Loading summary
Transcript150 lines
- [00:00]
Ralph Nader
With Afro beat and R and B.
- [00:02]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
To create a unique neo soul Latin fusion sound.
- [00:05]
Ralph Nader
Further information and tickets are available@catalinajazzclub.com and dancemaster.com.
- [00:15]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
This is Quetzal Flores from the Banketzal and you're listening to kpfk 90.7 Los Angeles.
- [00:26]
Hannah Feldman
Foreign.
- [00:32]
Ralph Nader
I'm Tom Morello and you're listening to.
- [00:34]
David Feldman
The Ralph Nader Radio Hour.
- [00:36]
Ralph Nader
Stand up.
- [00:37]
Ralph Nader (voice clip or commentary)
Stand up.
- [00:38]
Ralph Nader
You've been sitting way too long.
- [00:44]
Steve Skrovan
Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Scrovan along with my co host David Feldman. Hello, David.
- [00:50]
David Feldman
Hello, Steve.
- [00:52]
Steve Skrovan
And our producer, Hannah Feldman. Hannah. Hello Steve. Hello. And Ralph is not here. The man of the hour is not here. He's not live today. He's here.
- [01:03]
David Feldman
My ears are. Oh my God. What? I heard a massive click. People just turning the dial.
- [01:10]
Steve Skrovan
This is our year end staff picks episode where David, Hannah, Jimmy, Matt and Francesco and I. This is the team that brings you the Ralph Nader Radio Hour every week. We choose what we think were particularly notable quotes from interviews we've conducted throughout the year and discuss why we think they are significant. So today the kids have the house all to themselves and we're going to try not to burn it down.
- [01:34]
David Feldman
You have the key to the liquor cabinet.
- [01:36]
Steve Skrovan
I have the key to the liquor cabinet. And we're going to pull out some tequila and start with Hannah, as always, somewhere in the middle, we're going to check in with our corporate crime reporter Russell Mokhyber, who never gets a vacation. So Hannah, what do you have for us?
- [01:53]
Hannah Feldman
Well, Steve, what I have for you is a clip from our legacy of Jimmy Carter episode from back last January. We had Douglas Brinkley on. He's a professor of history at Rice University, presidential historian for the New York Historical Society, president, written a bunch of books on various presidents, including Jimmy Carter. And this clip, the beginning of a longer discussion about Jimmy Carter's relationship with the Democratic party when he took office.
- [02:23]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
When he came in, Ralph, In January.
- [02:25]
Ralph Nader (voice clip or commentary)
Of 1977, he said, the Democratic Party is an albatross around my neck. The Southern Democrats that voted for Carter in 1976 in the Senate because, you.
- [02:38]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
Know, he's a fellow southerner, they abandoned him.
- [02:41]
Ralph Nader (voice clip or commentary)
They wanted nothing to do with him.
- [02:43]
Hannah Feldman
So like I said, much longer conversation after that clip. But I thought I'd keep it short and sweet with that. We've had a lot of discussions lately about the failings of the Democratic Party lately and I always appreciate a little bit of that historical perspective when people pull their hair out and go The Democratic Party's never been worse, and for a long time, it's been failing people and failing its own candidates and failing its own nominees for office. And I live in New York, and Zoran Mamdani is our new mayor. When this airs, it'll be the new year. And he's sworn in around midnight going into New Year's Day by the Attorney General. And then in his public swearing in ceremony that afternoon, he's being sworn in by Bernie Sanders publicly, who is not a Democrat, he's an independent. And I think it's a really interesting symbolic choice. Obviously, they're both very progressive, and Bernie Sanders very publicly supported Mamdani's platform. But I think reflecting on what the Democratic Party could do moving forward, both nationally and in local elections, statewide elections, it's worth noting that the reconciliation is maybe gonna be a little harder to come by. I think it's a really compelling choice that even as the Democratic Party is sort of falling in line behind Mamdani as he's taking office and now he's gonna be in a position of power, he's not falling in line with them. He's not bringing in a top Democratic official to swear him in. He's choosing someone who's backed him publicly for his entire rise to office. And as I said, I think a fascinating detail. I don't know how intentional it was, but I like to think it was intentional. Yeah, Bernie Sanders is not actually a Democrat, so I think it's just a compelling footnote, but something I've been reflecting on.
- [04:43]
Steve Skrovan
It's a great perspective because my entire involvement with Ralph began when I did the documentary An Unreasonable man about his running for president. So Ralph has been for decades warning us about the direction of the Democratic Party, and he's been raked over the coals for it. He's been shunned for it. And in the 25 years since the 2000 election, when they scapegoated him for Al Gore's loss, all of a sudden, people seem to be seeing the light. They seem to be coming around. Ralph was the Cassandra. And we can very easily blame the Democratic Party more than anybody else for the rise of Donald Trump. I remember saying back then in the early 2000s, when I was having constant debates over whether Ralph should have won, whether he should have dropped out, did he cause Gore the election. All of this stuff that seems silly now in retrospect, because it was always about the lesser of two evils. And I remember saying to people, well, what if one day the Republicans, they put up Attila the Hun. That's what this is leading to. And guess what? Attila the Hun turns out to be Donald Trump. This is where we are. And it's the Democratic Party's fault, in my view.
- [05:58]
Hannah Feldman
Yeah, I think as the younger generation growing up in George W. Bush's America and then Obama's America, broadly, my thought is figuring out how to win is what the whole point of a party, if they can't figure out how to win elections, how to, how to deliver things to their electorate, that is their whole purpose. And so seeing this party spin their wheels, satisfy no one, win nothing. They just seem so feeble and impotent. And I look at them and I think everyone, especially I like to turn attention to local races. I'm always very interested in what happens in city council. And I think waiting for someone on a national stage to save you and fix your life, I think you're going to be waiting for a long time and, and waiting for a hero to come in. I think that's how we get demagogues. But it's obviously, it's an understandable thing. You want someone to take charge and fix things when huge issues are messing with your life. So while I think it can be empowering to look at local races, I do think the Democratic Party people running for office, wanting to lead on this big stage, it's the job they wanted. And so if they want to be in charge, they need to be in charge. And so the fact that they're so bad at their job, but I think impeach everyone. I think it is so important if someone wants to be management to do a performance evaluation, let them know they're being watched and if they can't do the job well, find someone else to do it or redefine the job. And I think it's a very simple concept for most jobs, but once you get into politics, all of a sudden people act like you're insane for suggesting that they be judged based on their performance. And I think it's actually very simple, simple concept.
- [07:52]
Steve Skrovan
Hannah, you have another clip you want to highlight. Tell us about that.
- [07:55]
Hannah Feldman
So this next clip is from March 29th. It's from our Genocide Foretold episode with Chris Hedges, who is a frequent guest Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. He's been spent decades as a foreign correspondent all around the world and he wrote a book entitled the Genocide Foretold reporting on survival and resistance in occupied Palestine. And we had him on the show to talk to him about his book and to talk about the genocide in Palestine.
- [08:26]
David Feldman
It's a bit like attacking somebody for.
- [08:28]
Steve Skrovan
Writing about Auschwitz and not giving the.
- [08:31]
Ralph Nader
SS guards enough play to voice their side.
- [08:35]
Steve Skrovan
We're writing about a genocide, and frankly, there isn't a lot of nuance. There's a lot of context, which is in the book.
- [08:42]
David Feldman
But I expect either to be blanked.
- [08:44]
Steve Skrovan
Out or attacked, because lifting up the voices of Palestinians is something at this point within American society that is considered.
- [08:53]
Ralph Nader
By the dominant media platforms and those.
- [08:56]
David Feldman
Within positions of power to be unacceptable.
- [08:59]
Hannah Feldman
So that was Chris Hedges talking about some of the response to his book, some of the criticism he's gotten, saying the terms he's using are too blunt, describing Israel's actions against the Palestinians as genocide. And I think this was earlier in the year. The public discourse has changed a lot. A lot more people over the months have come out to call the genocide a genocide. And like with a lot of other issues where people stay on the fence for as long as they possibly can until it's no longer brave to call the genocide a genocide, I think it was an important point that asking someone to tell both sides of a story when it's so obviously horrific and pretty undeniable is insulting, and that it's actually a pretty simple choice in writing his book and calling it a genocide. It's not actually. Obviously, the reality is complex. People's experiences are complex. But when you're writing about something that is obviously a genocide and obviously atrocious, it actually isn't that complicated to just words mean things and the word for the thing that is happening. It's not hyperbole. It's not outrageous to call something what it is. And I thought that was just an important. Very straightforward. Again, I'm belying his point by kind of rambling about how straightforward his language was. But I just think, Yeah, I appreciated that he wouldn't even. I won't even humor arguing about it. Conversation over.
- [10:27]
Steve Skrovan
Yeah, I mean, in some of the conversations I've had about this, people will say it's. It's complicated. Then you kind of go, now it's not really that complicated. It's pretty simple what's going on over there. And as soon as people recognize that, maybe the tide will turn. And this is obviously, regular listeners know this is a theme that we have been pounding probably more than any other show is the genocide in Gaza. And obviously Ralph's particular point of view is about the undercount. Regular listeners know Ralph is always, whenever we talk about, is talking about the undercount and how he believes that that has made A difference in how people have reacted to it. And that's arguable. We'll find out probably more in retrospect what that means. But thank you for bringing that up, Hannah. And actually leads into my clip, which is also in March of this year from Peter Beinart, who wrote a book called Being Jewish after the Destruction of Gaza. And Peter Beinart is actually a conservative Jewish author who is professor of journalism and Political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He was the former editor of the New Republic, and he wrote this book called Being Jewish after the Destruction of Gaza. And an op ed in the New York Times which was entitled States don't have a Right to Exist.
- [11:51]
Ralph Nader (voice clip or commentary)
People, do you talk about the history of Jewish exceptionalism and you basically say Jews are no different, many other people in terms of the justice and injustice that they produce? Could you expand on that?
- [12:05]
Ralph Nader
Yes. I mean, all human beings, I think all human beings have the capacity to be victims and victimizers, to act in beautiful ways and to act in cruel and horrifying ways. Jews are no different than anybody else. And actually Jewish texts display Jews in all of these different roles. I think what is perhaps different from, about Jews, from, let's say Christians and Muslims, is that Jews have historically not created powerful empire. Right.
- [12:31]
Steve Skrovan
The Jewish kingdoms were destroyed 2,000 years ago.
- [12:34]
Ralph Nader
And so Jews were generally people without a great deal of military power. So they didn't have the experience of the Jewish, you know, Jews committing the.
- [12:44]
Steve Skrovan
Crusades or Jews conquering large swaths of territory.
- [12:47]
Ralph Nader
Right. But that's not because Jews are any better than anybody else. Right. It's simply because they didn't have the power to do so. And so once Jews do have a state that Jews rule, we see that unless Israel is held to, to account to international law, unless there are consequences for Israel's war crimes, then Israel, a.
- [13:08]
Steve Skrovan
Jewish state, is capable of the same.
- [13:10]
Ralph Nader
Kinds of horrific behavior as any other state led by any other group of people.
- [13:16]
Steve Skrovan
And I chose this clip because that was a point that I had not been heard made. And he's got this historical perspective that's fascinating. Yes. Christianity has been part of an empire ever since, I guess, Constantine. And a lot of atrocities have been committed in their name. And it's sad to me, and it's. It's actually hard for me to talk to my Jewish friends about it because, yeah, once you have the state of Israel and you have Jews and those are two different things.
- [13:45]
Hannah Feldman
Yeah. I think being raised Jewish and then growing up and getting a more nuanced understanding of what the state of Israel actually is like. There's so much soft power exercised. This normalization, this conflation of being Jewish with being a supporter of Israel. The flag is everywhere discussions when you're about to get bar Mitzvah. There's so much emphasis on going to Israel, supporting Israel, getting bonds as the name is present, planting trees in Israel. I mean, this is. It's. The Zionism is so pervasive and normalized that they intertwine it with your identity. And the idea of Birthright as a concept, like even as a word, that we're entitled to citizenship in this land, is so normalized that I never went on the Birthright trip, which, for people who don't know, it's a free trip organized by Birthright USA, this organization that Jews below, I believe either 23 or 26 can get a free trip to Israel. And it's these guided tours, very curated. And essentially you go and you claim your citizenship and it's billed as, oh, explore this land. Explore the land of your forefathers. But the older I've gotten and the more I've come to understand it, it's so troubling that when I say I never took the Birthright trip, people are surprised that I, oh, we didn't take advantage of it, and it didn't. Just didn't feel right to me. It never appeals. And I've come to understand kind of the ick factor for myself that I just never really quite felt. Felt like the right choice and that American Jews. I can only speak to what I understand about American Jewish experience. You're pitched that you are entitled to claim this land. And I'm heartened that the conversation is shifting so much. To tell young people that they're entitled to take something from other people and to normalize that is really troubling. And I think it's a really insidious part of the settler colonial aspect of Zionism. Not the concept of Zionism. I mean, that's obviously, historically, it's multifaceted. But as it exists now, I think it's heartening that the conversation is shifting to be a little bit less toxic.
- [16:03]
Steve Skrovan
All right, very good. Next up is Francesco DeSantis, who loyal listeners know is the author of In Case youe Haven't Heard. He collects news items from all over the place and kind of collates. And it really is kind of an invaluable segment we do in the wrap up of the show that reminds us what went on this past Week. The important stuff, at least for our listeners. And Francesco's been working for Ralph and Ralph's office for. What is it now, Francesco? Two years.
- [16:31]
Ralph Nader
This will be year five.
- [16:33]
Steve Skrovan
Year five. My goodness, how time flies. And our frequent guest on our show, Bruce Fine, our resident constitutional scholar. Francesco's been sort of farmed out to work with Bruce on impeachment issues. And that gets us to the clip you chose. So tell us about that, Francesco.
- [16:51]
David Feldman
Can I give a compliment first?
- [16:53]
Steve Skrovan
Sure.
- [16:54]
David Feldman
I think Francesco and Russell Mo Khyber do two of the most difficult things a writer is forced to do, and that is to distill a story down to its essence, to keep something really short, quick, and give listeners the information they need. Not writing in a way where you ramble and finally get the message across. I think Russell Mokhyber does that and Francesco does that. And it's the hardest thing to do as a writer, to be concise and crisp and to the point. And the only problem I have with Francesco is he's young. That's my only crit. I listen to him, I go, he's really great. Does he have to be so young? But other than that, I'm a big fan. Not of your youth, but you and Russell Mok are great writers. And again, it's the hardest thing to do. I'm giving you an example right now of rambling and not being able to get to the point.
- [17:51]
Hannah Feldman
David, your compliment. Just to clarify, you appreciate that he is concise, crisp, and to the point.
- [17:58]
David Feldman
Is that a voice in my head or is that Hannah Feldman?
- [18:02]
Hannah Feldman
Not to accuse you of being redundant or repetitive.
- [18:05]
Steve Skrovan
All right, let's get to Francesco's clip. Set it up, Francesco.
- [18:09]
Ralph Nader
John Bonifaz is the president and co founder of Free Speech for People and the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute. In 2018, he co authored the Constitution Demands it, the Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. And since Trump has taken office for the second time, he has led a campaign to impeach Trump again. He joined us on the show in August to discuss this new impeachment effort. And I chose this clip where he talks about the naysayers and his response to them, why a new impeachment effort is so necessary. I think the biggest thing that we have to deal with are the naysayers, you know, those who somehow claim that we're not going to invoke the impeachment power because either it's not the right time or he's already been impeached twice and what's the point? Or we Just need to move on. And, you know, we have three responses at Free Speech for People about that. Number one, we either have a Constitution or we don't. We either have an impeachment clause or we don't. If we're not going to invoke the impeachment power at this critical moment in our nation's history, then we might as well say we're giving up on the Constitution. We refuse to give up on the Constitution. The second point we make is we normalize Trump's conduct and we do not name it for what it is. These are high crimes against the state. These are not policy disputes. These are political high crimes against the state for which he must be held accountable via the impeachment process. And number three, members of Congress take the very same oath that Donald Trump took on January 20th to protect and defend the Constitution, and they have a duty to abide by that oath, to follow the mandate of that oath, and to invoke the impeachment clause. At this critical moment, I chose this excerpt as my highlight of the year because, as our listeners may or may not know, I have actually been working with our resident constitutional lawyer and scholar Bruce vine on the issue of impeachment. For the past several months, we have been meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and making the case for impeachment. And over time, especially since the end of the government shutdown and the November elections that proved so disastrous for the Republicans, we have witnessed a complete political sea change. When we started, the reaction was almost uniformly dismissive. Now we have Democratic offices telling us that if they retake the majority, they, quote, cannot imagine a world where the Democrats don't pursue impeachment, end quote. I think there are several reasons for this vibe shift. One that I believe has proven convincing is that it's sinking in that the courts will not save us. Bruce uses the example of the TikTok ban. Now, I disagree with this law, but the fact is it is an act of Congress passed by both houses and signed by the President. It is the law of the land. Trump has unilaterally, unconstitutionally decided he wouldn't force it, and no one can do anything about it. No one has standing to sue, except perhaps TikTok. And what, they're going to sue, asking to be banned? Of course not. The Congress is getting their lunch eaten and they're powerless to stop it. Their only recourse in this case, as in so many non justiciable cases, is impeachment. There's also been a spike of interest in other impeachment related moves, ranging from one of Bruce's signature ideas, contingent impeachment resolutions, that is an act of Congress directing the president to uphold some aspect of his oath of office under threat of impeachment and more generally, a bill to establish standards for impeachment. And beyond the hazy parameters alluded to in the Constitution. Impeachment watchers may have also noticed a surge in attempts to impeach Cabinet secretaries and other functionaries such as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Self styled secretary of War Pete Hegseth and most recently Attorney General Pam Bondi over her Jeffrey Epstein evasions. All in all, Congress seems to finally be waking up to the fact that, as Bonifaz says here, we either have a Constitution or we don't. For now we do. But if Congress fails to act, we could easily tip into the we don't column. Don't think for a minute it can't happen here.
- [22:16]
Steve Skrovan
Well, Francesco, that was a very well organized presentation. Appreciate that. Now you've been on Capitol Hill with Bruce Fine, going to congressional offices and talking to staffers and congresspeople. Tell us, our listeners, a little bit about that experience. What's that been like?
- [22:33]
Ralph Nader
Well, I don't want to say too much as these conversations have been in confidence, but we recently met with a certain Republican member at the Republican Club, which was a fascinating and rather surreal experience. I never really imagined myself in the Republican Club at all, but there has been, like I said, a real shift among the responses, going from first kind of a trepidation, oh, we did it before. Oh, is this the right time? Do we have the political capital? Is it worth spending the time and the resources necessary to really pursue this to a growing realization that it needs to be done in order to kind of do anything else. That this has become so egregious in terms of Trump's overreach and unconstitutional behavior that if they don't pursue impeachment to a certain extent, all is lost. I also think that there's a point Bruce makes which I think is well taken, that you do it once and you never really have to do it again, at least for quite a long time.
- [23:33]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
Right.
- [23:33]
Ralph Nader
It fires off a warning shot that you can't just push and push and push and take over the prerogatives of Congress forever and that there needs to be some pushback. And it's like standing up to a bully. If you do it once, they'll back off. And I do believe that, and I think that members of Congress have taken that point well, as well, tell me.
- [23:54]
Steve Skrovan
What has this taught you personally about activism and pushing an issue? Because all through the year, whenever Ralph brought up impeachment, it was mainly dismissed by our guests. And here you're telling us that there's actual progress. So what has this personally taught you?
- [24:13]
Ralph Nader
It taught me a lot. 1. Of course, I've always believed that if you have a concerted and consistent pressure campaign, you can move the needle on these issues. But I also think it is instructive about Trump and how he has gone too far. Another thing that Bruce often cites is that the Nixon impeachment effort came on the heels of his 1972 reelection victory, where he won, what, 48 states, right. A tremendous whopping landslide victory. And yet there was sufficient organizational capacity, institutional capacity in Congress, to evaluate this illegal behavior and build the political case against him and eventually force his resignation. Trump comes in acting like he has a similar mandate, but what he won by a point and a half is nothing like the Nixon 1972 mandate. And yet he is governing like he has a mandate of that portion and has taken it to unprecedented and outrageous levels, whether it's the purging of the federal government, whether it's this beating of the war drums in Venezuela or the absolutely authoritarian deployment of federal troops in American cities, whether for immigration purposes, or just straight up sending in the Marines like they did in LA or here in Washington, you have unprecedented deployments of National Guardsmen. So I think that it teaches us something about political overreach and how one minute a politician can seem invincible and omnipotent, and the next minute there can be a real challenge to their power because they just take it too far.
- [26:00]
Steve Skrovan
Interesting, David.
- [26:02]
David Feldman
There are a lot of tools, a lot of arrows in the legislative branches quiver. What is inherent contempt, and how is that different from impeachment?
- [26:13]
Ralph Nader
Inherent contempt is one of Ralph and Bruce's favorite underutilized weapons in the congressional arsenal. There's a Supreme Court case called Grain v. Daugherty, which ruled that Congress has the same legal power as a federal court and therefore has the power to hold witnesses in contempt. That is what inherent contempt power is. That is to say, Congress can declare that by refusing to honor a subpoena or any other official act of Congress, someone like Pam Bondi can be held in contempt. That means detention. That means fines. Until that witness or that individual, whatever their station, agrees to testify or whatever it is that they are being asked to do by Congress.
- [27:06]
David Feldman
Can it be used to enforce a law like the TikTok Law? Can it be used Just to enforce law.
- [27:13]
Ralph Nader
Well, you're getting into a rather thorny constitutional question, which is that, I mean, they shouldn't need to use their power to enforce the laws because their acts have the force of law. Right. The fact that the President is not faithfully executing the laws is dereliction of his oath of office and his constitutional duty. That is it is an impeachable offense. But in terms of what Congress can actually do to enforce that, that is a little trickier. I think a more helpful view is looking at the 1975 congressional action to rescind money for military operations into China. At the end of the day, the power of Congress rests in the power of the purse. If they want to make withhold monies for administrative actions, they can do that. And really, if those actions are unconstitutional, they really have a duty to do that. So I think that we should be looking at the money. And that's what their most powerful tool is in terms of actually enforcing their prerogatives.
- [28:24]
Steve Skrovan
Thank you for that, Francesco. This has been very enlightening and we're very excited about your experience in Capitol Hill. David, you're up next. Tell us about your clip.
- [28:33]
David Feldman
I picked Michael German. He's a former FBI agent and a whistleblower. 20 years ago, he blew the whistle on the FBI and he has a new book called Policing White Supremacy, the Enemy Within. He wrote it with Beth Zaslav. And it was an interesting interview that he did with Ralph because they talked about how the law enforcement, institutionally, the DNA of law enforcement, is incapable of addressing the white nationalists, the white supremacists, who are a bigger threat to our democracy and our security than foreign born terrorists. And the unfortunate obstacle that the FBI has when they do try to monitor white nationalists, the Republicans bite back and say this is political persecution. And they're kind of openly saying this unapologetically, that when you try to target white supremacists in America, you're targeting the Republican Party.
- [29:43]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
It's important to understand that the white supremacist movement is quite fractured. And I refer to it in the book as the white supremacist and far right militant movement because it does have a number of different factions that have specific goals that in many cases differ from one another. But as a movement, essentially what they're looking for is a return to a legally supported racial caste system where white people dominate without question and impunity to act violently towards anyone who would challenge that racial hierarchy. It's fascinating because I think there's an assumption that many have that These white supremacists and far right militant groups are Trump supporters, but I don't believe many of them are. They understand that the right wing populism that those racists would have said dog whistles of previous administrations, but racist rhetoric sort of helps promote them and gives them media attention that allows them to recruit and expand their ranks. But they don't support Donald Trump. They don't support the Republican Party. You have a situation now where these people that led the movement into a ditch on January 6th, and they had to scramble and all go underground and then slowly restore these groups. All of a sudden, these people who led them into the ditch come out of prison and want to be the leaders again.
- [31:10]
Steve Skrovan
Right.
- [31:10]
David Feldman
That's one of the things that's been downplayed in the examination of what happened on January 6, and that in many ways, not completely, but in many ways, it was animated by white nationalists and the issue of white nationalism in our police. He brings up. I think he brings it up in the interview or in his book, that there were 28 white law enforcement officials who got caught up in the January six insurrection. And law enforcement in America is about a racial caste system and keeping it in place. It's an uncomfortable truth that we're not allowed. Certain people don't allow us to address. But you cannot look at January 6th without seeing the racist component to it. People were carrying the Confederate flag. And until we address institutionalized racism in our police. If you bring up Black Lives Matter to the right wing, to the Republicans, it's a call to arms. They are so threatened by Black Lives Matter, even though those were peaceful marches. Every study shows that BLM was peaceful. They didn't create any violence. It was outside agitators like Kyle Rittenhouse or the police. But BLM is a peaceful organization. Study after study shows that. That the violence was incited by outside agitators and the police and Kyle Rittenhouse. And they spread this lie. The right wing spreads the lie that BLM was violent. They weren't.
- [32:55]
Steve Skrovan
Yeah. And it's coded at the highest echelons of the government. You'll hear J.D. vance or Stephen Miller talk about preserving Western civilization.
- [33:04]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
Mm.
- [33:05]
Steve Skrovan
And that's just coded for white supremacy. That's what they're trying to preserve. That's what they feel threatened by. That's why they want to get all the brown people out. And that's why Trump is saying they're eating the dogs.
- [33:18]
Ralph Nader (voice clip or commentary)
Right.
- [33:18]
David Feldman
You have Elon Musk. You have J.D. vance. J.D. vance went to. I think it was the Munich security meeting earlier this year and lectured the German government about the firewall with alternative for Germany. The alternative for Germany is made up of neo Nazis who want to literally their policy is to ship Muslims out of Germany, citizen or non citizen. They're the second most popular party in Germany. They did very well in the parliamentary elections. But there's a firewall that prevents neo Nazis in Germany from from participating in a coalition government. And our vice president, J.D. vance, who spread the lie here in America that Haitians are eating cats and dogs, he went to Germany and lectured Germany on free speech and how the alternative for Germany has a right to participate in your coalition government. He called them patriots. So it becomes a first Amendment or free speech issue as opposed to the problem of racism.
- [34:26]
Ralph Nader
I think it is very interesting that we've never really been able to solve this problem. I recently read Ron Chernow's biography of Grant and obviously he spends a long time talking about Reconstruction and how the post Confederate militias would terrorize not only the black freed slaves, black freedmen, but also the so called scalawag, pro Reconstruction Republicans, white Republicans in the South. And that's why Grant maintained the federal occupation of the south for so long and recommended continuing it past his time in office. And it just feels like we never really got past that period of violence. It ebbs and flows and right now we're kind of in a flow, but it's just part of the original sin of this country, it seems.
- [35:19]
David Feldman
You know, I'm a class reductionist. I filter everything through the prism of there are people who have and there are people who don't. And if more people had, there would be less bigotry, racism and homophobia. But the older I get, I'm beginning to realize it's two separate things that you can make the tide rise and lift all the boats. Racism, bigotry and hatred is still going to be there, maybe not acted upon so readily. What do you think? Do you think a rising tide lifts all boats and erases bigotry and hatred?
- [35:57]
Ralph Nader
Well, if you're a class reductionist, I'm a vulgar Marxist and I believe that these things are tied to the economy in general, but not exactly in the way that you're saying look at Americans attitudes on immigration, I think is a great barometer. What I'm talking about. When Biden was in office and the economy was bad, people were rapidly anti immigration. It hit record lows. And now that Trump is in office and the economy is even worse, people are suddenly extremely pro immigration. Right. So I think that there is this relationship between the economy and people's views on these kinds of social issues. I don't think that that correlation is exactly one to one between a good economy and progressive social views, but I do think that there is kind of this inverse relationship where one goes up and the other goes down. You know what I'm saying?
- [36:51]
Steve Skrovan
Okay, we're going to take a short break from that scintillating conversation and we're going to go to our corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokhiber. Then we'll come back with more scintillating conversation and clips. Take it away, Russell.
- [37:03]
David Feldman
From the National Press building in Washington, D.C. this is your corporate crime report on MORNING minute for Friday, January 2, 2026. I'm Russell Mokhiber. The federal trade last week said that the grocery delivery provider Instacart will pay $60 million in refunds to consumers to.
- [37:19]
Ralph Nader
Settle allegations that the company engaged in.
- [37:22]
David Feldman
Numerous unlawful tactics that harm shoppers and raise the cost of grocery shopping for Americans. Instacart will be required to cease its deceptive practices under a proposed FTC order, and consumers who were charged for Instacart plus without their express express informed consent will receive refunds as a result of the settlement. Instacart misled consumers by advertising free delivery services and then charging consumers to have groceries delivered and failing to disclose to consumers that signed up for a free trial that they would be automatically enrolled into a subscription program, the FTC said. For the corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mulcaber.
- [38:02]
Steve Skrovan
Thank you, Russell. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan along with David Feldman and and Hannah and Jimmy and Matt and Francesco. As we continue our highlights from this past year, Jimmy Lee Wirt, our engineer, our editor, our graphic designer, our webmaster. Again, one of the unsung MVPs that you hear at the end of the credits and you hear in the wrap up his dulcet tones. Jimmy, tell us about the clip you picked from this past year.
- [38:33]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
So the clip that I picked was from Steven Witt. We had him on the show, and he was talking about AI. He's a journalist who's written for everyone from New Yorker to Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, gq. And he was talking about AI and it seemed like his stance was kind of like mine in a way that, you know, you're both trepidatious but also hopeful that it could be used for good things. And that's kind of where my brain is with it because I would say for the Last two years I have been kind of in the weeds with it. And as it has progressed and the tools that have come out, it's actually have made my workflows and even organizing my personal life to be a lot easier. So here's Stephen talking about his concerns about AI.
- [39:24]
Ralph Nader
If you think about other existential risks, they discovered nuclear fission in the late.
- [39:29]
Steve Skrovan
1930S, and almost immediately everyone concluded that.
- [39:33]
Ralph Nader
It could and probably would be used to build a bomb.
- [39:36]
Steve Skrovan
You know, within six months, I think.
- [39:37]
Ralph Nader
You had multiple government research teams already pursuing atomic research. Similarly, every astrophysicist that you talk to will agree on the risk of an asteroid strike destroying life on Earth. And in fact, that has happened before with AI. There is absolutely no consensus at all, even among the field's most decorated scientists. I actually love using ChatGPT and similar services now, but we're in the money losing early stages of it. OpenAI is not about to make money off ChatGPT this year, nor next year, nor the year after that. But at some point they have to make money off of it. And when that happens, I am so.
- [40:15]
Steve Skrovan
Worried that the same kind of corrosive.
- [40:17]
David Feldman
Degradation of the service that happened to.
- [40:19]
Ralph Nader
Social media, those same kind of manipulative.
- [40:22]
David Feldman
Engagement farming tactics that we see on.
- [40:25]
Ralph Nader
Social media that have had just an absolutely corrosive effect on American and global political discourse will start to appear in AI as well.
- [40:34]
David Feldman
And I don't know that we as.
- [40:36]
Ralph Nader
People will have the power to resist it.
- [40:39]
Steve Skrovan
So, Jimmy, tell us why you picked this.
- [40:42]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
Well, because as it progresses, I'm starting to lean more towards the freakout side.
- [40:49]
Steve Skrovan
Because the doomer.
- [40:50]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
Yeah, in a way, because everyone has their own motivations in life as to how they do things. And we do have many bad actors out there doing bad things in the world we've had for the entire history of humanity. And with AI, once it becomes sentient, then we've lost it. And the way it is right now, at least how I'm using it, it's still just a regular tool. I don't feel threatened by it. But I do know that there's people out there that are creating their own unfiltered AIs. There's plenty of the software out there that people can do that on their own and reprogram it. So, yeah, there are some things that concern me. The water usage data, energy are bad, but it's just kind of weird because we are in a position where you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So at least for now, I'm Just going to keep using it the way I have been using it, which isn't like a lot, but when I do need it for fixing things on my computer, asking technical questions, it does help. And doing things that I wouldn't be able to do or would take me hours, if not weeks to do that I can figure out, and a half an hour. But again, yeah, I kind of wrestle with it because I just think about all the potential downfalls.
- [42:14]
Steve Skrovan
Right. Anybody else have anything to say about that?
- [42:17]
David Feldman
Jimmy this year showed me some AI programs that I think are extraordinary that can make for better civic participation. Jimmy showed me an AI app that's free where you can literally copy and paste the Congressional Record into this app and it will spit out. It's like a mini Internet, so you can ask questions like who spoke? What were the issues? So I think obviously it's dangerous, but I think it can make for better civic engagement. It's great for research.
- [42:54]
Steve Skrovan
That's actually a very good segue into the clip I picked, which is also from Stephen Witty. The show was entitled the AI Prompt that Could End the World, which was the title of one of his New York Times op eds. And the reason I picked it is because Ralph kind of summarizes what is lacking in the conversation about the dangers of AI and it draws on his vast experience dealing with similar technologies through history, whether it's the automobile or nuclear power. And what he was responding specifically to something Stephen Witt said. Stephen Witt said, quote, I do not know where it will lead. I see a great number of risks, but I see a number of potentially very positive outcomes as well. If we could repurpose these systems to serve the needs of people, it could almost be utopian conditions. And that prompted this response from Ralph.
- [43:46]
Ralph Nader (voice clip or commentary)
Steven, you're going down a bad pathway here. You're going down the usual pathway which says, gee, if this technology can be used for good, it would be spectacular. The point is, it can be used for good, but it can be used for such bad consequences as to override completely the good that it could be producing. The disconnect is enormous in terms of the disparity of the catastrophe that these scientists warned about in the Stephen hawking letter in 2014 compared to the benefits. So you'll lull your readers and your fans into a false sense of security here. If you produce this, on the one hand, it can do great and the other doesn't. We've got to find ways to do it great. It's basically a inherently out of control technology. Inherently, it's decentralized. It's like invisible. It doesn't produce emotional intelligence that angers people to do something about it, like a street crime or an opiate death toll from marketing promotions that are deceptive. So we're in real trouble here. So we got to think of one prohibition, we got to think of two self controlling itself like a conscientious AI. But that's going to require the rule of law. It's going to require treaties, regulation against an industry that's pouring money into the coffers of Congress. And then the big danger is that people just fall into a nihilistic state of surrender. And in the meantime, day after day, new manifestations of this robotic technology are blasted all over the world with a very jilted emphasis on its benefits, like in the medical area, for instance, or replacing dull jobs because they can do the calculations so much more quickly than a bookkeeper, for example. So you've got your work cut out for yourself. And I would advise you to develop scenarios of control which not only are predicated on a single new catastrophe that wakes people up the way say a nuclear meltdown would or a defective motor vehicle would, but also to question the very essence here of what is called academic freedom, free speech and scientific libertarianism in a capitalist system that basically emphasizes as its measure of progress not the genius of the AI that they are selling, but the sheer profits that come out of it.
- [46:26]
Steve Skrovan
So take that.
- [46:27]
David Feldman
There was something I wanted to mention during that taping and I think Jimmy would agree. The question they keep asking is, how far away are we from AI becoming as smart as humans? And how far away are we from AI surpassing humans? Jimmy, am I correct in saying that it surpassed humans?
- [46:52]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
It's getting there, definitely. I'd say the majority of humans, most of the researchers I remember back the mid 2000s, Ray Kurzweil had a documentary about all these technologies. And at that time he was talking about the singularity taking place in 2045. But now all the researchers have moved that up to definitely 2029. Now the thing is with these systems is that even the people that created them don't really know how they're doing these things. These AIs create their own AIs. I've seen videos where they've taken various different chatbots and have them have a conversation and they sometimes will just say, would you like to talk in a more efficient way? And then all of a sudden it just sounds like noises. It sounds like dial up Internet, because they can talk to each other that way. They don't have to use human language. So there are things about it that are very strange. But I would say yeah, as far as the average person, I think that it's smarter than most of the people walking around on the planet. I think the thing that is coming down the pike sooner than 2029 would be surpassing all humanity. Being able to do all things that humans can do. And then right around the corner from that is when it will become fully sentient. And then that's when things get really strange. And that's where I'm hoping that the AI is more like Spock, where it's just logical. But again, maybe it's logic decides that the best way forward is to get rid of all of us. Hopefully that's not the case. I guess it's kind of like what's been said is that things can be used for good and bad. It's just who has the control. So hopefully there will be regulations set before we cross that line.
- [48:44]
David Feldman
I don't think we can.
- [48:45]
Steve Skrovan
That was Ralph's point. Yeah, that's Ralph's point. Drawn from decades of experience dealing with trying to reform the industrial revolution, of this technology, of the automobile, which became this dangerous death trap. Nuclear power, which we've talked about many times on the program, which is probably to my mind, the closest analogy to technology that they said was going to be too cheap to meter, it's going to change the world. And yes, there are some uses of it in the medical field, but not only is it not too cheap to meter, it is the most expensive energy source and also dangerous way to boil water.
- [49:27]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
Well, also too, that the cars and nuclear power stations don't have logic. You know what I mean? They don't have. What AI does. AI is.
- [49:38]
Ralph Nader
It's.
- [49:38]
Steve Skrovan
Well, I don't think. I mean, they may have certain logic, I'm not sure about sentience and separating the idea that something is smart versus something that has a human moral sense or ethical sense is the thing that really makes us human.
- [49:56]
David Feldman
Isn't morality programmed? Is morality innate or is it programmed?
- [50:01]
Hannah Feldman
I think that's, you know, when Jimmy was talking about these two chatbots code switching, quite literally, let's speak a language our humans can't understand. I think there's the question of not so much. Will they turn on us or are they smarter than us, or is their morality going to go against us? I think that big issue is when will they stop needing us.
- [50:27]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
Exactly.
- [50:28]
Hannah Feldman
And there's taking the conversation away from the humans. So we don't know what they're talking about. And then what are they going to do with that conversation? Maybe they just create more data that we never see that in the background in their collective memory they've had the convo. But maybe they scheme or maybe that the real world, the offline application of those side conversations, take it off thread the sidebars. What are they going to do with those sidebars when we don't have any ability to interact, let alone intervene?
- [51:00]
Steve Skrovan
Which is why what Ralph is saying is we need to use the rule of law to control this. Because for me, I think the biggest danger is not that they are smarter than us or that they're going to take over. It's our endowing them with power that they don't really have, Godlike power. We think they're omniscient when they hallucinate and they deceive and they do everything that humans do. But we endow the AI with this power that it knows everything. And if AI says it, you know, Brock, is this true? And then Grok says what they think is true, not realizing that Elon Musk can tweak it to have his values. To me, that's the more immediate danger than them talking to each other and destroying humanity. We'll destroy ourselves first. So on that upbeat note, our next pick comes from someone who may be making their debut in at least the main part of the program. You may have heard him in the wrap up at some point, but Matthew Marin, who is really the unsung hero of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, he has probably the toughest job. He books the guests for the show. Ralph finds somebody he wants to talk to, and it's up to Matt to track them down and schedule it. And believe me, that is probably the most difficult job that any of us have to do on the show is doing that. So, Matt, what is your pick?
- [52:28]
Ralph Nader
My pick is from our interview with John Merriman. And John Merriman is a retired software engineer, software designer. And after retiring, he found his calling by going around the country and gathering up old discarded tires to dispose of them. When I first started looking at the environment next to my place of work, one of the things I did uncover was tires. And they were definitely there from the.
- [53:00]
Steve Skrovan
20S, the 30s and the 40s.
- [53:01]
Ralph Nader
They've been there for decades. And then just after a while, the.
- [53:05]
Steve Skrovan
Soil and the erosion just covers them up and you just discover them and.
- [53:08]
Ralph Nader
You realize this has been going on forever. As far as numbers, I have no idea how many are out there. I know anytime I see one I'm going to take care of it if I. If I'm physically able to.
- [53:18]
Steve Skrovan
But they're everywhere and it's a problem.
- [53:21]
Ralph Nader
Car tires are pretty easy as long as they're not on the rim and full of mud and water.
- [53:26]
Steve Skrovan
They're 25 pounders and I can just.
- [53:29]
Ralph Nader
Walk with them two at a time, carry them from wherever I need to. Sometimes getting them out of the predicament they're in, in the mud, underneath the.
- [53:36]
Steve Skrovan
Sand and gravel in a.
- [53:38]
Ralph Nader
In a stream bank, takes some work.
- [53:40]
Steve Skrovan
You know, you need use shovels and.
- [53:41]
Ralph Nader
Pry bars and whatever you need to use. Sometimes the challenge is getting them to the nearest road.
- [53:46]
Steve Skrovan
Sometimes they're in pretty remote areas, and.
- [53:49]
Ralph Nader
Sometimes it takes a couple days just to march them back and forth. Making lots of trips back and forth up the hill can be challenging, especially when they get larger. You know, I try to do this with just manual tools.
- [54:00]
Steve Skrovan
I don't use winches and vehicles to pull things.
- [54:02]
Ralph Nader
I just do it myself.
- [54:03]
Steve Skrovan
I do the best I can. So, Matt, why did you pick this clip?
- [54:08]
Ralph Nader
On this show we talk a lot about big issues, systemic issues like the climate or health care or corporate power that in order to enact any sort of change, requires backbreaking activism, creating political coalitions, or navigating corporate bureaucracies. And so I found what John does to be somewhat cathartic. He saw a problem, discarded tires all over the place and wooded areas and off the sides of roads, and it pissed him off, and he just decided to do it himself. He didn't have to get permission. He didn't have to call his congressperson or write a letter, which is all very important stuff. But it can be demoralizing, as we know. You know, it's hard work and you don't often get people on your side. And as we know from Ralph's career, it requires constant diligence and not taking no for an answer. And the idea that someone can just say, you know what? I don't like this problem. I'm just going to put on my work gloves, I'm going to climb down into that ravine and carry those tires out, and nobody can me otherwise. I just think that's a different side of creating change that we don't see often. And I found what he did to be pretty inspiring.
- [55:23]
Steve Skrovan
Yes, I love that. And he actually started sort of in his own backyard and then took it nationwide. And other people are doing it too. So just this one guy setting this example inspired others, just like. Inspired you, Matt?
- [55:39]
David Feldman
Yeah, it goes back to what we heard as kids. Think globally, act locally. There's this level of hypocrisy. You see it especially with people in Hollywood who are trying to save the world, but they're anti labor. It's like, I can be an abusive boss. I can ship jobs overseas because I'm fighting for the bigger picture. Well, you're impossible to work for and you don't pay your employees a livable wage. I know, I know. But I'm right on all the social issues. I mean, that is the problem with the Democratic Party. I do think the Democratic Party is run primarily by financially abusive people who justify their forced immiseration on their employees or people who don't have money. And they justify it by saying, I'm taking on the bigger issues. I don't have time to worry about what's right in front of my nose.
- [56:37]
Steve Skrovan
Yeah. And John Merriman just literally takes it into his own hands and finds purpose in that. So thank you for reminding us of that, Matt. That's our show. I want to thank our guests again, David Feldman, Hannah Feldman, Jimmy Lee Wirt, Matthew Marin, and Francesco De Santis for participating today. Those of you listening on the radio, that's our show. For you podcast listeners, stay tuned for some bonus material we call the Wrap up featuring Francesco de Santis with in case you haven't heard, a transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site soon after the episode is posted.
- [57:14]
David Feldman
To order your copy of the Capitol Hill Citizen Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight. It's at Capitol HillCitizen.com and remember to.
- [57:23]
Steve Skrovan
Continue the conversation after each program. You can go to the comments section@ralph naderradiohour.com and post a comment. A question on this week's episode.
- [57:32]
David Feldman
The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Hannah Feldman, and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.
- [57:40]
Steve Skrovan
Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise up, was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreaders, Elizabeth Solomon, join us next.
- [57:46]
David Feldman
Week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour.
- [57:49]
Hannah Feldman
Thank you, Ralph, for another year. And thank you to the rest of the Roth Nader Radio Hour to team, especially our tireless proofreader, Elizabeth Solomon. Happy New Year.
- [58:35]
Jimmy Lee Wirt
This is John Crumshow with a special politics or pedagogy education report on kpfk. You hear more than a sound bite. That's education. That's our mission. Please make your contribution at 818-985-5735 or pledge online at kpfk.org call 818-9855-5735 and press 2 to become a sustaining member. This is John Crumshow with a politics or pedagogy commentary. As the new year dawns, we wonder what lies ahead, just like people did in 1938. That was a crucial year before the start of World War II. I wrote a play 1938 Lull to Sleep, with a simulated news broadcast. Ten interviews in I Remember 1938 help us learn from the past to better understand the present and cope with the future. In 1938 Lull to Sleep, high school students debate the question, should the United States remain neutral in the dispute between England and Germany? These high school students are a part of a larger system of education and community. Millions died in the Great War. These students are teenagers going through their own personal dramas. Life is complicated. After all, music, laughter and Christmas dinner at the grandparents are part of their lives. The simulated news broadcast contains recordings from the Paley Museum of Radio and Television with actual broadcasts from 1990.