘Transformer’ in peoples’ minds.
Moving forward, Doral, Florida gave the players some pretty harsh weather conditions to deal with this weekend. High winds made it seem as if the players were about to be sent 120-feet because of putts made by Mother Nature’s own hand.
The 68-player field at Trump National Doral was beyond a nightmare. In fact, it looked like something Stephen King would write into a novel about how best to slice and dice a golfer on the green with a metal flagpole. (No ideas, Stephen, that’s copyrighted).
The par-72 Blue Monster, was a goal of Donald Trump’s who paid major cash to redesign the course, but the wind, the hard greens, and a setup that was almost ridiculous, brought him some seriously bad reviews for all his work.
No, no one is saying ‘oh, poor babies.’ After all, this is golf. No 800-pound defensive lineman is ready to take you down on the field. But the course and conditions (the conditions can not be changed seeing as that they are all natural), made the best players in the world look like amateurs, and kept the rounds going, and going, and going.
Tiger Woods was the defending champion, and the payout for this particular one was $1,530,000 for the winner out of a $9 million purse. Here’s a nugget to chew on, though: Perhaps Mother Nature giving it her all and thrusting the worst of the worst at Tiger actually makes his back feel better? That would be odd, but when it came to Saturday’s play, Tiger reappeared and raced up the leader board. Could be the conditions, could be the fact that on Friday after his play he received treatments for his back in order to keep him going and allow him not to leave the course this time around.
The biggest names in the world of golf looked annoyed and exhausted most of the way through. Some looked nothing like the champions they have always been; they looked more like people who wished the NFL would resume so they could be sitting at home in recliners, eating potato chips and yelling happily at the screen.
But…the game went on (and on). PGA champion, Jason Dufner, led and/or shared the lead with others during parts of the first round, along with Rory McIlroy. Jason Day never even bothered with a shot, withdrawing from competition with a bad thumb. Perhaps he knew something the others didn’t about just how bad this course would become. And Mickelson was most definitely the one who wore the mask best when it came to praying for the NFL to begin again.
Sunday begins…it’s almost over…Tiger is in the hunt and the winner is…Patrick Reed.
Tiger is still the love-child of golf fans everywhere, and his back pain still seems to outrank anything the actual winner of the game achieves. But when people look back on this one, the main thing that will be remembered is how absolutely horrific Donald Trump’s redesign worked out.