03/18/16 – Ramzy Baroud – The Scott Horton Show by Scott | Mar 18, 2016 | Interviews | 2 comments Ramzy Baroud, editor of The Palestine Chronicle, discusses the growing popularity of the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israeli apartheid, despite the efforts of Western governments to criminalize the protest tactics. Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:23 — 10.7MB)Subscribe: Android | RSS 2 Comments Jim on March 21, 2016 at 7:49 pm I was a little taken back by Ramzy’s naivete about who controls the narrative in the media in this country. Americans are hoodwinked because there is a carefully orchestrated network making them so. This doesn’t happen by accident. Otherwise, great interview and thank you Ramzy for all that you do. Michael Freed on March 22, 2016 at 5:42 pm Hi Scott. I already put this in a comment elsewhere, but it applies here, to you & your guest’s point about corporate media versus alt media and the disinfo versus good info available. We need to give every aspect of our corporate-controlled society a kick from which it can’t easily recover. This interview shows that whatever trickle you are having against the tide, it may not be enough. This is no insult to you. Your enemy is simply unstoppable – at least under the present circumstances. So, my idea is to give them a HUGE knockdown. Here’s what I mean. “We must allow corporations to pollute”, so we have been told, because the thinking has been that if we don’t, they will move away and take jobs with them. Really? ALL of the managers and CEOs AND their families will up and move to Canada? Mexico? Or even some third world country just for the privilege to continue polluting because NOT polluting is too far beneath their élite blue-blooded sensibilities to even consider? And this WON’T open the door for some more responsible company to set up business locally? They will all move away? Even the oil and mining companies? How does one frack for oil in Oklahoma or mine in North Dakota without being in Oklahoma or North Dakota exactly? (I’m still trying to wrap my head around that one). So, with that one excuse that it would harm the economy gone, what would the secondary argument be for allowing this to continue? Now that we see that any company that DID leave would simply be replaced by one that followed these new clean-up rules, what other argument could there possibly to justify allowing any more corporate wastes or emissions into the atmosphere? Especially as we know that they have the money to pay for ii, but only spend it elsewhere, http://allaregreen.us/. So, if we were to start a movement strictly against corporate polluting, how could it be stopped?