BILL MOYERS: You just heard Paul Volcker say that even he thinks the rule named after him is too complicated and could stand a little streamlining as long as it doesn’t pull the teeth from the original law. Other supporters of the Volcker Rule also think the same thing – including Congressman Barney Frank, the co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank Banking Reform Bill, and Sheila Bair, the outspoken former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. All three see the need for reform but basically believe in the banking system. Others, like my next guest, think it needs to be scrapped and rebuilt as part of a new vision of democracy -- one that, much like Occupy Wall Street, calls on each of us to become an agent of political change.

Like Paul Volcker, Carne Ross is an economist, but he’s also a trained diplomat who was on his way to the top of the British Foreign Service. He was the speechwriter for Britain’s foreign secretary, and went on to become that country’s Middle East expert at the UN Security Council. He became disillusioned and distraught by the march to war in Iraq and his own role in selling it. He quit -- although not before giving secret testimony to an official inquiry probing how intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was deliberately misused by American and British officials.

Since then, Carne Ross has founded Independent Diplomat, a non-partisan, non-governmental organization that offers advice on negotiating strategy and international law. He’s also working with the Occupy movement to create an alternative banking action group.

His new book couldn't be more timely. There it is – The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Will Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st century. Talk about anticipating the spirit of the moment. This is a call for change everywhere, by everyone convinced that governments are in thrall to the one percent. Carne Ross, welcome.

CARNE ROSS: Thanks for having me.

BILL MOYERS: You're either very fortunate or very prescient or both to have worked on this book for several years and to have it come out right in the midst of these global uprisings. What did you see happening, at the time, that led you to think something was going on?

CARNE ROSS: The sort of fundamental inspiration for it was something that is occurring to people across the world. And is now kind of manifesting itself in these popular protests, both in the West and in the Middle East.

It's about disillusionment. A fundamental disillusionment with the nature of government. That government whether autocratic or, indeed, democratic is not working, is not solving some problems that are fundamental, that are really very concerning. Whether it's inequality, environmental protection, or indeed, economic volatility. Those three things are real problems, functions of the globalized world. And they're not being sorted out by the current structure.

BILL MOYERS: But is there anything new about that? I mean, the United States was born in a sense of disillusionment with the reign of the crown. I mean, right on down through to our day. This has been happening.

CARNE ROSS: I think it wasn't true 20 or 10 years ago. I think after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a real sense that liberal democracy, free markets, you know, governed by governments to an extent was the answer. That was the universal answer. That was the end of history. That is clearly not the case. And we have mounting frustration. I think the problems have risen to such a level, and the disillusionment with the system has risen to such a level that we're almost, at the moment, a paradigm shift to a new form of politics.

We have to accept that government is no longer fixing things for us. Whoever's in charge, whichever bunch of politicians has taken over government, they will not provide the answer, however well-meaning they may be. We have to instead take on the burden ourselves. That is a fundamental cultural change. And I think it requires a real examination of our own role in our political circumstances.

BILL MOYERS: When we went down to Occupy Wall Street, soon after it broke out, what we discovered is so many reasonable and what we used to say upright citizens, who have lost faith in the ballot, in voting.

CARNE ROSS: Yeah. It's a very common feeling. I'm very struck in Occupy. It's very ordinary people. It's not kind of extremists or radicals. And the pretty common feeling is that government is not the answer. There are some who feel that we need to press government, you know, for better legislation. But there's an awful lot of people who feel that that is just impossible, given the way that Washington has been co-opted by special interests. It's basically implausible to expect good legislation to come from Washington.

And having worked in government, you know, very closely, in you know, in government foreign policy, but also in international institutions like the U.N., I simply don't believe that these mechanisms are competent to solve our global problems, our national problems.

BILL MOYERS: Do you understand the paradox you represent to us? I mean, here's a man who, if I understand correctly, at 12, you said to your parents, "I want to be a diplomat."


BILL MOYERS: At 29, the British Foreign Office put you in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian section, right? At 32, you were the point man for your government on dealing with Iraq, at the United Nations. This is a long way talking, being part of Occupy Wall Street, talking about grassroots democracy, from the world of diplomacy. What happened?

CARNE ROSS: Well, it's a hell of a journey. I mean, it's been a tough ride. And my wife will testify to that. And without her, I could not have done it. But I think, actually, that journey illustrates how I've got to this philosophy. You know, I was actually in government. I was writing for my Foreign Secretary. I was writing those claims that we were managing the world. I remember writing them.

You know, we have an answer to the problems of world trade, to the global environment, to poverty in Africa. You know, I'd write these very, very compellingly-written, convincing speeches, explaining how we would do it. And we weren't. We were wrong. I was wrong. You know? These were -- these speeches were written in a vacuum. They were just claims. They weren't actually proof of output.

And when I got deeper into the system, I began to see why. Because government is fundamentally detached from the reality that it is trying to manage. It cannot manage and predict highly complex events. I saw this in the invasion of Afghanistan, which I was involved in, and of Iraq, where, you know, we make these assumptions about the rest of the world, which are grossly simplistic.

BILL MOYERS: You were the point man for your government in the United Nations on Iraq. That meant you dealt with the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Because it was at the U.N., the weapons inspectors were finding evidence contrary to what George W. Bush and Tony Blair were saying. And you were disillusioned by that, right?

CARNE ROSS: I was disillusioned by many things. The claim of a W.M.D. threat was a gross exaggeration of what little we knew. I mean, our internal assessment was that Iraq was not a threat. And then suddenly, our politicians required us to say that it was. And literally black was turned into white.

And the same intelligence assessments that I had worked on, you know, were edited over and over again to tell a completely fallacious story. But my real concern over Iraq was, in fact, not that. It was that we ignored alternatives to war.

You know, I really believe that war is the last alternative that should be taken. And in fact, there were better alternatives to war which were totally ignored. Because government oversimplified things. There were, actually, very technical, complex things that we could have done to the Saddam regime to undermine that regime that were never tried.

BILL MOYERS: One alternative was economic sanctions.

CARNE ROSS: Well, economic sanctions are, as a blunt instrument, and in, you know, what we're doing to Iran now, I don't believe are particularly effective tools. I think they harm the wrong people. In Iraq, we harmed the civilian population grotesquely. And Iraq is still suffering from that.

BILL MOYERS: You were greatly repelled by the suffering of innocent people in Iraq?

CARNE ROSS: Well, to my shame, I, you know, I did it, when I was working on sanctions. You know, those were the sanctions that I helped implement. I negotiated those at the U.N. Security Council. I think only afterwards was I really confronted with the reality of what these sanctions had done to ordinary Iraqis.

They damaged the Iraqi population very fundamentally and very severely and in a very widespread way. And whatever, you know, there's a lot of controversy about particular statistics. But I think there's no question that we did enormous damage to ordinary people in Iraq.

BILL MOYERS: Thousands of children died as a result in Iraq, as a result of--

CARNE ROSS: Yeah, it's very, very shocking--

BILL MOYERS: You write about that very powerfully.

CARNE ROSS: Well, because I feel some sense of personal responsibility for it. And I think this --

BILL MOYERS: You’re hard on yourself in here. You're flagellating yourself.

CARNE ROSS: Well, I think it's one of the problems of the system. That the officials in it don't feel responsibility. I mean, a lot of people suffered in Iraq, because of sanctions. Who is responsible for that? Who is accountable for that? And I kind of feel that at least I can say, "Well, I was part of it, therefore I am responsible." I mean, you know, that responsibility doesn't bring any great price to me, you know? I've not been sent to court or pay a fine or anything for it. But at least I can say, "I was directly involved."

And I do think that sense of amorality and irresponsibility in government, of detachment from the consequences of your decisions, is a real problem.

But to go back to hitting Saddam, I don't -- I'm not talking about comprehensive sanctions. I'm talking about very specific, targeted sanctions to undermine individuals in the regime and the specific pillars of the regime, like the Republican Guard. There are lots and lots of things that could have been done, involving freezing his financial assets. These were never attempted. It's been done elsewhere. And it was never attempted on Iraq. And I still am wondering why that was.

BILL MOYERS: Much of what came to disillusion you about your experience in government, at about the age I was disillusioned, too, inside government in Washington. I didn't go quite as far as you. I haven't given up on government. And I keep wanting to believe that it can be made an instrument of "We the People," as our constitution--

CARNE ROSS: Yeah, I want to believe the same thing, believe me.

BILL MOYERS: But I haven't joined Occupy Wall Street. That is a long journey.

CARNE ROSS: Yeah. Well, as I say, in intellectual and emotional terms, it's been very logical for me. I mean, you know, the Iraq War was a very big jolt for me. It was a very painful experience to leave the government. And I think before that, I really did believe in the kind of omniscience and the sense and the effectiveness of government led by decent, sensible, rational people.

That experience, but indeed earlier experiences, too, convinced me of the opposite. Now if that is the case, it's-- you know, it's very painful to abandon that set of beliefs. It's very comforting to believe the government has got things in grip. But if they don't, what is a more plausible politics? What is a better method of addressing our politics, our problems? And I think actually it's entirely logical that one should look to self-organized action as the answer. Ideally, with other people, always consulting, always negotiating, always acting nonviolently. That is precisely the mechanism of political change that I'm proposing in the book. And that is actually the most effective mechanism of political change.

BILL MOYERS: Did I hear you say you're part of a working group on Occupy Wall Street?

CARNE ROSS: Yes. Quite early on, I set up a working group on alternative banking, which is trying to examine what an ideal bank would be that would be better than the current system. Because one fundamental idea of the book is that rather than accept that the existing system is all we have to work with, we should set up alternative systems.

The bank we want would have many characteristics that we don't really see in the current banking system. It would be democratic. It would be transparent. It would be owned by its customers as well as its employees. It would employ practices of lending that would minimize, if not remove the systemic risk that the current profit-driven banking sector exposes all of us in the economy to.

BILL MOYERS: And you said this group that's working on this alternative system is a disparate group? Can you just sort of describe the diversity?

CARNE ROSS: Well, it's got young people, students. It's got folks who've been sleeping in Zuccotti Park until the eviction. It's got novices like me, who know nothing about the banking sector. And it's got real financial experts, writers about finance and economics, as well as real dissidents from inside Wall Street, people who are part of banks, quant traders, derivatives traders. It's a pretty extraordinary group of people.

BILL MOYERS: Just give me a sense of what's in your head about an alternative bank.

CARNE ROSS: All the elements of the bank, the ideal bank that we're talking about, the Occupy Bank, has been done before. They're present in mutuals, in credit unions, in community banks. But what we're trying to do is, you know, very boldly, very ambitiously, try to imagine all of these characteristics in one bank. And available to everybody, country wide, which at the moment, credit unions, for instance, are not able to be. You know, we want something that is as plausible, as easy to use, if not better, than the current for-profit banks, on the high street, that people and businesses use today.

BILL MOYERS: You talk about the methods of democracy. How do you-- how is that taking place?

CARNE ROSS: In the beginning, very interestingly, when everybody showed up, the lot of people showed up, everybody wanted to give their speech about what was wrong. Me, too. You know, "What's wrong with the economy? What's wrong with banking? I've got to have my say." But once that people had had their say, we, you know, we got down to work.

We've invited real experts from credit unions. People who'd run community banks, professors of finance. We've invited them to come and, you know, advise us. And many of them have responded to that invitation.

BILL MOYERS: So where are you now?

CARNE ROSS: Right now, we're actually putting out a call to say we would like to partner with or even perhaps acquire banks, who would like to work with us to implement this, to set up a national Occupy Bank with the characteristics I've described. We know that alone we can't do it. You know, for instance, we couldn't get a federal charter. It was take us years to years and years of work.

BILL MOYERS: But wouldn't you then have to have the very structure that you find so objectionable, which you write about regularly in your book, consistently in your book, hierarchy. You have to have a hierarchy, somebody has to say yes and no.

CARNE ROSS: Well, in a different way. I mean, all-- in my view, all hierarchy is humiliating to both the leader and the led. But I think you can design institutions, including banks, that are fundamentally democratic. Where the all the members, all the owners, all the depositors, customers, and employees are consulted on major decisions. They may elect a smaller group to make day to day decisions on the basis of principles that they've all agreed.

And this is a really, really important idea of the book, that we've lost agency. We feel out of control. We don't have control over even our workplace.

BILL MOYERS: You mean we individuals have lost our own political agency, our own moral agency?

CARNE ROSS: I think in all kinds of ways we've lost it. I think we've, we feel absolutely detached from the things that most matter to us. And we feel, we can't really affect us, that we're affect them. We're completely impotent. When, in fact, the truth is the opposite. We are the most powerful agents of change. But we have to take the initiative back ourselves. We actually have to do things rather than voting for others to do them.

BILL MOYERS: You make the point in your book, that people prefer democracy. But they're less and less happy with the practice of democratic government. Why do you think that's so?

CARNE ROSS: Well, I think the distinction between democracy and the current form of government is a very important one. I think the current form of representative democracy, where you have a very small group of people taking decisions for a very much larger group of people is fundamentally imperfect, it's fundamentally vulnerable to corruption, whether legal or illegal. And I think I'm afraid that's what we've seen. You see all too often that legislation reflects the interests of special interests, particularly big corporations, the banks, for instance, rather than the interests of the common man, of the mass .

What I'm talking about instead, what I'm proposing instead is a much more, much lower level democracy, people to people democracy, direct democracy of mass participation in decision making.

BILL MOYERS: In "The Leaderless Revolution," you list nine principles for action. What's your purpose there?

CARNE ROSS: The book is all about political method. It's not about a blueprint for where we're going to go. It's about doing politics differently. And I suggest nine things that you should bear in mind, nine principles that should govern that action. It doesn't say what the action should be addressing. But it says "These are the ways that you should go about it."

BILL MOYERS: Number one, "Excavate your convictions."

CARNE ROSS: Without really knowing what you care about, it's very difficult to find the energy to do anything. And I think actually in contemporary politics, it's very difficult to know what you really care about. You're bombarded all the time with politicians telling you what to care about. But what is the thing you really, really care about? And once you've identified that, that will give you the strength and the fuel to-- for the long journey to try to address that thing.

BILL MOYERS: Number two, "Who's got the money? Who's got the gun?"

CARNE ROSS: This is where you need to step back and analyze the situation. Who has the real power over the problem that concerns you? Who's got the money and who's got the gun is a pretty good start for your analytical technique.

BILL MOYERS: Number three, "Act as if the means are the end."

CARNE ROSS: This is purely quoted from Gandhi. I didn't come up with this myself. He was convinced that actually the form of politics that you choose is actually the end. You know, if you just vote for somebody, you've not actually done anything. If you use violence to create a particular political end, all you're doing is promoting violence.

So actually you need to embody the principles that you wish in the goal that you seek, whether it's equality, transparency, democracy, in the form of change that you are pursuing, in the very method. And this is what the book is about. It's about a method.

BILL MOYERS: You were quite impressed with Gandhi's salt march.



CARNE ROSS: Well, he in protest of British colonialism, he organized a 200-mile march, of lots of people, to go to a coastal city in India to make salt. And the reason he did that was because the British charged poor people, ordinary Indians a tax on salt, as a way of keeping them down. And Gandhi felt the salt belongs to all of us, and ordinary people were forbidden from making salt.

So he went and made salt. And this was the perfect political protest, because not only did it draw attention to this great injustice, but it actually physically embodied the change that needed to happen, which was ordinary people making salt. And it was immensely powerful.

BILL MOYERS: Number four, "Refer to the cosmopolitan criterion."

CARNE ROSS: That is the idea that instead of, you know, assuming that we know what others want, like the golden rule does, you know? Which says we should, "Do unto others as we would like them to do unto us." That to me is a very solipsistic moral maxim. Instead you just ask them. I mean, these days, you're connected on the internet. You can find out what people over there think. And they will tell you very clearly and persuasively. And often very different from what you assume they're going to say.

BILL MOYERS: Number five, "Address those suffering the most."

CARNE ROSS: This again is not from me. It's from Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher who gave us the open society. He believed that no government, no authority can decide what, can know what makes people happy. In fact, we don't even know ourselves often. But the one thing you can measure - happiness is not measurable. You know, it's not something that's empirically testable, but suffering is.

Actually, the indices of suffering, starvation, absence of water, mortality. These things are very measurable. And actually addressing suffering is much easier than trying to make ourselves happier. You can do far more. You can actually-- to lift a very large number of people from poverty takes very little. And therefore, you would have actually much more effect with your politics. It-- there's also kind of behind a moral imperative. I mean, you know, personally, I think those suffering the most should be our primary concern.

BILL MOYERS: Six, "Consult and negotiate."

CARNE ROSS: Don't just roll over people. If you take them for granted and try to do your thing without taking account of what they want, you won't succeed. And I've seen this in international negotiations, which exclude people. The agreements that follow from that won't work. This is what we're trying to do in Independent Diplomat is get ordinary people's voices into that process. But that consultation will produce an outcome that might work, because you have included people in its construction.

BILL MOYERS: Seven, "Big picture, little deeds."

CARNE ROSS: Big change, change in the world - saving the global environment, you know, stopping economic volatility-- overwhelming goals, overwhelming problems. You know? How the hell can little me do something about that? This idea is simply that you bear that overall strategic goal in mind, but you do something small every day to reach it. And that is a plausible and effective form of political change and will actually solve the problem, if we all do it.

BILL MOYERS: Eight, "Use nonviolence."

CARNE ROSS: In researching the book, I read a lot about nonviolence, which is not doing nothing. It's not pacifism. It's actually a series of techniques, which are very powerful and persuasive, and can achieve, you know, extraordinary ends but without relinquishing the moral high ground by using violence.

And you know, all kinds of - the most fundamental and extraordinary political change has come about nonviolently. I think in this country about, you know, the struggle for female emancipation, for civil rights. These were nonviolent movements. If you want to change society, you can't do it violently.

BILL MOYERS: And yet number nine, "Kill the king."

CARNE ROSS: Yes. You know, a slightly colorful way of saying, "It is really hard to change things." It is really, really hard. And I think this is one of the, you know, the fundamental ideas of the book. You know, somebody promises you that clicking on a petition will change a problem, they are lying. That is simply not true. So to take on any problem, you've really got to focus. And in chess, the objective is -- there's one objective, which is, "Take the other guy's king." And that's what you've got to keep in mind, all the time.

BILL MOYERS: "The Leaderless Revolution" you call it. But can any movement be leaderless, seriously?

CARNE ROSS: I passionately believe that it should be. Not only that it can be, but it should be. Occupy is leaderless and successfully so. It is many things. It is not one thing. It is a lot of people spontaneously acting upon their own convictions. And that is what makes it powerful.

The moment you have one person standing up and saying, "It's about this agenda," you weaken the movement. And I think this is actually a new form of politics for the 21st Century. I do not think this will be the exception. This will become the rule.

Personally, I feel that now is the time, particularly as we enter the presidential election season, we need to move from words and protests to action, to actually building new systems that embody these values. That is the most powerful form of political change for me.

BILL MOYERS: But, you know, Barack Obama did this splendidly in 2008, using social media to organize, mobilize people for the change that we can believe in. What's happened since then?

CARNE ROSS: Well, there was a kind of, you know, it was a bit of a slightly misleading the way that he put it. I mean, I don't want to sound critical of the president, who I respect and admire. But he wasn't actually calling for mass action to create political change. He was calling for mass action to get him elected, which are two fundamentally different things.

And that is, I think the great disjunction in contemporary representative politics. Is that politicians say, "Get me elected and I, individually, will solve these problems. That is change you can believe in." And actually, it's not plausible anymore. And, but what was interesting about that campaign was, I think, people really connected to the idea of mass action for change. And that's what I, you know, my book and others are proposing, that actually that sense of passionate commitment is exactly what we're missing, of action really meaning something, rather than just this very sterile, inconsequential act of voting.

BILL MOYERS: You ask us in your book to imagine the world without institutions. And with all due respect, that's very hard to do.

CARNE ROSS: Well, I understand that. I mean, I'm talking about very gradual. I think this is more evolution than revolution. I'm not saying we should overthrow institutions. I think, though, we have to recognize that our current institutional political set up is not working. And indeed, the form of the company and the economy today as a purely profit-seeking entity is not working.

So we have to change all of these things from the ground up. That's what I'm saying. I'm not particularly against institutions, though I hate hierarchy. I think when institutions and organizations flow from people's real convictions and are truly democratic, they can be very good things. I wish that our contemporary institutions were more like that.

BILL MOYERS: You're going to strike a lot of people as either an anarchist or a Saul Alinsky reborn.

CARNE ROSS: I would be flattered to be called a Saul Alinsky reborn.


CARNE ROSS: Because he, you know, inspired a lot of people to do things. And if my book can do that, I would be absolutely honored and thrilled.

BILL MOYERS: You still believe individuals can signify?

CARNE ROSS: I believe they're the by far, the most important thing, you know? Because actually we are, you know, what embody - we are what the world consists of. There are seven billion of us now. We're not a system. Actually, we're just a bunch of individuals. And we comprise reality. Therefore, why don't we, you know, just realize that. And say, "Crikey, well, I can start from changing something. I can change my own reality. I can, you know, inspire those around me." And thus, we can actually begin to change the whole system. That’s an extraordinary possibility.

BILL MOYERS: The book is The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Will Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century. Carne Ross, I've truly enjoyed our conversation.

CARNE ROSS: Me, too. Thank you very much for having me.

Carne Ross on Being an Agent of Change

If you’re disillusioned about government, know that you aren’t entirely powerless to create change. So says Bill’s guest Carne Ross. Once the rising star of British diplomacy and now a global activist, Ross’ book The Leaderless Revolution outlines ways to create alternative systems of governance and commerce.

“We have to accept that government is no longer fixing things for us. Whoever’s in charge, whichever bunch of politicians has taken over government, they will not provide the answer,” Ross tells Moyers. “We have to instead take on the burden ourselves. That is a fundamental cultural change, and I think it requires a real examination of our role in political circumstances.”

Ross, who resigned his British diplomatic role in objection to his government’s positions during the Iraq War, shares nine crucial principles for effective citizen action. He also describes his work with the Occupy movement to devise an alternative banking system – an “Occupy Bank” – more aligned with the public interest.

  • submit to reddit
  • Anonymous

    I found this very interesting, partly because, before I logged on here, I had just finished watching a film called *Fuel* made by a man who helped inspire the biodiesel revolution in the US.  The film reminded me once again not to look at what Washington is doing about global warming but rather, to look at what individual communities and small entrepreneurs across the US are doing. 

    Because that’s where the green revolution is happening, certainly not in Washington where politicians come cheap to Big Oil.  Since that story is far too depressing, I have tailored my news provider to show me daily every green story that appears in the news — and the number of initiatives across the US and Canada is quite remarkable.  The point of the film is: Do something yourselves, and eventually the leaders will follow.

    Similarly, what Carne Ross is saying is that if you want a different banking system, then set one up.  Leaders will either follow that lead or become irrelevant.  He intimates that this is the beginning of a paradigm shift.  I hope he’s right.

  • Jo

     As empty vessels make the loudest sound, so they that have least with are the greatest babblers.

  • Anonymous

    Good to see some leadership arise from within Occupy—try as Mr Ross might to disavow hierarchy. And an interesting effort by Mr Ross to institute a new kind of bank—try as he might to disavow institutions. I believe in much of what he’s espousing, but hierarchies and institutions seem to me inescapable in human affairs—indeed, even in his own well-intended efforts. The idea that we should try to abandon or escape them seems not only utopian but ill-advised. Both can act as conduits of the public will. The problem of both, the project of keeping them responsible expressions of the public good, is to cultivate public participation and organic solidarity. In fact, is there any hope for the public good WITHOUT hierarchy and institutions?

  • Linda

    Provocative, stimulating and hopeful interview.  I am excited to read the book!  You asked Mr. Carne if he really believed there could be a leaderless society.  There is a real-life example of that found in the 12-step programs of AA, Al-Anon, NA, CA, etc.  These programs are based on a common set of principles, the 12-steps.  The meetings are essentially leaderless with all members taking a turn at making sure the meeting is run smoothly and efficiently.   There are volunteers for “service work” which ensures that all the tasks that need to be done in the meetings and outside the meetings are completed.  I participate in Al-Anon and have experienced a level of cooperation and support that seldom exists outside those rooms.  And, all that support and cooperation leads to personal growth that is essentially $1.00-$2.00 per meeting (or less if you don’t have the money).  The 12-Step Programs is a template for growth and change that could and should be used for all humans and the systems they organize to live within.

  • Mariotenorio

     Mr. Moyers I am delighted to watch your show as regularly and often as I possibly can. I believe you have one of the most interesting and consientiously produced shows. Given the dire state of affairs for most of us Americans, and the impending sense of doom and urgency most of us feel and obviously gone undetected  by our government, it’s a gift to see how many of us still care. The nature and content of late, particularly tonight “Gambling With Your Money” with Paul Volker and Carne Ross,  I just had to let you know that I am glad I am not the only one who thinks along those lines of reform. It’s been a long time coming, I think my friends are tired of hearing my chant for reform telling me good luck with that. I have this feeling that it’s high time for a national movement, because we do have the power to “individually but in unison” (think internet)  remove all the cancers which have come to a suppurating  head recently. I think though that most of these messengers who have the most vital input such as the distinguished Paul Volker, who has seen it from the inside should enlist the help and voice of  other former and current  high ranking  officials who know what’s happening in Washington and Wall Street and really want to change the status quo, hear our cry for help and be true heroes and do the right thing and advocate vehemently for reform. I want to express admiration for Mr. Carne Ross who has no fear of adversity and all the courage in the world to see opportunity for a positive outcome in the midst of caos, and the courage to work hard to effect a change that starts with him.  He stepped down from his post when he grew disillusioned with his government, and the fallacious nature of the politically motivated decisions made by The British and Bush administrations in the Iraq war and that he helped implement as a British Diplomat. It is refreshing to see light at the end of the tunnel again. Thank you so very much

  • Barney Rebel

    At 26 minutes Moyers suggests people might consider Ross an anarchist, with a tone that suggests being an anarchist is a negative thing.  Disavowing the tyranny of state and capital, acknowledging the farce that is hierarchy welded in place with bullets and jail cells, what is wrong with this?  

  • Chera Canna

    National Occupy Bank suggestion –  2/3 of the way through a mortgage, it would have been very helpful to be able to make additional payments to the principal in the good times.  our grandparents had that option, why not now with computer records?  When I tried it the mortgage was sold within a few days without the additional payments.

  • Lovinglee337

    I watched Carne make wonderful points concerning the place of the individual in a society that learns to accept their responsibility in a leaderless world. This idea makes Democracy more possible than ever before. I have heard a similar philosophy from Economist Richard Wolff. The idea that the form of Democracy that was ceated with the constitution in the United States was only the begining of what Democracy could mean for the world. So many people have worked so hard to keep the forefathers forms of Democracy unchanged and in so doing  have done us all a dis-service.  It is more of an evolution than a revolution. The revolution is only necessary when we become so afraid of the necessary changes that can occur naturally if we only have the courage to move without a blueprint -with the change.

  • Kevin Schmidt

     Yes, time payments sounds like a great idea. If you pay the principal and interest payments ahead by a year, you should be able to take a ‘payment vacation’ for a year.

  • Kevin Schmidt

     Anything bad for the fascists is demonized.  They demonized Progressivism and class warfare, for example.

    Meanwhile, they are the ones waging class warfare.

    Also, some of our best progressives have been Republicans. Just ask Progressive President Teddy Roosevelt.

  • Wolf Braun

    Powerful interview with Ross Carne. 

    Interesting 9 principles.  A discussion of principles AND The Purpose of Government is exactly what’s needed with western governments.  Our politicians and special interest groups have taken us far, far away from what the Purpose of Government ought to be.

    We need to discuss The Purpose of Government along with the principles that go with.

  • mary Green

    I have two questions for Tuesday’s show…a few friends and I have been keeping a stern eye on Fukushima, and today one asked…why haven’t “we” taken action on this…meaning the report of radiation levels being 5 times normal in LA, etc.  We are willing to start a petition and to do much education of the public…SO WHO DO WE ADDRESS a petition to ???  Various governments or the UN…who could actually take some meaningful action ???

    My second question is within the Fukushima situation in that foods from Japan are coming into this nation and other nations and are highly radiated foods…how do we begin to stop this…again, what agency can actually take a meaningful action for the safety of the people ?

  • Joseph Bernard, Ph.D

    Carne Ross’s point of view is so empowering and so needed in the world. His appearance on Bill Moyer’s show was very inspiring.

  • Neal

    Anarchism discussed seriously? Few would allow it, thank you Bill Moyers!

  • Karl Hoff

    Two great interviews. As you can see by the smaller and smaller number of comments, people show why the powerful win. Which is more important?: To feed the starving of the World or put on the oscars…To pay sport players hundreds of million or provide affordable health care for those that can’t pay for it without the tax payers paying for it…To pay huge amouts of money to those who’s only real talent such as CEOs, politicans or celebrities, is to is to make a lot of money…To provide legal help for those that can’t afford it and can’t get it pro-bono. Real easy answers. What do we do???  Look at ancient times. What is left when they failed? Often only sports arenas and temples. Will this world end up a huge amount of sky-scraper (ego buildings), court houses, and temples when we fail to stop the few from controlling the extreme majority and all the people are gone? We have a golden opportunity with the now increasing number of wisdom rich baby boomers becoming much greater in numbers. Only they have lived through what happens when the young set the trends. How many people are watching Bill Moyers and how many are watching Lady Gaga? It is amazing to me to see a celebrity making a million a day get on the TV and ask the working people barely making ends meet to give money to a cause……….yeah, a cause they could have stopped from happening by not being so selfish. I believe we will only solve our problems when it gets as bad as in the “Mad Max” movies. As long as we try to save the world by using the very techniques that caused the problems in the first place, we will continue to slide down the slope. Here’s one good example we can control. Why does it cost almost as much to replace the ink cartriges as buying the printer with cartriges in the frist place? It’s either throw the printer away and buy a new one or store the old one and buy a new one because it costs far more to ship and fix than it’s worth. If people would just stop buying them for even a month and tell them to STOP IT, it would send a real message.  I’m tired of building shelves to store them!  So far I have come up with the idea that the people building these printers have a vocabulary of only four words: DAH, DAH AND DAH!
    PS: This is to Bill Gates. Why, if you made the solfware that runs my computer, then why can’t you fix the problems with viruses and such, rather than us paying someone else a fee to do it for you. Are you getting a kick back!!!

  • susan j

    thank you bill moyers.  once again you have provided me with inspiration and hope.  i have ordered carne ross’s book and look forward to reading it.  sounds like he is asking us to take personal responsibility.  wow!  “change we can believe in ” must start within the individual.  we must evolve.  now is the time.   susan j

  • Pricington

    Fantastic programs and discussions!  Keep them coming.  Andy P.

  • Anon

    I read Mr Ross’ excellent and important book last year, and have been following his work ever since. 

    I consider his contribution (and especially his Nation piece ‘A New Politics for a Disorderly World), to this necessary debate  about the forms which our future polity will take to be the current leading answer to the challenge thrown down by Francis Fukuyama in his recent Foreign Affairs piece ‘The Future of History’.

    It is heartening to have so capable and erudite a spokesperson for these vital ideas.

  • Anonymous

    The social technology, to do what you, Mr. Ross, describe, has been available for 40 years.  When people develop the capacity to create self-determining systems it is beautiful to see.  Carol Sanford tells of some of the companies where democracy took root in her book The Responsible Business.  Thank you for caring, that is where it starts,

  • Anonymous

    You can not only tell from sparcer posts, Karl, but from the increasing conventionality, conformity and irrelevancy of many of the newer posters. They shill their closed mindsets and applaud the inadequate. Anyway, we are getting access to a cross-section of of halfway measures people resort to in soothing their consciences. By insisting  people stay strictly on topic moderators elicit approval and stifle critique. It is as if they believe social networking is effective in politics. It  might work with  pimple cream and cereal but  it was designed to exclude discourse. What I wonder is where the courageous posters went.

  • Anonymous

    How will you stop others from not participating in what Oligarchs provide? By anarchism it is meant  only that  we have ceased to respect the tyrants as leaders. Now they’re just bullies.

  • Anonymous

    What does Carne’s message motivate you to do?

  • Anonymous

    Hey, the kelp off Southern California is now loaded with radioactive iodine (short halflife thankfully).
    San Onofre has been leaking and is now shut down. 
    Juice for air conditioning will be short this summer. Retired Excelon chairman predicts no new US nukes, because they cost too much and are hazardous. The Japanese nuke industry is frantic to restart a few plants because once the electorate there realizes they can make it without them this summer it will be the end of Japanese nuclear power. Most American nuclear units are so old they are past decommissioning date, but we have no money to close them and nowhere safe to put the waste. 

    Notice how our manned space program has ended? Well, nuclear generation was also a companion piece to the nuclear ballistic missile race. It’s all over. It was a total waste. I do not want people to pay after the wealthy class profited from another fraud for 7o years. Put our tax levies toward sustainable energy and get away from oil too.

    Moyers has never been strong on ecological and energy issues. His is a hearts and minds operation.
    But maybe nuclear critique is a part of awakening the public. So I share your concerns about the fact our news is in a bubble Mary Green. Harry Shearer covers all that stuff on his Sunday show (le show) KCRW Santa Monica. Our regulatory  commission has been captured by the industry and needs flushing, I think.  We could have another incident/accident any day. (More urgent than global warming and not an  answer to it)

  • Anonymous

    Would you keep the Postal Service?
    (litmus test)

  • Anonymous

    Moyers poses a question he knows many fearful colonized minds will wonder about.
    He diffuses the anxiety.

  • Anonymous

    The Internet will be inadequate to serve the reform movement you crave. The Internet is “Owned” just like TV. It descended from business machines. Ed Murrow had high  hopes and he got  lung cancer. People must vote and act with every  fiber of their being  if civilization and life on Earth are to be preserved. This will not be accomplished by vigorous texting.

  • Anonymous

    But who has been awarded ownership and control of said technology?

  • Calwardjr

    Carne Ross completely misrepresents Obama’s strategy during the 2008 election. He did not merely promote mass action to get him elected. He clearly stated over and over: “I cannot do this alone.”
    We elected him, and then we did not supply the mass action to help him. Our lazy leftist politics, fueled by the lazy impersonal habits of social media, allowed us to tell ourselves that all we had to do was elect him and he would do the rest. We cannot blame him for that.
    We should have occupied Zuccotti Park the day after Obama was elected. We dropped the ball. We failed Obama. We sat back and watched the right co-opt all effective organizational tactics to bring about change. That’s why the right runs the game now, while we get swept away by the police like so much park trash.
    That is why we are fumbling around in this late hour to scrape together whatever pieces of Gandhi still make sense to form some kind of leaderless/impromptu/come-as-you-are/anyone-can-play facsimile of civil disobedience. Ross’ tone suggests the same self-justification and inner shame all of us should feel in being part of the formation of our problems, while missing this priceless opportunity to correct them.

  • Anonymous

     Your question is an interesting one, in fact a central question, in what Mr. Ross is talking about.  If you want to read an account of the epic battle to keep this technology available to everyone, read Art Kleiner’s The Age of Heretics; Charles Krone’s demand that no one owns what has been given.  If you want to read about the technology in action read Carol Sanford’s The Responsible Business.  This technology is just as powerful as a way to organize society.

  • Anonymous

    My Carol Sanford appraisal is that  she is living in the  corporate  past. I’m way ahead of Krone on net  neutrality and the nature of the net under inflexible private property conventions. I hold a doctorate in media analysis and the net paradox is one of my major interests. I believe it is now more a tool  of oppression than of liberation. Commercialism is the major negation of free discourse.

  • Bkmovie100

    Believe it or not , I would keep the Post Office:

    A.Privitatization  cost to Americans- one dollar to sent a letter-more if not in a metropolitan area.
    B. Who cares, we have e-mail? e-mail provides as much privacy as a nudist camp. One of the reasons for the American Revolution was for the right to have private communication;by law, first class mail provides private communication.
    c. Outsourcing will eliminate US Postal Inspectors; I met quite a few, they are bright, diligent and great at catching people using child pornography etc..,
    d. The government is ours, our prize for living
    with all this garbage and its fewer freedoms. Do we really want to give it away  another basic freedom?
    e. It is an instution that truly reflects America: tries hard but will never be an A+student; it averages about $45,000 a yr. in salary; it
    acts dumb but is basically trustworthy/ loyal;
    and best of all, it employees about 600,000 great American people. I’ll never be the one to sign their pink slip.

  • Anonymous

     The net is only a tool for social change.  What image do you see of our potential to evolve, our goals and the direction being called for? In other words what do you want to use the net for? Neutral or private; a clear view of what you want to do with an instrument is part of the framework. 
    Please speak to our current capacity for discernment.  Which seems much more an issue than tools.

  • Anonymous

    We can never know if Barack Obama meant it when he said “Push me!” It is inarguable that he rolled over too easily in perpetuating  the police state and the unitary executive; in his failure to investigate and prosecute the Bush Administration’s crimes; and in his reluctance to effectively advocate for financial reforms and curb elite economic crime.

    President Obama sold us out on health care when a majority wanted single payer. He has continued the push for absolute corporate globalism with new trade agreements. Even his “Buffet Rule”  is a low bid on policy because in practice it would amount to little more than a “flat tax.”

    Now this is not to say a majority might not be forced by circumstances to vote for him for lack of a better viable choice in our rigged elections. (self-preservation strategy) As Carne Ross implied in his chat, Obama might have been a good man if he were not hostage to his office.

  • Anonymous

    Is Ross saying that government is like the luminiferous ether?

  • Anonymous

    We lack the  choice to use the Internet as an effective political organizing tool.
    Surveillance and tracking/consumer profiling are synonymous so that our  privacy is difficult to secure. The glut and distraction of advertising has been characteristic of all modern media and has provided a powerful means for misinformation and programming of our minds. The Internet adds a libertarian complement of porn and lies, threats even. We must always recall that the internet technology originated in business machines and that it was long utilized by  the military and intelligence agencies before people were given access. That history haunts us like a ghost in the machine. When I write here I take special measures to hide my personal information which demonstrates my reaction to what I have discovered about the web.

  • Anonymous

    Bkmovie_ I had a visceral affinity for the USPS, but  your well-reasoned argument for preserving it has bolstered my advocacy. Thanks. 
    Analogy: Manual labor is to intellectual labor as email is to letters. Materiality has value.

  • Anonymous

     Where there is will there is a way.  Worry about what is willed.

  • David F., N.A.

    President Obama announces the Warren Bluffdale Rule:

    The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)

    Rather than Bibles, prophets, and worshippers, this temple will be filled with servers, computer intelligence experts, and armed guards. And instead of listening for words flowing down from heaven, these newcomers will be secretly capturing, storing, and analyzing vast quantities of words and images hurtling through the world’s telecommunications networks. In the little town of Bluffdale, Big Love and Big Brother have become uneasy neighbors.

    We all know this center will be used to spy on Americans, so why can’t our elected officials spend our tax dollars on something more useful — like federal prisons?

    “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” ~ Barack Obama

  • David F., N.A.

    Oh yeah, you might need this link (very informative):

  • marco

    Friday, December 17, 2010Why is Obama leaving the grass roots on the sidelines?By Sam Graham-FelsenObama entered the White House with more than a landslide victory over Sen. John McCain. He brought with him a vast network of supporters, instantly reachable through an unprecedented e-mail list of 13 million people. These supporters were not just left-wing activists but a broad coalition that included the young, African Americans, independents and even Republicans – and they were ready to be mobilized.

    It’s not just the 13 million on the Obama campaign’s email list being held down, but Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party told groups usually identified as Democratic supporters to stand down, not run campaigns to get populist legislation like a public option through, because the White House wanted top-down control over all activities to get whatever legislation it wanted to get passed into law.  

    I think the best comparison for what Obama did when he deactivated the email list and had Democratic activists stand down is to Bush attacking, invading and occupying Iraq, and then firing the Iraqi army and disbanding the Baath Party.  It left millions of Iraqis without any income, the nation in rubble and ruin without electricity, water, government services, no functioning infrastructure or rule of law.  

    I think Bush did it to create an atmosphere of chaos in order to push Iraqis into becoming insurgents, which would provide the neocons with an excuse for remaining in Iraq and occupying it for years and decades.
    What possible reason could Obama have for neutralizing the activist wing of the Democratic Party, and then blame not getting real Democratic legislation passed on not being able to move Blue Dogs and Republicans to support it when Obama never even tried to pressure Blue Dogs and Republicans?
    Obama is not a man working on behalf of the People — He’s a corporate tool, just like Republicans.  Since he’s gotten into office, he’s continued most of Bush’s policies & he touts ‘accomplishments’ as “reform” when, in fact, they’re Republican in nature.

  • Marco

    Right before the 2010 midterms, Obama and Democrats made it clear that no matter what the outcome of the election, they would still work in a bipartisan manner, watering down legislation, making it Republican-like. Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind Blue Dogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats. Some, but not all, examples:Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.Republican-turned-Independent Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak.Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.Blue Dogs took a beating (liberals lost only 3 seats) in the 2010 midterms and Obama took it as a mandate to move even farther to the right.

  • Marco

    Obama took single payer off the table before negotiations ever began, handed health reform legislation over to the insurance industry to write through corporate tool Max Baucus, and then had single payer advocates taken away, arrested, in handcuffs.   When Obama ultimately passed his healthcare bill that was really a huge corporate giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries through reconcilia­tion.  50 + 1.  He could have gotten single payer through that way.There’s rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it.  And when a president and his political party are swept into power to deliver affordable­, quality medical treatment for all as Obama and Democrats were in 2008, and the one method that can accomplish it (and also happens to solve other unique problems facing us at the time, i.e., a crashing economy, joblessnes­s, etc.) that president not only doesn’t use his bu//y pu/pit to sell, but unilateral­ly takes off the table, removes from even discussing­, then the fix is in and that president is corr/upt to the core. Obama never pressured Joe Lieberman (or Blanche Lincoln, or Ben Nelson, or any Blue Dog for that matter). The Democratic leadership could’ve taken away committee chairs (Blanche Lincoln’s, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a public option for healthcare­. They didn’t.The DNC could’ve taken away reelection funds. They didn’t. Reid could’ve actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn’t (and doesn’t).The Progressiv­e Caucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn’t include a robust public option. They didn’t. Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after Howard Dean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­e Caucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. There’s nothing that JoeLieberm­an (or Ben Nelson or Blanche Lin­coln) is doing that Obama hasn’t ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he’s doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  And the proof of this is that when Obama needed Nelson re: Stupak amendment, he ‘bought’ his support.  That’s what Obama could have done for Nelson’s or Lincoln’s or Lieberman’­s vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  He sure did it when he needed Mary Landri­eu’s vote.There could be 100 “progressi­ves” in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People blame it on Republican­s. Because they’re DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats’-clot­hing.

  • Dnadanyi

    These spy centers are all over the US especially near Washington DC,Virginia and Maryland.  The buildings have many floors below ground level.  Also the companies like SAIC,General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and so forth have neon signs on top of them in the above suburbs. Our taxes pay for the government to train the analysts and then our taxes go to pay for their higher salaries when they are recruited by these companies. Michael Chertoff took his entire highly trained government office personel and formed the lucrative Chernoff Group. Now we have to be irradiated by their machines when we fly ka- ching.  The creation of Homeland Security and Top Secret American national security is the biggest ever expansion of government. The right is always screaming about big government, but they created the largest government expansion with Medicare part D(designed as a gift to the drug comapnies and to GUT MEDICARE) and Top Secret America. Top Secret America continues to expand because it is politically so highly charged. Cheney/Bush privatized the army and national security and we pay with our taxes.

  • Dnadanyi

    I agree with what you say and feel guilty but I do send e-mails to the whitehouse often. I wish others would do this because he has to know what people are thinking and worrying about. DN

  • Dnadanyi

    I think we all realize that the health care bill was written by big insurance and pharma.  It was a HUGE disappointment to everybody.  Are these institutions so powerful? Health care must be separated from employment, also how are they going to force people to buy the insurance?

  • Dnadanyi

    You obviously have information that most of us do not.  Most are very disappointed and perhaps in a state of denial. My opinion of Clinton is that he was a horrible President. It was a bubble economy that burst as usual. The only thing he did was leave us a surplus. I hope that will not be my opinion of Obama. I send emails to the whitehouse when I disagree with policies. Grady says I should not do that but what is there to do? Is the office of the Presidency so powerless?  God help us if that is true. So are you going to vote? Do you think Elizabeth Warren is Presidential material? Regarding Iraq: I believe that we invaded Iraq in order to deliberately ruin the infrastructure so that corporations would be able to make money reconstructing it again. Bremmer screwed up with his debathification program.  I think they were conned by Chalabi. He used us and we used him but someone made Rumsfield fire Jay Garner and put Bremmer in his place. Bremmer distributed flyers in the Iraq language??? and the word for debathification was extermination. But I think he was just stupid. Iraq was just one more country ensnared into the neoliberalization economic movement where all the worlds assets are privatized and corporations rule.

  • Dnadanyi

    The expansion of Top Secret America will never end-too political.

  • Dnadanyi

    It’s funny how politicians use the Constitution for their puposes and then discard it when it does not support their agenda. The second amendment is no longer logical because the guns in the 1700s were not semi automatic or had clips etc. Santorum does not believe in the amendment regarding  separation of church and state. Funny not ha ha.

  • Dnadanyi

    The right is deliberately attacking the post office because there mission is to 1. destroy as many unions as possible 2. privatize the mail. UPS is a conservative organization. Correct me if I am wrong.

  • Dnadanyi

    Ahmed Chalabi was working on getting us into Iraq for 10 plus years. The US poured millions into his organization. He intended to take the place of Sadam. Since Chalabi was shite I think it was his influence that led to the debathification program. He was a very clever con man. The US finally confiscated his computers(remember) but noone ever divulged what they found.

  • Anonymous

    Wow! Now I want to meet you in person more than ever. Your activism is expanding exponentially like Joni Mitchell’s butterflies in “Woodstock.” But I hope you don’t experience the answering machine problem Laurie Anderson had in 

    “O Superman.”
    “You can come as you are…Or pay as you go,Pay as you go…””Here come the drones, Smoking or non-smoking,Made in Amerika,They’re Amerikan drones!”

    “So hold me Mom…
    In your long arms,
    In your automatic arms.”

  • Anonymous

    Sever the roots and kill the weeds.
    Haven’t you been to see the Mayan ruins?

  • Anonymous

    There was a window when restructuring was feasible.
    It was squandered just like the peace window after 9/11.

  • Anonymous

    Yep, he paved his own path home to Wall Street. They don’t let you keep your roots when you come from the working class to accept a Harvard Law Degree. From then on you’re a hydroponic termater.

  • Anonymous

    Gotta get paid for every little word.

  • Anonymous

    All the CIA’s fascist clients are shites.
    Harry Shearer can’t say that on radio.

  • Anonymous

    How can anyone disagree with this very old news?

  • Anonymous

    That power failure at Duke Energy’s Catawba complex was scary. They still can’t say what caused the plant to reject outside electric power. Could be hacking.

  • Anonymous

    FedEx is the more anti-labor organization. Brown is union.

  • Anonymous

    So hold me Mom, in your automatic arms.

  • Anonymous

    Genuine Imaginative Occupy suggestion- a free house for every family. As the wealthiest nation we can afford that, and free college, and free public owned and run media, and single payer healthcare, and no one hungry. That’s my bottom line, not budging. We can negotiate on sustainable food and energy methods, how fast to deconstruct the war and spying machine, how much wealth the fascists can take when they self-deport.

  • Anonymous

    So you really like te look and smell of manicured laundered cash, dontcha!

  • Anonymous

    Sounds reasonable because we’re addicted to authoritarianism, celebrity and wealth worship, the success ethic, fossil fuels, processed foods, sadistic religions, intense violence and porn.
    (as well as the usual drugs and alcohol)

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    Those e-mails may prove your naive innocence in a future show trial.

  • Anonymous

    If by ether you mean anesthesia.

  • Anonymous

    The Buffet Rule is a half-fast flat tax.
    Say that fast three times.

  • David F., N.A.

    Yeah, your right, but this center will be able to handle yottabytes of yada, yada, yada bites.

  • Anonymous

    Music to my ears, but, nearly 7 billion of us, living little more than 80 years each — unless we find a common enemy, like an alien invasion, I do not believe we live long enough to raise consciousness (IQs) enough to ever make it possible.  I fear “Idiocracy” is more likely our future, but we’ll never stop trying by example.  Sweet music.  Thank you Carne Ross. 

  • Dnadanyi

    Chichanitza and Tolum-havn’t seen too tired to leave the beach. Is that what they did to uncover the ruins? Did see Machu Picchu.

  • Dnadanyi

    Grady you need to write a book with footnotes. You must read Top Secret America.  You will not believe what is going on.  There is a lot of information in Fiasco-did not finish got bogged down in the battle of Falluga sp?? Another good book is The Man who caused the Iraq war-Ahmad Chalabi.  Also Blood Money and Blackwater.  I was really mad about the Iraq war.

  • Dnadanyi

    which old news?

  • Theresa Riley

    Guys, this is way off topic. Posts like these will be deleted from our boards starting next week. Just wanted to let you know.

  • David F., N.A.

     Oops! I didn’t know.  I don’t know how to delete my posts, so would you please do it for me. Thanks.

  • Theresa Riley

    Will do. Thanks David.

  • Dnadanyi

    Both would reap the benefits-right?

  • Dnadanyi

    When did that happen? I live downwind I think.

  • Larry Polsky

    Agree that we must engage everyone to make a difference but I can’t help but recall a famous economist in London declare that corporations are too concerned with profit and that they should be owned and operated by the employees.  My concern is simply wouldn’t the employees also be motivated by securing the highest profit obtainable….

  • Calvin Leman

    If you are in Idaho and think we need a new
    president and party, please get in touch with me at  I am trying to help the Justice party and
    help Rocky Anderson,

  • Calvin Leman

    Here is a solution to the problems you are discussing.

    The board of directors shall be half workers in the enterprise, similar to theGerman law, called codetermination. 

  • Anonymous

    Bill, This is a great interview that I’m just catching up on.  I suggest the following two as sources to follow up with:

    Gene Sharp who has been doing yeoman’s work in the area of non-violent action for a very long time now.  More people ought to know of his work and writing.

    Stuart Kaufman, a biologist associated with complexity theory at the Santa Fe Institute, who knows a lot about self-organizing systems of many kinds.  In a very real way, his work demonstrates the legitimacy and power of the notion of a “leaderless” revolution.

    Don’t retire.  We need your voice more than ever.