Your video, Naomi Klein -- How to Jam the Trump Brand, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Podcast of Russell Brand and Naomi Klein discussing the need for a revolution:
https://soundcloud.com/thehuffingtonpostuk/russell-brand-speaks-to-naomi-klein

Naomi Klein's excellent new book:
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate

Two days of great weather motivated me to pick up Naomi Klein's new book, Capitalism vs The Climate.

A mere ~160 pages in, I'm inclined to say that it's even more thought-provoking than The Shock Doctrine.

The early chapters include some digressions into the psychology behind climate change denial, at least with regards to its extreme forms within the US. I'll refrain from posting my own interpretation of her conclusion.

In any case, her reasoning is highly convincing to me, which made it all the more disturbing when I tried, and subsequently failed, to come up with a set of arguments to challenge this particular psychological/cultural root of absolute denial. It never occured to me to consider the enormous ramifications a step away from denial would have, given a certain cultural background...

Well, that was awfully abstract, so let me present my tl;dr:
If you haven't done so already, get the book -- it's right up your alley.

But that's just not true.

Firstly I'm not defending either US sponsored coup to install Pinochet or his repression. Purely the economic policies.

The fact is, Chile has the highest GDP per capita, the highest literacy rate and the highest Human Development Index of all major South American countries. It's also the least corrupt.

http://tinyurl.com/lf22scc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

Admittedly most of the growth came about in the past 2 decades after Pinochet, but an honest reading of history shows that most of the groundwork was laid while he was in power.I don't take any comfort in attributing economic success to a mass murderer but those are the facts.

Frankly, while I agree with Naomi Klein on a number of things, she is absolutely clueless when it comes to economic policy. You can argue on certain specific policy choices (say restricting labour unions) or on the speed of reforms (which was also a major problem in Russia), but taken as a whole, you can't argue with the results.

No doubt, Milton Friedman was a genius. With his brilliant command of Neo-Liberal policies his "Chicago Boys" basically destroyed Chile. There's a reason why places that are under American control are set way further back than countries in the same region with about the same resources. Milton Friedman has many great ideas that have been used to destroy countries, knowingly to enrich those who invested in the country and not the people of that country who should actually benefit from it's resources.

Anyone want to read something enlightening about Friedman's ideas and policies and the mark they've left on the world can check out "The Shock Doctrine". It's an excellent book by Naomi Klein.

Some of you probably know I'm a few shades pinker than Castro. Yet I'm disappointed by the left on this matter. I first got nervous when the gun control debate began following the Javon Belcher (KC chief player) incident. It seemed ridiculous to me because obviously no form of reasonable gun control could have stopped an incident like that. It was a linebacker murdering his slight girlfriend and then committing suicide. He didn't need a gun. Still the media began the debate as though they were clearly itching too. That was quickly overshadowed by the Sandy Hook tragedy which was a much more effective rallying cause. Obviously it's natural for the debate to be rekindled after that sort of an incident, but I was disappointed by how disingenuous and emotionally driven it seemed. I couldn't help but think about the availability heuristic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic ) and how obviously it was coming into play. I thought the left would be better than this. We're supposed to be known for our rejection of knee-jerk responses preferring instead data driven policy. I was reminded of the Republican line-toeing following 9/11. It honestly sickened me.

The fact is every stat I've seen supports this guy's claim (and I spent many hours doing my own research, not just quoting links I found on huffpo or whatever). There is effectively no data that supports the sort of legislation being put forth and virtually no reason to fear that your children are at risk. Basically every case made against assault rifles can be made with much more conviction about alcohol. They are things that a subset of people enjoy, yet occasionally cause harm to people that don't. Alcohol much more so (by a huge factor, something like hundreds depending on how you measure it) than assault rifles. This incident is being used in keeping with Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. Don't get duped just because they are playing to your fears instead of redneck fears.

Also, it isn't racist to suggest that a large portion of the US murder rate is urban gang and drug related. That's a fact. That someone would even suggest that it is racist further sickens me. You all seem more interested in political correctness than data. Put on your skeptics hat folks. Question what you believe for once.

There's a few studies done about Nikes advertising to inner city kids and the effect it had. I think Naomi Klein discussed it in her book No Logo. It's pretty messed up how Nike operates actually, selling expensive shoes to idiots.

Here's a tip, buy shoes that make you feel like you're barefoot, and if you're buying shoe's over $60, you're a sucker, they're no different at $60 than they are at $200.

....for anyone unfamiliar with Chile 1973.

In 1973 he collaborated with brutal Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to force 'free market' reforms on the country by way of a coup. The coup used murder and torture to terrify opponents into silence. Business owners sympathetic to the coup allowed their warehouses to be used as impromptu torture centers to torture union members that had previously been employees. The national futbol stadium was transferred into a massive torture/rape/prison/execution complex where tens of thousands of Chilean citizens died. Milton said his coordinated economic plan for the coup would require some 'shock therapy'.

For more on this, read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It details this incident and dozens of similar ones to impose 'free market' capitalism on the people by way of fear, torture, force, bribery and blackmail. http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831

related sifting:

http://videosift.com/video/Sept-11-The-start-of-a-dark-era-for-Chile
http://videosift.com/video/USA-commits-911-attrocities-on-Chile
http://videosift.com/video/The-War-On-Democracy-by-John-Pilger

Check the link in my comment.

For those who don't get the ire many of us have towards advertising and branding, I'd recommend Naomi Klein's book No Logo.

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).


Well said sir, in my view no department is inherently bad or good, the value of the department depends on who is running it, how it is used and how policies governing the department are made. If the Department of Education is causing harm to the education of students then this could be fixed by resolving the underlying issue which is one of corrupt policy making. Look at Bill Gates for example, he's playing his part to destroy and privatize the education system so he can have Windows on every school computer and influence the public education budget. He's allowed to do this because of policy changes and enormous amounts of lobbying money (which go hand in hand).

Here's an interesting read about some of the sweeping changes he's been able to introduce via lobbying:
http://techrights.org/2011/09/09/new-york-times-and-washpo-on-edu/

Plus of course all the other issues dystopianfuturetoday mentions - these won't go away just by removing a couple of departments - the core issues of corruption and lobbying have to be fixed first.

Is Ron Paul going to fix these? Hell no. Even if he was strongly in favor of these sorts of real changes, he wouldn't get support for them under the current system, the GOP would block everything, the Dems would keep talking about how bad the GOP is for blocking everything, and everything would continue to get fucked just as badly, or worse, than it currently is.

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.

We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealth to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)

Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street

shit like this will continue to happen, people will revolt.

naomi wolf, naomi klein and chris hedges are people who have covered revolutions all over the world. they all pretty much agree there is something here. when the police get sick of arresting middle aged women in evening gowns, a revolution will begin.

Your video, Naomi Klein on Occupy Wall Street, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^lantern53:

So these are anti=globalization protests?
I thought we were all in favor of one world gov't?
Guess not.
confusing


Yes it is confusing when all the propaganda about lefties turns out to be wrong. You hardly know what to think without Rush telling you what our motives are.