Scheer Intelligence features thoughtful and provocative conversations with "American Originals" -- people who, through a lifetime of engagement with political issues, offer unique and often surprising perspectives on the day's most important issues.
The assassination of Brian Thompson, the former CEO of UnitedHealthcare insurance company, has prompted a national reckoning of how corporate entities commit crimes on a daily basis and are not only not punished but rewarded for their profit-making prowess. Many point to Luigi Mangione, the alleged assassin, as an example of vigilante justice, murdering someone who is responsible for the deaths of thousands who are denied medical care.
Joining host Robert Scheer on this episode of Scheer Intelligence is Anthony Grasso, professor of political science at Rutgers University and author of the new book, “Dual Justice: America’s Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime.”
The book, published a day before the assassination, dives into how the justice system is really set up in two separate ways which Grasso describes as “poor people, people of color, we want to crack down on them.” But as Donald Trump puts it, when he doesn’t pay his taxes, he’s not a criminal, he’s smart.
The criminal justice system fails ordinary people by bypassing the criminal activity occurring in corporate boardrooms. “A lot of corporate actions that are legalized or regulated, things like denials of life saving medical care that companies make in pursuit of profit maximization,” Grasso says. “We don't understand these things as crimes. We say these are byproducts of business decision making.
It comes down to the U.S. being rooted in the principles of capitalism and how those with the wealth and power to be in positions that affect the lives of thousands can harm them as long as they follow the rules. “You can prioritize profit maximization over human life. You can deny people coverage because it increases shareholder value maximization,” Grasso tells Scheer. “Those things are okay, as long as you're doing it within the regulatory confines we give you."
Though one can debate the reasons, statistics and precedent of nuclear war, what is often left out of the conversation is the reality of it: destruction of the world as a whole. In her new immersive art experience titled, “Any War, Any Enemy,” immersive artist Lena Herzog throws this reality literally right in the faces of viewers. The film can uniquely be experienced via virtual reality as well as a traditional screen and it plainly shows what nuclear war looks like.
Herzog begins the film with a quote stating nuclear war is not war. She tells host Robert Scheer on this episode of Scheer Intelligence that she begins with this because “the word ‘war’ is disorienting, because in war, you can have a battle, you can lose a battle, you can win a war. You cannot win a nuclear exchange. It's omnicide. It's not war.”
Part of a trilogy which tries to invoke art in a novel form, the film follows "Last Whispers," another piece of immersive art that focuses on the destruction of language. For “Any War, Any Enemy,” Herzog wants people to “experience [nuclear war] inside the frame, to feel it in the fiber of your being.”
For Scheer, the film’s power comes from viscerally showing the reality most people have no idea will happen in the event of a nuclear war. “You are forced to be immersed into an environment where your voice means nothing, your brain means nothing, your eyes mean nothing, because this weapon has destroyed any means of sustaining life,” Scheer says. “So you are these figures floating around in the water dead.”
Foreign policy discussions centering around the U.S., Russia, China, Israel and others become moot points as Herzog points out, “This is a question of existence versus nonexistence.”
Scheer and Herzog agree that the time for nuclear disarmament is now. As opposed to the middle of the 20th century with the Cuban Missile Crisis, where leaders had hours and days to talk about any provocations and would actually speak to one another. Nowadays, leaders avoid each other and the response time to any kind of strike, Herzog says, “it's 90 seconds. It's four minutes.”
Gaza today symbolizes nothing but death, destruction and oppression. Israel’s genocide and scorched earth bombing campaign has not only wiped out its people but the rich history that stretches back thousands of years. Juan Cole, University of Michigan history professor and renowned Middle East historian, joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to clearly lay out the history behind Gaza through his newest book, “Gaza Yet Stands.”
Gaza, Cole says, was a cosmopolitan place, a place people went through for travel, trade and its rich civilization. “If you were in Beirut and you wanted to go to Cairo by land, you would go through Gaza. It was a crossroads,” Cole tells Scheer. A unique, multinational city with diverse religious significance, Gaza used to represent something grand in the heart of the Middle East. Today, after it was stolen by Israel and Western colonialism, even the history is in jeopardy.
“The Palestinians were 1.3 million, and the British envisaged in the White Paper of 1939 that they'd make a state of Palestine in which the Jews would be a substantial minority,” Cole explains. “It would be a Palestine, just as the British Mandate of Iraq eventuated in the country of Iraq, and the French mandate of Syria eventuated in the country of Syria, there would be a Palestine.”
This arrangement, Cole contends, was uncomfortable for all parties involved and made things worse in each affected region. Many of the Jews persecuted in the Holocaust were now destined to repatriate to this foreign land instead of to Poland and Germany, which displaced the Palestinians and welcomed havoc from settlers. In a world emerging from colonial rule following World War II, Cole explains that Israel’s creation was just a reversion back to that model. “That's what Israel is, it's a Western colonial instrument,” Cole says. “What's been done to the Palestinians is considered extremely unfair by almost everybody in the world, outside of Western Europe and the United States.”
Amidst the hype, excitement and nervousness of the election, the bigger picture of what the United States is and how it operates often gets lost on people. Many think that choosing one or another candidate will significantly alter their future to better represent their values, but in reality there is only one group of people that matter the most: those who Dr. Peter Phillips, professor emeritus at Sonoma State University, calls the “titans of capital.”
In his new book by the same name, Phillips studies the economic trends following the COVID-19 pandemic and how the wealth concentration in the world took a dramatic turn towards the already ultra-wealthy. He joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of Scheer Intelligence to further analyze these trends and how dire inequality is becoming.
The main problem is simple to understand: the ultra-wealthy “doubled their wealth concentration.” That means, according to Phillips, that “the upper one half of 1% of the people got richer and basically, the rest of the world got poorer.”
Phillips names the top 10 capital investment companies, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Morgan Stanley and others as the main culprits. Over $50 trillion are controlled by 117 people across these 10 companies, according to Phillips.
This immense concentration of wealth inevitably renders any semblance of democracy almost useless, as the main decision makers are those who hold the biggest bag. “Whoever we elect as President is not going to make any difference because they're managed by capital,” Phillips tells Scheer.
“They're there to protect global capital. That's what the American political system is about. That's what the political systems in the West are about. They see capital as a vital interest of the West, and that's why we have military bases all over the world to protect capital and to ensure that debts get repaid and that this capital continues to grow and expand.”
Any urban street in America is guaranteed to be lined with popular fast food chains, the readily available nature of their products being the main attraction, with people barely giving a thought to the process behind getting the food from the farm to the table — or more likely, the take-out box.
Joining host Robert Scheer on this week’s Scheer Intelligence are two people who dedicated their recent film, “Food and Country,” to understanding this process behind food in the United States and how big business, as usual, has almost complete control of the system. Renowned former food critic for the La Times and New York Times, former editor of Gourmet magazine, author of cookbooks and memoirs and PBS food guru, Ruth Reichl and film director Laura Gabbert discuss some of the key takeaways from the film.
Gabbert asserts that big agriculture’s firm grasp on the industry is where the problems begin. Its lobby is amongst the biggest and Gabbert explains that there is no incentive to try and remedy the problems that come from this monopolization of an industry so essential to human survival. “I think that is really the crux of the whole problem, is money in politics,” Gabbert says.
Reichl takes it back to what happened after World War II and how the U.S. government made an attempt to fight communism by cheapening the food making process, which turned farms into factories. “Almost everything that's wrong with America comes from that policy. We've destroyed our health, our environment, our communities,” Reichl tells Scheer.
The heart of their story lies with the farmers themselves, and how, despite being in charge of the most important aspect of human survival, they still tend to struggle the most in society. Reichl explains their significance in the film, stating, “I just wanted for us to be able to listen to their stories that they tell themselves about what has happened to them and what the American system has done to them.”
Check out the film’s website here for screening information.
Israel and its lobby today try to conflate the state with Jews around the world, that it speaks for Jews and encompasses the entire diaspora. Richard Silverstein, author and journalist of the Tikun Olam blog, says that this couldn’t be further from the truth. As the genocide in Gaza rages on, along with the killing of Israeli citizens and the mass torture of Palestinians, the support for Israel among Jews, particularly the younger generation, will continue to falter as the state itself plunges deeper into despair.
Silverstein speaks to host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to detail his relationship with Israel and Zionism and how his views have evolved over time, ultimately leading to a complete disconnection from the state, especially in light of the ongoing genocide, and now calling himself an anti-Zionist.
Being raised Jewish and earning degrees from Jewish Theological Seminary and Columbia University, as well as studying Hebrew literature at the Hebrew University in Israel, Silverstein makes clear: “[F]or you and for me and for most American Jews, Judaism is not genocide in Gaza, is not $20 billion or $80 billion in arms being sent by the US to Israel to kill Palestinians. That's not the kind of Judaism that I represent.”
Not only is the genocide a driving force behind the alienation of the Israel state but also the way it treats its own citizens, looking at them as expendable in its objective to kill Hamas operators. Silverstein refers to the Hannibal Directive, a procedure used by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to prevent the capture of soldiers by killing them and their captors. “[Y]ou now have a code that is expanded to also killing your own civilians. And that's, I think, what is even more profoundly upsetting, disturbing about the way in which Hannibal is being used right now,” Silverstein tells Scheer.
Torture and rape of Palestinian prisoners is also something that has emerged from Israel’s onslaught on Gaza and the West Bank, according to Silverstein. “We have Palestinians in Gaza who were swept up in detention raids and brought to concentration camps, really, in Israel, and there they're tortured,” he states.
Silverstein insists that what is happening in Gaza does not represent Judaism worldwide like Israel claims, and that “American Judaism needs to stand on its own.” American Jews, Silverstein says, “really have to separate [themselves] from the hostility, the anger, the violence that Israel represents.”
Any threat to the status quo within the American empire has led to the censorship, jailing and escape of the dissidents brave enough to stand against it. One may think of Edward Snowden’s asylum in Russia or Julian Assange’s refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London as recent examples. However, the history of dissidents fleeing American persecution runs deep. Joining host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to discuss his new book, “Flights: Radicals on the Run,” is author and journalist Joel Whitney.
The book exemplifies this missing history of dissent in America through accounts of people such as Angela Davis, Paul Robeson, Graham Greene and Malcolm X. Also included are the accounts of Lorraine Hansberry and her mentor, W.E.B. Du Bois. Whitney refers to De Bois’ time starting an anti-nuclear peace movement and subsequently being persecuted by the U.S. government. “[Du Bois’] reputation took severe damage, so when Hansberry knew him, he could barely afford to buy groceries,” Whitney told Scheer.
“Flights” examines the stories of historic struggle of progressive thinkers and political activists who faced the onslaught of Cold War propaganda and McCarthyism, becoming refugees as a result of their political work. The book chronicles a counter-narrative of American history, where the bravest and most outspoken figures criticizing the system are crushed by it and their lives ruined.
The book title, according to Whitney, refers to “flights that are political persecution in some form or another. In a way, you could think of it as 50 or 60 years of counter revolution, massive amounts of funding to chase people … across borders, out of print and, in some cases, unfortunately, into an early grave.”
In the case of people like Graham Greene and his famous novel, “The Quiet American,” the blacklisting of himself and others for their exposure of American activities during the Vietnam War led to Americans “hav[ing] to wait about a decade or a little bit more to actually understand what carnage, what incredible, cynical violence the anti-communist Americans are overseeing in Vietnam as they're taking it over from the French.”
Although Julian Assange is free and home in his native Australia, his story and decade-long suffering at the hands of the U.S. government must never be forgotten for the sake of the survival of the First Amendment. In this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast, host Robert Scheer is joined by Kevin Gosztola, who runs The Dissenter newsletter and has been reporting on the Assange case and whistleblowers in the U.S. for more than a decade. Together, they underscore the significance of the Assange case and delve into the details explored in Gosztola's recent book, "Guilty of Journalism."
Gosztola makes clear one of the main points of the whole ordeal, which is the inconsistency in the U.S.’s interpretation of its own laws. “The First Amendment and the Espionage Act are in conflict in this country. You can't reconcile the two, at least the way that the Justice Department wants to use the Espionage Act against people who aren't even just U.S. citizens. They're trying to apply U.S. law to international journalists,” Gosztola told Scheer.
The U.S. response to the internet age and the powerful journalistic revelations of Assange and WikiLeaks was to criminalize such actions, sending a clear message: anyone attempting to blow the whistle or expose the U.S. government's crimes would face severe punishment, including the use of the Espionage Act, which could imprison someone for life.
“Unlike Daniel Ellsberg, [Chelsea] Manning didn't have to sit there at a Xerox machine making copies. [She] just sent the copies of the documents to WikiLeaks, and then WikiLeaks had all these files that they could share with the world,” Gosztola said.
Despite the online journalism revolution, many in the media space still remained quiet throughout the Assange debacle both because of their ties to government officials and their lack of professional rigor. Gosztola posed several questions to them:
“Where were you? Why weren't you doing the investigations to uncover these details? Why did this WikiLeaks organization come along and reveal these details about Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the nature of US foreign policy? Why do you accept that all of this information that was classified should be classified?”
The 75th anniversary celebrating the creation of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, creates an opportunity for those in the war machine to double down their commitment to war and for peace advocates to amplify their calls for non-violence. David Swanson, co-founder and executive director of World BEYOND War and long-time peace advocate, joins host Robert Scheer on this episode of Scheer Intelligence. Swanson talks about his new book with Medea Benjamin, “NATO: What You Need To Know,” and how it analyzes what NATO means today as a worldwide enforcer of U.S. led military power, having grown from a 12-member organization to 32 members and “partnerships” with more than 40 non-member countries and international organizations.
According to Swanson, NATO's original function as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union has outlived the fall of the communist state and transformed the organization into a rapidly expanding extension of the U.S. war machine. “You don't have to ask informed historians or intelligent peace activists. The Secretary General of NATO says it; they now wage wars, not just in defense or what they call deterrence.”
What was once envisioned as an adjunct to the United Nations addressing war and peace has now evolved, with NATO extending its reach far beyond the Atlantic to forge partnerships with Asian countries in a militarized response to China's rise.
Swanson does not make light of what this will mean for the future: “It's the end of everything. It's the end of all life on earth. There's no small nuclear war. There's no tactical nuclear war, and yet this is where we're headed.”
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow cities to ban people from sleeping outdoors presents a major shift in the perception of poverty and homelessness in the U.S. and what the Eighth Amendment represents. Clare Pastore, a law professor at the University of Southern California, joins her faculty colleague Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to break down what the decision means and expand on her article published in The Conversation.
Pastore explains that the legal precedent reversed by the conservative majority was that “it's cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to criminalize sleeping outdoors for people who have no other option.” Now, Pastore tells Scheer, cities are not barred from enforcing this kind of criminalization.
“These are not laws to protect people. Homeless people are at greater danger than they are a danger to others. These are laws trying to get people to just move out of the jurisdiction and go somewhere else,” Pastore said.
Scheer argues that the problem has been around long before the recent SCOTUS decision and the elephant in the room for states like California, which Scheer points out is the fifth largest economy in the world, do not use their vast resources to address the problem but rather put the blame on decisions like this and continue their politics that ignore the central issue.
Pastore agrees, telling Scheer, “My biggest fear, in terms of a generation of people who are growing up thinking this is normal, is that this idea that this is intractable, is taking hold and it's not right.”
The greed in the U.S., where housing is regarded as a private good, strains the ability to attack the roots of the issue. “We have very few controls on how much [housing] can cost and we have very few incentives to make it cost less and we just don't put those kinds of legal mechanisms in place to preserve and create more affordable housing,” Pastore said.