Naomi Klein in Bil'in, June 26, 2009
I have a feeling that this will not be covered in the mainstream media at all.
The Faster Times:

(Naomi) Klein is the author of the highly acclaimed, best-selling books No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, both staples of many Western liberal/leftist book collections. She was invited to speak by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC) because Klein is one of a growing number of high profile Western authors, artists and cultural figures who have signed on to a 2005 Palestinian civil society call to boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) Israel until it complies with international law.

Over three hundred people crammed the small venue which was followed by a lively question and answer session. Although technically in the region on a book tour for the Hebrew release of Shock Doctrine, Klein focused her remarks on critiques of boycotting Israel as a tactic, and the motivation of Western states to torpedo the recently held Durban Review Conference held in Geneva this past April. She ended by making an emotional appeal to those “who are on the fence [about the call for boycott] to please join,” acknowledging that her delayed endorsement of the boycott campaign in 2008, three years after the call was initially made, “was nothing but cowardice.”

It's not without controversy, but I do applaud Klein for speaking out. I don't think Klein is anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic at all--although if this gets covered in the US at all, it will be on Fox and that's exactly how they'll characterize her. However, in order for there to be any true negotiation for peace in the region, there MUST be a little more honesty and a little less knee-jerking on the subject. Klein explains where she's coming from:

I wanted to start by letting you in on a little secret. There is a debate among Jews. I used to say “the Jewish community” but then I got excommunicated. So there is a debate among Jews - I’m a Jew by the way - about whether the lesson of the Holocaust should be “never again to anyone”, or “never again to us.” That’s what it pretty much boils down to. And there are a lot of people who believe that the lessons of the Holocaust was “never again to us, never again to the Jews.” Because we suffered this tremendous crime against humanity, we have the right to do whatever it takes to keep ourselves safe. In fact we even think we get a kind of get one genocide free card out of this. [...]

There is another strain in the Jewish tradition that says that the lessons of the Holocaust is “never again to anyone”, and that it is precisely because of what we experienced as Jews that we must denounce racism, denounce systems of segregation wherever they crop up, even and especially when they crop up amongst our own. I am proud to put myself - and I thank my parents for this - in that second tradition. That’s why I’m proud to join in here tonight.

Rachel Maddow talks to Naomi Klein about the bank bailouts, the results of the stress tests and how bailing out these banks is a massive transfer of wealth from the public sector into private hands. They talk about how the crisis has not been solved but instead the burden has been moved to those that can least afford it.

We need to re-regulate these industries and I agree completely with Klein and Maddow when they say the regulation should have come hand in hand with the bailout money. The Obama administration had a chance to channel the public anger over these bailouts to get reform passed and by not using that anger in same the way FDR did, they've wasted an opportunity to really fix the system that got us into the mess we are now. And as Naomi Klein notes that anger is going to get channeled somewhere and unfortunately not always towards the ones that deserve it.

Instead we see these tea bag parties, people lashing out at immigrants or anyone else they can blame their own economic woes on, and many who don't feel that one party is any better than the other one. If the Democrats don't get some real reform passed even if it is a day late and a few trillion dollars short they're going to be facing a lot of that anger at the polls come next election and rightfully so. They're saying that they're going to get it done and that we'll see some reforms come through this summer. I will take them at their word for now that they're going to do it but if they don't, I'm sure myself and everyone else who contributes at this site will be calling them out for it.

David Sirota calls it "czarism on steroids," this rising up of various interests to "reform" Social Security in a very big hurry, citing an urgent need to sidestep the normal democratic process.

Well. Isn't that special!

How nice that they're all so concerned - especially the Blue Dogs who had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about Bush running up a trillion dollar deficit over his little Iraq misunderstanding, but now have such grave concerns about spending on social programs during a global economic crisis. (As Jane Hamsher recently noted, she loves how these self-styled patriots "crawl out from under their slimy rocks every time there’s a Democrat in office to preach 'fiscal responsibility,' which somehow always has to start with the social safety net but never quite works its way up to the F-22.")

David Walker to Obama:

WALKER: You mentioned in January about the need to achieve a Grand Bargain involving budget process, social security, taxes, health care reform. You're 110% right to do that. Question is, how do we do it? Candidly, I think it takes an extraordinary process that engages the American people, provides for fast track consideration and with your leadership that can happen. But that's what it's going to take.

This is what it's about for these "Shock Doctrine" partisans, because they just don't like democracy. That's why they'd rather buy off legislators: because they know if the American people ever get a clear fix on what they're really up to, they'll be drawn and quartered. That's what Sirota points out:

Why is democracy such a threat to those who want to slash Social Security or pass corporate-written trade deals? Because those right-wing ideologues know that if any mildly democratic institution even vaguely accountable to the public is allowed to weigh in on those proposals, those proposals will be seriously amended to reflect the will of the people who, for instance, don't like the idea of Social Security cuts or more NAFTAs. Put another way, they know that the public intensely hates their ideas, and that thus, the only way to get their ideas enacted into law in the United States is to crush democracy before it is allowed to interfere.

What's funny, of course, is that democracy and checks and balances were set up specifically to prevent the kind of thing that the Blue Dog Democrats are now trying to impose on the country. The Founding Fathers set up the legislative process - with its debates and amendments and deliberations - so as to prevent a tiny minority of elites from enacting policies that the broad majority of the public opposes. They didn't want a government like there was in Britain - a dictatorship where whatever the king wanted was the law, regardless of whether it had popular support.

Now, in order to destroy the most popular program in history, America is seeing the revival of the Royalists - the people who are effectively insisting that their will should be imposed on the rest of us, regardless of what the rest of us want, regardless of whether the rest of us even get a say.

If there's one thing we all know about dogs, it's that they need to be trained. House-broken, as it were.

Primary challenges, anyone?

  Naomi Klein, author of the "Shock Doctrine", squares off with Stephen Colbert on disaster capitalism.

Download | play   Download | play   (h/t Heather)

"Naomi Klein wants us to be prepared for leaders to take advantage of us in moments of crises."

You can catch Amato's interview with Naomi here.

Indecision 08 has more great Colbert clips.