Bolivia’s President Evo Morales Resigns


>>A military coup has occurred in Bolivia
forcing its President, Evo Morales, to step down. Now, he is urging individuals to resist this
military coup, but there had been violence that he felt the need to stop. And he felt the only way to stop it was to
step down. Now, there is reason to believe that this
military coup has the United States written all over it and I’ll tell you why in just
a moment. But first, let me just note that Morales was
Bolivia’s first indigenous President. He was re-elected last month for his fourth
term and you had an organization get involved and argue that there was fraud in this election. Even though there was absolutely no evidence
whatsoever to indicate that there was any type of rigging or any type of fraud. The Organization of American States, also
known as OAS, made this claim. And it’s important to note that this is mostly
funded by the United States. Now, before I get into more details about
what occurred in Bolivia, I do wanna go to this next video. Mark Weisbrod is from the Center for Economic
and Policy Research. And he gives you some sense of what the OAS
is and what type of US interest played a role in this military coup. Take a look.>>Well this is a military coup. There is no doubt about it now, after the
head of the military told the president and vice president to resign and then they did. And I think it’s really terrible the way it’s
been presented, because from the beginning, you had that OAS press release the day after
the election, which hinted. Or implied actually, very strongly, that there
was something wrong with the vote count. And they never presented any evidence at all. They didn’t present it in that release. They didn’t present it in their next release. They didn’t present it in their preliminary
report. And there’s really nothing in this latest
so-called preliminary audit, that shows that there was any fraud in this election. But it was repeated over and over again in
all the media. And so it became of true and if you look at
the media you don’t see anybody. You don’t see any experts for example, saying
that there was something wrong with the vote count. It’s really just that OAS observation mission,
which was under a lot of pressure, of course, from Senator Rubio. And the Trump administration to do this because
they wanted for some time to get rid of this government.>>So Evo Morales was well-liked by Nicolas
Maduro, by Lula da Silva from Brazil. He was part of the Pink Tide Movement in Latin
American countries where leftists really took over with an economic populist message.>>And Morales was able to lift nearly 20%
of Bolivians out of poverty.>>They hate that.>>And they hate that. That is the reason why you have people like
Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, targeting Latin American leaders like Evo Morales. Now, I wanna know, Morales wasn’t perfect,
okay? So, I don’t want this to be a one-sided story. This was a military coup. I disagree with it. again, it has the United States written all
over it and it’s wrong.>>But one of the things that some liberals
in America keep latching on to is what happened with term limits in Bolivia. Now, back in 2009, there were term limits. You could only get reelected one more time. You can serve two terms. But Evo Morales is actually worked with the
Constitutional Court to do away with that term limit. And so he got reelected for the fourth time. And that’s when you have the OAS get involved,
and essentially, do this military coup to push him out. Now, I’m gonna give you more details in just
a minute. But Jake, do you want to jump in?>>Yeah, so two things about that. Look, I’m not a big fan of that either, but
now let’s give you context. First of all, so their Constitutional Court
is our Supreme Court. So, there was a guy named Powell who wound
up becoming justice Powell, who wrote a memo for the Chamber of Commerce when he was a
lawyer for them say. We should take over the Supreme Court and
other institutions in America. So Nixon eventually saw that memo, said, well
I like this guy letting big corporations take over the Supreme Court. And literally put Powell on the Supreme Court. And so he packed the court with his favorites. And eventually the court said yes, corporations
can give unlimited money to politicians, which allowed corporations to buy all of our government. So you’re telling me, Latin America is corrupt? Well, our republicans stacked the court so
that corporations can buy our entire government wholesale, but it’s not just that. How about term limits? Well, New York has a term limit on mayors. But when Bloomberg didn’t like it, he was
like, yeah? I’m gonna run for a third term. What are you gonna do about it? But nobody ever called him a dictator. And in fact, the mainstream media kiss his
ass day in and day out, including today, right? Like, Bloomberg. Maybe you should be president. Maybe you should be president. He’s got a real chance here, right? But when Evo Morales does the same exact thing,
dictatorial, tyrannical, right? So then be honest and be objective. Are they both tyrannical and will you call
Mike Bloomberg tyrannical from here on out? If not, what are your standards, okay? The New York Times story on this was an embarrassment.>>It was 100%, 100%, but luckily, there are
independent media sources that have done good reporting on this. And Democracy now happens to be one of them. And so I wanna go to one more clip from Democracy
Now. Again, this is Mark Weisbrod. He’s from the Center for Economic and Policy
Research and he gives more detail into the OAS and how its funded.>>In terms of the Trump administration, you
can look at the tweets. And statements from Marco Rubio right before
the votes were even counted saying that there was gonna be fraud. And making clear that they didn’t want this
government to be there. And so yeah, I think that it’s very obvious
that they support this coup. And it’s very obvious that they pressured
the OAS, where the United States supplies 60% of the budget. And this is the problem. The media treats this OAS as though it’s really
an independent arbiter here and they do have electoral missions. And most of the time they’re clean but they
are not always. And in Haiti, in 2011, for example, they reversed
the results of a first round presidential election without any statistical test, recount
or any reason. It was completely political.>>So he’s right. This is mostly funded by the United States. You have Donald Trump which he attempted a
coup in Venezuela earlier which we’ve talked about on this show. And now it appears that there was a successful
military coup in another country where you have a leftist leader that they do not like. And keep in mind, Evo Morales, the profits
from oil in Bolivia, he made sure that it went back to his people, or the commodities. Any profits from the commodities went back
to the people. And that is exactly what people like Marco
Rubio and Donald Trump absolutely despise. Now, there have been some good politicians
in America who have spoken out against this. And one of those politicians is Bernie Sanders. He said via Twitter. I’m concerned about what appears to be a coup
in Bolivia where the military, after weeks of political unrest, intervened to remove
President Evo Morales. The US must call for an end to violence and
support Bolivia’s democratic institutions. Morales was democratically elected. Unless there is actual evidence to indicate
otherwise, this is unacceptable. This was a military coup. And look, it is, I guess consistent with how
republicans feel about election meddling, because they allowed Russia to meddle in our
elections. Why not go off and meddle in other countries’
elections as well?>>So, Weiss made another great point. He said, look, when there was this slight
irregularity where the vote counting was paused for a while in the middle of the election. And so Morales needs ten points to avoid a
runoff. But when they stopped the vote counting, he
already had a big lead. And the rest of the counties were more indigenous
areas where he does great. So the trend, after they started counting
the vote again, was the same as the one before they started county. And the OAS has no evidence. It has shown no evidence of actual voting
irregularities. I’d like to note that here in America in the
year 2000, we stopped vote counting. And it turns out Al Gore would’ve won the
state of Florida. He should have been president. But our corrupt Supreme Court said no, I don’t
care what the votes are. I’m gonna stop the vote counting. You wanna talk about a voting irregularity? And I’m going to just declare Bush the president. So that is way more corrupt. Okay, now do I like that they stopped the
vote in the middle? No. Does that give me pause? Yes. This reminds me of who said in one particular
vote, a cat walked into an electric socket or something. And knocked out the electricity in nine different
cities. Okay, so I treat that with great skepticism. But here, in the case of Venezuela, there
actually were voting irregularities, okay? And I’m very concerned about the elections
in Venezuela. But here, you have no evidence of voting irregularities.>>No evidence, and Morales offered to do
the election again. Right, he offered that but it’s not about
the election. It’s not about supposed irregularities. It’s about pushing him out and that’s exactly
what they got.>>And guys, in Venezuela they said voting
irregularities. Here they see the same thing, even though
they have no evidence of that. Then they said in Venezuela, well look, he
destroyed the economy and everybody’s suffering. But Evo Morales lifted the economy up. And he lifted a ton of people, a huge percentage
of the country out in power poverty. So they don’t have that excuse, but it doesn’t
matter. They go to the same playbook anyway, cuz he’s
like, it reminds me of The Big Lebowski. We want the oil any way, Lebowski, right? And so in this case, it’s natural gas more
than anything else. But, the reason I say the New York Times did
an embarrassing piece here is cuz Weisbrod gives you, for example, context. And is fair about it. He say OAS most of the time is honest, but
it has these issues. Did you notice what he said about Rubio? That he tweeted about voting irregularities
before they happen. Before the so-called irregularities happen. Okay, that is that the bare minimum, something
you should look into verify. And if that is really true, makes you go hm,
I wonder what Rubio knew about the so-called irregularities that were gonna happen. I am not saying definitively that Rubio’s
part of some planet or something. But if you’re a real reporter, you’d look
at that. If you’re a real reporter you would note that
the military demanded that he step down. And Morales is calling it a coup, and so is
his vice president. And so are all the so many different people
who resigned from his government. You would give that context. Now, they do know that Morales called it a
coup and so did his vice president. But they don’t explain when the military says
you must step down that is by definition a coup. Instead, almost all the mainstream media is
reporting well, hey look irregularities and Morales is a bad guy. And if you’re thinking wow I can’t believe
New York Times is doing that. When we did all the other coups in the 1960s
70s and all in that era, one of the first things the CIA, they would do two things. You go read any history on this, okay? Number one, they would do fake agitation in
the streets. They would rile up people. And then they would start paying off cops
and military and say, my god, it’s untenable. Somebody has to do something about this. And the second thing they would do is they
would go to our press, New York Times included. Time Magazine was notorious for this back
in the day. And they would say now write that he is a
bad guy. He is a Communist and if we don’t do something
about it he’s gonna endanger America. Full well-known, it isn’t true and a lot
of the mainstream media played along with that. So now I think they’re better today, but
this was not a shining example of it.>>And one final thing that I do have to mention,
again, Morales was the country’s first indigenous president. Prior to him, the country was ruled by a small
group of elite who were descendants of European countries. Now, there is a component of this that is
clearly racist. And Glenn Greenwald tweeted a video which,
why don’t we bring that video up now and I’m gonna read Glenn’s tweet as we watch it. Bolivian police cutting the indigenous flag,
which had been Bolivia’s second official flag, off their uniforms. This coup is literally the opposite of restoring
democracy, which is how it’s being depicted in Western press. It’s violent, racist, imperial, christian
fanaticism. It’s disgusting.>>Yeah, now why do you cut the indigenous
flag off if this isn’t about race and this is about so-called voting irregularities? Or does that look a little organized to you
from forces who never wanted the Bolivian people lifted up? Who just wanted more profit from the natural
resources of Bolivia. This is a story as old as time, as old as
America and the Americas. And how we have, unfortunately, oppressed
so much of these two continents North America and South America. And if you wanna cry about that cuz you’re
a Republican, my god, you’re telling people the truth. And that doesn’t play well for America. How can you guys do that? Well, that’s a sad day for you. We do the news here. So if you want a pretty little story about
how America is always the golden hero, rising on a white horse that saves the day, go to
Fox News. Go to get your propaganda somewhere else,
or sometimes go to the New York Times. But we don’t do that here, we give you the
full context. And by the way, doesn’t mean that every leftist
government is wonderful. We told you several instances of things that
concern us, cuz if you’re a real progressive, you want democracy no matter who’s in charge. But this coup had nothing to do with a democracy. It was the exact opposite.

Thank You for 750,000 SUBSCRIBERS!


I really need to say a major and huge thank
you to our YouTube subscribers who now number more than 750,000 this happened yesterday,
so we’re just past that number 750,000 now. And I’m just flattered and so inspired. When we first started this channel, I think
in the first month we had four subscribers, maybe it was 10. I struggle to remember we now are gaining
several hundred subscribers every single day. And it’s extremely exciting as we now get
into an election year, which is often when growth accelerates and we are really positioned
to get to the next level. I mean in the YouTube left, thanks to your
support. And I’m talking about the trolls as well. I’m thanking the trolls as well and I’ll detail
that in a second. You’ve got the young Turks with four and a
half million subscribers and then you have the David Pakman show, Kyle Kalinsky and Sam
Cedar all in the 700 to 800,000 subscriber range, so this is a great place to be. It’s great company to share and now let me
get to the trolls and the haters. I have to thank them as well. The trolls and the haters who make it a point
to dislike my videos and leave a whole bunch of hate comments on them. You are actually a huge part of the success
as well. Individually, the trolls are really annoying. In total, the trolls represent a portion of
the engagement on the channel that has helped us grow, dislikes count as engagement. You see a video and you were motivated to
dislike it. That means you’re engaging with the content,
negative, angry comments. While many of the comments are vial in their
content, they are engagement and they say to the YouTube algorithm, wow, the content
here is getting people to take action. The frequency with which someone is liking
or disliking or leaving a comment, that is a huge piece of the YouTube algorithm learning
whose videos are likely to generate a reaction and discussion and keep people watching. So genuinely thank you not only to the supporters
but to the trolls as well. All those comments saying, David, you’re cha,
you’re showing your channel are dying. Your show is circling the drain by leaving
me those comments and by disliking my videos you’re helping to ensure that it’s not the
case and that the show keeps growing. So extraordinarily exciting year coming up
is my prediction. As of right now, we are sort of projected
based on current subscriber growth rates to be close to a million subscribers around election
2020. Now my hope is that as we really get into
the 2020 election primaries, Trump on hinged, all of that stuff, I hope that our growth
rate will accelerate slightly and push the 1 million subscriber milestone to before the
2020 election. It would be amazing. It is a stretch, but it would be amazing for
us to be a 1 million plus subscriber YouTube channel, uh, by the time that we’d get to
the 2020 election. And you know, in the end, the truth is really
what matters is views cause you don’t have to be subscribed to view the content. Some people often tell me, you know, David,
Dave Rubin’s YouTube channel is so much more successful than yours. He’s got a million subscribers. We have roughly doubled the views of Dave
Rubin’s channel. Uh, and that is really, um, uh, the, the,
the most important thing. But there’s no question that subscribers are
sort of a very front and center barometer for how a channel is doing. So we’re going to continue doing our thing. Seven 50 feels like a great number to be at
this point in time. I look forward to continuing on in 2020 with
more content, more long form pieces, more daily political news, interviews and everything
else that’s been working for us so far. Opportunities for you to help. Do you want to be a moderator of our YouTube
live streams? We do need help with that because they are
getting so big and out of control that our current moderators are overwhelmed. Get in touch via email, through the contact
form on my website. If you want to be a YouTube moderator, send
a link to your YouTube profile. Do you want to be a moderator on our subreddit? The subreddit is now one of the largest subreddits
based around a single show on the progressive left. Um, we need more moderators. We only have I think four and we have nearly
16,000 subscribers on the subreddit. That is a volunteer opportunity. Uh, as always, if you want to contribute graphics,
memes, funny things we can use on social media or whatever the case may be, it is an open
door. And so much great stuff has come from the
audience. So I’ll met many, many opportunities. And if nothing else, click the subscribe button
right now. If you’re watching this and you are not one
of our 750,000 subscribers, add your name to the list. Click that subscribe button.

Midweek Politics with David Pakman – Obama Scolds GOP, Fox News Cuts Away


well barack obama was cots scolding the
g_o_p_ the other day and and no surprise that fox news decided to cut away from
it when i got a little ugly brock obama the data there throughout
the state of the union address he went down to i believe it was in maryland maryland or
virginia and he met with a bunch of g_o_p_
republican politicians and actually performed really well here
normally he shies away from any direct scolding state of the union he goes
right after the supreme court and here are going after republican congressman
from texas jed hence erlang take a listen to this and my question there’s a question in the has agreed
with unless it was knocked off at some point
i know you’re gonna love this problem as the question you were soon to submit a
new budget mister president will then budget like your own budget
triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path increasing the cost of government almost
twenty five percent of our economy selections from the dimaag with all due
respect i’ve just got to take this last question
is an example of how it’s very hard to have not the kind of bipartisan work that
we’re going to do because the the whole question was structured as
a talking point four brought o_j_ event it’s become it’s great that he said it this is what going on for years the questions themselves that are being
asked by many republicans are in themselves
talking points the premises of which anybody anybody with with any it’s
semblance of logic and reason with disagree with foxnews we’ll skip over this mobile skip over to
the obama chat fox news clip fox news as soon as i say getting
contentious every other network aired this in its entirety much like the haiti telethon which for some reason
foxnews didn’t air soon as it starts getting contentious i can just imagine the to the back talk going on but the
producers of fox news trace gallagher comes in and says you
know what i think i think we’re done with the stables in us vice president for clarification within
the better solutions book are all the legislative proposal in the
senate rather record the robot might he’s meeting with house republicans in
baltimore at a certain element no mistakes there but when that got cut off
and and many republicans lose behind closed doors think it was a mistake to
televise the sting the thought it would be a great idea here’s our brock obama showed up indeed
the opposite of what he’s been doing when he does these long boring press
conferences and actually pgp when out there he said what was on
his mind and i think actually help themself for once which we haven’t seen
that often you looked a you work a little bit
what’s the word became office kind of fierce little aggressive yup i don’t like it i
think that’s good at this point somewhat stronger yesterday something ananthi that’s alright very strangely asif brock obama actually
i know that this will sound very weird to too much of our audience if he needs to be more conservative not less conservative he’s going to be
more successful by being more conservative but does it feel like you have to move to the middle to achieve akin i don’t think this is a question of left
right or center this is a question of what what which what works but how do we know we proposed for example tax cuts for small business
we we we passed without frankly they’ll pull
of the republican caucus we passed twenty five tax cuts last year mostly aimed at the
middle class in small businesses but it’s over david axa right is the truth
tightened points there’s no this he’s a master under what circumstances would brack
obama do better being more conservative he’s proposing tax cuts his health care bill if it passes won’t contain anything liberal that i
can see i mean we started with a public option and we’ve negotiated back down to
almost nothing will cater he could be joe lieberman who is considering switching a running
as a as a republican of switching parties i can imagine how brock obama could be
more conservative and still be anywhere close to the person he
campaigned as i don’t know where we’ll see we’ll see
what happens with you know these tax breaks and uh… has a
parading afterwards but we’ll take a break we’ll be back with more after this
the steven anderson controversy continues and so does tend to be bo who
is just standing up for his mom’s possibly made-up story and mid-week
politics with dave beckman on mid-week politics dot com

The Brexit disruptors: beyond left and right | FT


You disrupted the
leadership campaign. You’re disrupting
the mayoral campaign. You should be the
next prime minister. You’re very sweet. They’ve left the centre. The parties have been captured. They’re not coming back. How can two parties
possibly do justice to what modern Britain is? That sort of sense of
people wanting a disruption is palpable, I think. I’ve seen outsiders
go up in flames because they haven’t
had a clue how the political system and
politics actually work. As an entrepreneur,
when I started out I got nothing but nice
things happen to me. Politics is
completely different. I can’t say anything
nice about it. It is literally a viper’s nest. Political disruptors
are tempting voters away from the UK’s
two big main parties. Competition is fierce with
would-be radical options on the nationalist right and
even on the centre ground. Britain’s politics
is being shaken up. And the result of
December’s general election has never been so uncertain. The 2016 Brexit vote exploded
the usual left-right alignment. There are now at least four
parties battling it out. One of the insurgents,
the Brexit party, is led by Nigel Farage, whose
lifelong dream for the UK to quit the EU may be
about to come true. There will be no Brexit
without the Brexit party. Of that, I’m certain. Brexit’s thrown it all up
in the air because that went beyond left and right. And the political
parties haven’t known how to react to a
major political decision that didn’t fall under party lines. The other challengers
want to stop Brexit. But they also hope to
capitalise on the upheaval. Some form of tumult was probably
inevitable in British politics because whenever you go
through big societal change, you see tumult. Professor Jane Green, of
the British Election Study, maps and measures the UK’s
changing voting patterns. We went to Oxford asked how
Britain went from this to this? From the 1960s through to
today we see more people switching their vote between
general elections over time. So a much more fluid
volatile picture. So does this volatility
mean that it’s kind of fertile territory? That there are
opportunities there for the political disruptors? You’ve got a very
available electorate. You’ve got opportunities
for the political parties. What you’ve also got is
loads of uncertainty. You can see there’s a
disruption going on, and we don’t know where
it’s going to land. Claire Fox, a Libertarian from
the left was elected as an MEP for the Brexit party earlier
this year as voters deserted both Labour and the Tories. Of course, change is always
unpredictable, isn’t it? Makes it scary. So is democracy. But to argue against
disruption on the basis of ‘things worked’ completely
misunderstands that for many people, they didn’t. So we’ve talked a bit about
things being more up for grabs. Yeah. I’m going to try and
ask you to explain where the voters might be. So you think about one dimension
of politics from left to right. And within that
kind of left-right, bread and butter economic kind
of way of seeing the world, lots of people have
left of centre views. Lots people have
right of centre views, but the majority of people
would be in the middle. And therefore, it makes politics
very much about that kind of centre ground, about
competing for the majority of voters. Britain has always been about
understatement, compromise, pragmatism. And I think that’s
where the energy is. I think it resonates deeply. Rory Stewart is
leaving parliament. He’s left the
Conservative party. He wants to reinvent
moderate politics by standing as an independent
candidate for London mayor. I think actually
the UK’s traditions are much more consensual,
much more designed for centre-ground politics than
almost anywhere in the world. That dimension is still very
important to voter choice now. But of course, we’ve all started
seeing the world predominately through the lens of Brexit. And Brexit isn’t about bread
and butter left-right issues on the whole, it’s about
this different dimension that cross cuts the
left-right dimension. It’s divided the party, and
it’s divided the voters. A lot of people who thought
of themselves at centre ground in the old politics, in the new
politics are far from centre ground. Chuka Umunna walked out of
Labour earlier this year, attempted to start a new
anti-Brexit centre party, Change UK, but is now trying
to redefine opposition politics from within the pro-European
Liberal Democrats. Those guys are no
longer centre ground. They are firmly on the liberal,
internationalist, open, anti-authoritarian side
of the new dichotomy. So when people say to me I want
a return to good centre ground policies, I’m kind of like, but
you’re no longer centre ground. You are actually
firmly in one camp. Political scientists
like you are used to thinking about
voters in this rather more complicated way. In the past, we think
about it in terms of people that had more socially
conservative views and more socially liberal views. But also we’re now
thinking much more about people that have
anti-immigration views and also pro-immigration views
and also anti-European or Brexit-supporting, Leave-voting
views or more pro-European, Remain-supporting views. And so we have the
impression that politics has become much more polarised. Both the Brexit party
and the radical Remainers are betting that politics
is now about values. There’s different fault
lines, aren’t there? So what’s happened is rather
than saying the big decision in British politics today
is whether we nationalise the railways it’s
actually our attitude to popular sovereignty. So you asked me the
question, where is the space? Yeah, where’s the opportunity? So on the one hand, we talked
about kind of important. So if this issue
becomes less important, then we might worry
about left-right again. But what if this
issue, dimension, doesn’t become less important? But at the current
time, it feels and looks in terms
of the evidence that people are pretty divided. If you look at some
of the people who’ve been running our country,
some of the decisions we’ve made in the last
decade or so, you go, how is such a brilliant
country in this mess? Simon Franks, once a
committed Labour party backer, is dismayed by
this polarisation. He’s been spending time
and money trying to use his start-up skills to shake
up centre ground politics. The mission was to
scope out initially, is it possible to create a
new political party that could win in one electoral cycle? Can you, in politics, do
something that kind of maps entrepreneurialism
onto party politics? Yes, you can but,
not in the centre. If you’re on the wings
of British politics, or in fact, any politics,
and you have a cause, you can mobilise people
incredibly quickly to bring about a
change because people are so desperate for
that change or believe so strongly in that cause. In the centre it’s much harder
to do because, by definition, you should be more
balanced, more reasonable. You understand that
no one issue is going to make our country
completely better or completely worse. Josef Lentsch believes in
the power of the middle. This Austrian academic helped
start a successful new party and has written a book
on how to make it work. It’s bloody hard. It’s bloody hard
for politicians. These days, the political
itch to be scratched is that many people feel
not represented anymore. And too many of them
then decide to vote for populists and nationalists. But I think many of
them would actually like to have a choice
to vote for something different and constructive. The primary reason why Change
UK didn’t succeed in the way that we would have liked
it to is, as you said, I’m not sure people were looking
for disruption in as much as they were looking
for their politics to be properly represented. But they weren’t necessarily
precious about the vehicle through which you do that. And to try and
create something new in a non-presidential system
is nigh on impossible. In a sense you, can’t just
compete on one dimension. People want to know
where you stand. So if you’re competing
on this dimension, but you’re divided
on this dimension because you’ve got
parties from the left, parties from the right,
then essentially, OK fine. So you’ve got this
bit sorted out. But are you over
here on the left? Or are you here on
the right in terms of where your voters
are likely to be? I think the most important
thing is if you want to build a centrist alternative, that
you’re actually early on are starting to talk to the voters
and start to interlink what I call, ‘islands of discontent.’ Most political
start-ups will fail. I think that’s not a problem. I think actually many, many
need to try for some of them to succeed. Once you’ve broken the
habits of a lifetime – at the European election,
obviously everything got thrown in the air – then
you’re not quite that, we always vote
Labour in our family. We always vote
Tory in our family. Anything can happen. It’s like when MPs rebel
against a whip, right? Once they get the taste for
it, it becomes possible again. Even those people who are
saying: let’s get Brexit done, their argument is,
let’s get Brexit done so we can go back to normal. And I think they underestimate
the appetite for a much more fundamental shift. Nothing’s ever going
to go back, ever. The problem is that the
government of the centre has always seemed terribly sort
of bureaucratic and inert. It doesn’t really
seem to listen. It doesn’t seem to
engage, which gives people the idea that maybe
there’s a silver bullet, maybe there’s some
fantastic thing. And it’s some character. An ideology. Yeah, an ideology. Or a person. Or a person. Like a hand grenade you
can chuck at the system, and the whole thing’s
going to blow up. And suddenly, it’s all
going to be much better. So there’s no messiah coming. No, there can’t be a messiah. I mean, I think I’m also… Not you. No, definitely not me. We’ve had conspicuous
examples of success on both the left and the right. I’m thinking of Nigel
Farage on one side, probably Labour’s
Momentum on the other. But there’s this whole space
in the centre with lots of plotting, lots of activity. But it’s really hard to
make something happen. It’s a much easier message. So Nigel Farage, who I think
is a brilliant communicator and I don’t have this
disregard for him as so many people seem to have. I think he speaks
for a large community of our country about issues
that no one else will talk to. I think the same on the left. Jeremy Corbyn gets on
the stage and says, capitalists are bad people. The reason why your life
isn’t as good as you’d like it is because of that
bunch over there. And some people, they go,
the messiah’s arrived. No one’s got a
monopoly on grievance. In the wake of the crash,
in the wake of austerity, in the wake of
globalisation, taking away the securities that
people took for granted, the question is, what
you do about that? We’ve completely failed to
produce a product that’s really exciting. I mean, none of these
third-party centre party leaders have actually worked out
how to produce something that really makes the public think,
woo, well, OK, all right, actually, I’m not going to vote
the way that my parents voted. This election is not the end. And I think the most
important thing to note is this election’s been called
in very peculiar circumstances. But I personally think that
the genie’s out the bottle. And that what we are likely
to see in the next five years is a very disruptive
political scene. In the first winter
election for decades, established parties are being
buffeted from all sides. There are wide open spaces
in the political landscape and enormous potential
for storms to come. Jane, if you had
to put money on it, would you bet on political
insurgents, either a smaller party or a new party
trying to replace or split one of the two main parties? If the two mainstream parties
adapt their positions, working out kind
of where can they attract the majority of voters,
then it’s very difficult, it’s still very difficult for
minor parties to break through. In normal times, I
would say that it’s impossible to actually get a
new party in the UK parliament. But we are not in normal times. We’re past normal times. And I think, therefore,
don’t give up hope. That there might be
something on the way. We can probably do better
if we think about it, redesign our political system,
reinvigorate our parties, maybe create some
new ones, maybe look at our voting system, look
the way we select MPs, look at the way treat MPs Anyone who believes that
everything goes back to normal is kidding themselves.

How the US government spies on people who protest — including you | Jennifer Granick


We are all activists now. (Applause) Thank you. I’ll just stop here. (Laughter) From the families who are fighting
to maintain funding for public schools, the tens of thousands of people
who joined Occupy Wall Street or marched with Black Lives Matter to protest police brutality
against African Americans, families that join rallies, pro-life and pro-choice, those of us who are afraid that our friends and neighbors
are going to be deported or that they’ll be added to lists because they are Muslim, people who advocate for gun rights
and for gun control and the millions of people
who joined the women’s marches all across the country this last January. (Applause) We are all activists now, and that means that we all have something
to worry about from surveillance. Surveillance means
government collection and use of private and sensitive data about us. And surveillance is essential to law enforcement
and to national security. But the history of surveillance is one that includes surveillance abuses where this sensitive information
has been used against people because of their race, their national origin, their sexual orientation, and in particular,
because of their activism, their political beliefs. About 53 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
gave his “I have a dream” speech on the Mall in Washington. And today the ideas behind this speech
of racial equality and tolerance are so noncontroversial that my daughters
study the speech in third grade. But at the time, Dr. King was extremely controversial. The legendary and notorious
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover believed, or wanted to believe, that the Civil Rights Movement
was a Soviet communist plot intended to destabilize
the American government. And so Hoover had his agents
put bugs in Dr. King’s hotel rooms, and those bugs picked up conversations
between civil rights leaders talking about the strategies and tactics
of the Civil Rights Movement. They also picked up sounds of Dr. King having sex with women
who were not his wife, and J. Edgar Hoover
saw the opportunity here to discredit and undermine
the Civil Rights Movement. The FBI sent a package of these recordings along with a handwritten note to Dr. King, and a draft of this note
was found in FBI archives years later, and the letter said, “You are no clergyman and you know it. King, like all frauds,
your end is approaching.” The letter even seemed
to encourage Dr. King to commit suicide, saying, “King, there is
only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You better take it before
your filthy, abnormal, fraudulent self is bared to the nation.” But the important thing is, Dr. King was not abnormal. Every one of us has something
that we want to hide from somebody. And even more important, J. Edgar Hoover wasn’t abnormal either. The history of surveillance abuses is not the history
of one bad, megalomaniacal man. Throughout his decades at the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover enjoyed the support
of the presidents that he served, Democratic and Republican alike. After all, it was John F. Kennedy
and his brother Robert Kennedy who knew about and approved
the surveillance of Dr. King. Hoover ran a program
called COINTELPRO for 15 years which was designed
to spy on and undermine civic groups that were devoted
to things like civil rights, the Women’s Rights Movement, and peace groups and anti-war movements. And the surveillance didn’t stop there. Lyndon Baines Johnson, during the election campaign, had the campaign airplane
of his rival Barry Goldwater bugged as part of his effort
to win that election. And then, of course, there was Watergate. Burglars were caught breaking into the Democratic
National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, the Nixon administration was involved
in covering up the burglary, and eventually Nixon
had to step down as president. COINTELPRO and Watergate
were a wake-up call for Americans. Surveillance was out of control and it was being used
to squelch political challengers. And so Americans rose to the occasion and what we did was
we reformed surveillance law. And the primary tool we used
to reform surveillance law was to require a search warrant for the government to be able to get
access to our phone calls and our letters. Now, the reason why
a search warrant is important is because it interposes a judge in the relationship
between investigators and the citizens, and that judge’s job is to make sure that there’s good cause
for the surveillance, that the surveillance
is targeted at the right people, and that the information that’s collected is going to be used
for legitimate government purposes and not for discriminatory ones. This was our system, and what this means is that President Obama
did not wiretap Trump Tower. The system is set up to prevent
something like that from happening without a judge being involved. But what happens when we’re not talking
about phone calls or letters anymore? Today, we have technology that makes it cheap and easy
for the government to collect information on ordinary everyday people. Your phone call records can reveal whether you have an addiction, what your religion is, what charities you donate to, what political candidate you support. And yet, our government
collected, dragnet-style, Americans’ calling records for years. In 2012, the Republican
National Convention highlighted a new technology
it was planning to use, facial recognition, to identify people
who were going to be in the crowd who might be activists or troublemakers and to stop them ahead of time. Today, over 50 percent of American adults have their faceprint
in a government database. The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives concocted a plan to find out what Americans
were going to gun shows by using license plate detectors to scan the license plates of cars that were in the parking lots
of these events. Today, we believe that over 70 percent
of police departments have automatic license plate
detection technology that they’re using to track people’s cars
as they drive through town. And all of this information, the license plates, the faceprints, the phone records, your address books, your buddy lists, the photos that you upload
to Dropbox or Google Photos, and sometimes even
your chats and your emails are not protected
by a warrant requirement. So what that means is we have
all of this information on regular people that’s newly available
at very low expense. It is the golden age for surveillance. Now, every parent is going
to understand what this means. When you have a little baby and the baby’s young, that child is not able
to climb out of its crib. But eventually your little girl gets older and she’s able to climb out of the crib, but you tell her,
“Don’t climb out of the crib. OK?” And every parent knows
what’s going to happen. Some of those babies
are going to climb out of the crib. Right? That’s the difference
between ability and permission. Well, the same thing is true
with the government today. It used to be that our government
didn’t have the ability to do widespread, massive surveillance
on hundreds of millions of Americans and then abuse that information. But now our government has grown up, and we have that technology today. The government has the ability, and that means the law
is more important than ever before. The law is supposed to say when the government
has permission to do it, and it’s supposed to ensure
that there’s some kind of ramification. We notice when those laws are broken and there’s some of kind of
ramification or punishment. The law is more important than ever
because we are now living in a world where only rules
are stopping the government from abusing this information. But the law has fallen down on the job. Particularly since September 11
the law has fallen down on the job, and we do not have
the rules in place that we need. And we are seeing
the ramifications of that. So fusion centers
are these joint task forces between local, state
and federal government that are meant to ferret out
domestic terrorism. And what we’ve seen
is fusion center reports that say that you might be dangerous if you voted for a third-party candidate, or you own a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag, or you watched movies that are anti-tax. These same fusion centers have spied
on Muslim community groups’ reading lists and on Quakers who are resisting
military recruiting in high schools. The Internal Revenue Service
has disproportionately audited groups that have “Tea Party”
or “Patriot” in their name. And now customs and border patrol is stopping people
as they come into the country and demanding our social
networking passwords which will allow them
to see who our friends are, what we say and even to impersonate us online. Now, civil libertarians like myself have been trying to draw
people’s attention to these things and fighting against them for years. This was a huge problem
during the Obama administration, but now the problem is worse. When the New York Police Department spies on Muslims or a police department
uses license plate detectors to find out where
the officers’ spouses are or those sorts of things, that is extremely dangerous. But when a president repurposes the power of federal surveillance
and the federal government to retaliate against political opposition, that is a tyranny. And so we are all activists now, and we all have something
to fear from surveillance. But just like in the time
of Dr. Martin Luther King, we can reform the way things are. First of all, use encryption. Encryption protects your information from being inexpensively
and opportunistically collected. It rolls back the golden age
for surveillance. Second, support surveillance reform. Did you know that if you have a friend who works for the French
or German governments or for an international human rights group or for a global oil company that your friend is a valid
foreign intelligence target? And what that means is that when
you have conversations with that friend, the US government
may be collecting that information. And when that information is collected, even though it’s
conversations with Americans, it can then be funneled to the FBI where the FBI is allowed
to search through it without getting a warrant, without probable cause, looking for information about Americans and whatever crimes we may have committed with no need to document
any kind of suspicion. The law that allows some of this to happen is called Section 702
of the FISA Amendments Act, and we have a great opportunity this year, because Section 702
is going to expire at the end of 2017, which means that
Congress’s inertia is on our side if we want reform. And we can pressure our representatives to actually implement
important reforms to this law and protect our data
from this redirection and misuse. And finally, one of the reasons
why things have gotten so out of control is because so much
of what happens with surveillance — the technology, the enabling rules
and the policies that are either there
or not there to protect us — are secret or classified. We need transparency,
and we need to know as Americans what the government is doing in our name so that the surveillance that takes place
and the use of that information is democratically accounted for. We are all activists now, which means that we all have something
to worry about from surveillance. But like in the time
of Dr. Martin Luther King, there is stuff that we can do about it. So please join me, and let’s get to work. Thank you. (Applause)