Populist Dialogues on Restorative Justice and Social Inequality

Two recent shows focus on the role of restorative justice in healing the harms done by criminals, and on the effects of growing social and economic inequities in the US.

In the first show, David Delk talks with Gina Ronning, of the Insight Development Group and the Pacific Green Party. Gina describes restorative justice and advocates for its use in parallel with our current criminal justice system.

That system, she explains, locks both victim and offender in damaging roles: it separates the victim and the offender, then assumes the interests of the victim, thereby not allowing the victim a seat at the table except as victim. As for the offender, the state never asks that he/she admit fault and responsibility for the harms done.

Restorative justice, on the other hand, seeks to give victims an active role in addressing the harm and encourages the offender to accept his or her responsibility for the results of their actions. As a result, the people involved as both victim and offender are "healed" in the process.

In the second show, host David Delk talks with Kate Lore, Social Justice Minister for the First Unitarian Church in Portland. The detrimental effects of ever increasing economic and social inequalities  in the United States today are expressed through Kate Lore's personal experiences as well as scientific studies. Thoughts on what we do to address these issues are presented.



 If you watch the shows on Populist Dialoges's Youtube channel, be sure to like the shows, leave a comment, and share with friends.  Don't forget you can also rebroadcast these shows on your local cable station. Is there an issue that's key for your community? Check here to see if there's a show that will shed some light on progressive solutions!

Read more...

Public comment period extended on potential Maine water deal; but a public hearing is needed too

Attention Maine residents... Yes, the good news is that the Maine Public Utility Commission has extended the comment period on the proposed new deal between Fryeburg Water Company and Nestlé/Poland Spring. The new deadline is September 24. You can read our previous alert here.

Thanks to everyone who took action to let the PUC know that the public has a right to more time to speak! We are pleased that the Public Advocate’s office called for an extension and give a special shout out to Nisha Swinton with Food and Water Watch who formally petitioned the PUC for an extension.

Now we have to demand a public hearing to force open the door and let the light shine on the backroom deal that the Fryeburg Water Company has struck with Nestlé/Poland Spring.  We know that a public hearing is not a part of the formal record used to decide the case, but neither are decisions made in a vacuum.  The PUC Commissioners need to know that there is widespread objection to this deal.

All three Commissioners have been far too cozy with Nestlé. In our first alert, we called out PUC Chairman Thomas Welch and Commissioner David Littell who both previously worked at Pierce, Atwood which has a long history of representing Nestlé. We should have also mentioned that the third commissioner, Mark Vannoy, worked as an Associate Vice President in the infrastructure and civil practice group at Wright Pierce where he had close associations with Nestlé.

Nestlé has no right to the water for the next 45 years. Fryeburg Water Company has no right to guaranteed profits from selling the spring water to Nestlé.

As a nun once said to a VP of NWNA when we were invited inside after protesting outside,  “Nestlé Water North America….who says the water belongs to you?  It belongs to God.”  Some might say the water belongs to all life.

Water is a fundamental right for people and nature.  Nestlé’s profit should not come before this fundamental right.

ACT TODAY: Call PUC Attorney Matthew Kaply (207) 287-1368 who is in charge of this case. Thank him for the extension and insist on a public hearing.

You can also call or e-mail Karen Geraghty, PUC Administrative Director to whom formal requests are made.  Again, thank her for the extension and insist on a public hearing. Her phone number is  207-287-3831, or email karen.geraghty [at] maine.gov

As before, you can sign in as a registered public user on the PUC website and post specific comments which will go to the staff and Commissioners. http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/online/index.shtml   Put in Case No. 2008-00052

The pdf of the filed agreement is here.

Thanks for all you do!
Ruth Caplan and Chris Buchanan
Defending Water for Life in Maine

Read more...

It's been four long years, but we're almost there: the not-so-short history of AB 685, the Human Right to Water Act

This past week, the California Assembly passed AB 685, the Human Right to Water Act. Now we're just a signature away from ensuring law and policy that will bring safe, affordable water to all Californians.

What's the story behind the Human Right to Water Act? Getting this far has meant building a strong grassroots coalition with much community and member support. We hope that the history of this legislation inspires other water democracy and environmental justice activists to get going on their own version of AB 685.

AB 1242, the first Human Right to Water policy bill, was part a “water bill package” introduced in early 2009. After AB 1242 made it through all Assembly and Senate Committee hearings with some amendments and was passed by the Assembly 53-24 and the Senate 23-14, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Schwarzenegger, however, did sign some of the other more “narrowly focused” bills in this 2009 package.

After this, the Safe Water Alliance, a coalition of faith-based, tribal, environmental, health, public-policy and community advocacy groups, including Alliance for Democracy, was formed and in February 2011 introduced AB 685, the Human Right to Water, as part of an ambitious six-bill package of to ensure clean drinking water for all Californians. In early spring, Catarina de Albuquerque, the United Nations Independent Expert on the human right to water made a fact-finding mission to the United States. In California she visited several Central Valley, CA communities in an area where for too many years residents have suffered the financial and health impacts of unsafe water at home and/or in schools.

In 2001, with Governor Brown in office, there was stronger opposition to AB 685 since it was anticipated he might sign this bill. The oppositions’ demands for amendments seemed meant to stop the bill and discourage the bill’s author Assembly Member Eng and Safe Water Alliance members. When it did not, and the bill made it through the Assembly in June, 2011 by 52-24, it was finally stopped by the last Senate Committee, Senate Appropriations that put the bill on the “suspense file” where bills are sent to die.

However, Governor Brown did sign several of the narrowly focused bills in the package, at the signing saying: "The bills I have signed today will help ensure that every Californian has access to clean and safe sources of water. Protecting the water we drink is an absolutely crucial duty of state government."

Meanwhile, with the key policy bill, AB 685, stuck in the Senate Appropriations Committee, members of the Safe Water Alliance met to formulate and implement a strong “inside the capitol” and “outside grassroots” strategy to get the bill to the Governor’s desk. This necessitated taking amendments to clarify this was a broad policy bill to direct State Agencies and Departments when making decisions about water policy to consider the impact on the human right to health and that doing so would not impose a fiscal liability on the state, a point the opposition kept raising.

Finally, at the last minute when the fate of all bills has to be decided, on August 16, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 5-2 to send the bill to the Senate Floor. It was one of only 5 out of more than 200 bills that this Committee voted out and on August 23 it passed by 22-16. Because the bill was amended in the Senate, it has to go back to the Assembly for “concurrence.” On the morning of August 29, it passed by only 42 votes, 41 need for a majority…very close, but “every drop counts.” But by close of session that day, it had gained enough votes to pass 51-28.

Defending Water for Life organizers Nancy Price and Ruth Caplan thank all the Alliance's Californian members and supporters who responded to our action alerts over the years. Taking action is what turns our education into on-the-ground victory as we build the movement for the Human Right to Water and community rights in California. Watch for the launch of our new our website, focusing on California water issues, soon!

Read more...

Populist Dialogues focuses on energy and environment, plus more resources for the September 22 Global Frackdown

Alliance for Democracy's Portland chapter produces the interview show "Populist Dialogues," hosted by AfD co-chair David Delk, and featuring activists, writers, and educators on an incredible variety of policy topics.

Here are a few of the shows they've done in the past year on energy and environment. If you're thinking of actions that can continue past the Global Frackdown, why not share these with your city through your community cable television station? They're available for rebroadcast free through PEGMedia, or you can request dvds to share at meetings by contacting the Alliance for Democracy office.

There are more video and print resources on fracking at the end of this post, so keep scrolling down!

Solutions to Jobs/Climate Crisis
David Delk interviews Dave King, Portland Jobs with Justice, and Ted Gleichman with Oregon Sierra Club LNG subcommittee on the dual problems of the jobs crisis and the climate crisis. Looks at how the solution to one should be the solution to the other and what some of those solutions are. First broadcast June 3, 2012




There's a coal train comin'! 
David interviews Laura Stevens of the Sierra Clubs campaign to stop using coal and opposing the building of coal export terminals in Oregon and Washington. First broadcast May 13, 2012


Community Based, Rights Based Organizing
Paul Cienfuegos, founder of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County in California, says that we need to cease being stuck in single issue campaigns and look at how we challenge corporate power. Democratically-instituted rights-based ordinances have challenged the corporate "right" to pollute or extract resources in Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Here's how they work. First broadcast 1-1-12

 


How do Feed-In Tariff work to rapidly jump start production of renewable energy and produce good paying jobs?


David talks with Judy Barnes, co-founder of Oregonian for Renewable Energy Policy, on the use of Feed-In Tariffs to address the global climate crisis by quickly jump starting the production of renewable energy sources and good paying green jobs at the same time. First broadcast on 5-22-11




And from other groups, elsewhere online: 
In this “Viewpoint” web exclusive, Josh Fox, environmental activist and director of “Gasland,” talks about fracking and his new “emergency film,” The Sky is Pink about the impact of fracking on NY state, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo is considering allowing fracking in just a few counties.

 “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction” by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA, is an excellent source for detailed information, charts and maps on the threat of natural gas fracking to our fresh water resources and health.

“Scientists Tell Senate Panel: Climate Change Is Here and Disaster Costs Will Be Huge”

 “Common Sense: Banning Fracking at the Local Level” Go to the Fracking Action Center for:  “How Much Do You Know About Fracking?,” “Why Ban Fracking?,” “Hazards to Drinking Water Aren’t the Only Reasons,” “Ready to Ban Fracking?,” “Your Efforts to Grow the Movement are WORKING,” and much more.

Read more...

Defending Water in Maine takes on the proposed East-West Corridor

The Defending Water in Maine campaign will be holding several East-West Corridor informational events across the state during July and August. The latest list is here on the campaign website, along with the first of a two-part video report on the planned super-corridor.

In May, a full house packed the Foxcroft Academy auditorium in Dover-Foxcroft to hear Peter Vigue, CEO of Cianbro, a construction company that stands to make millions off the supercorridor, which would consist of a private toll road for tractor-trailer trucks, as well as pipelines and power lines. Many of the 1000 people at the hearing wore hunter orange hats or shirts to protest the project.

Opposition to the project has come from farmers, hunters, environmentalists, and local landowners. Chris Buchanan, of Defending Water in Maine who also coordinates the state wide coalition, points out that constructing the highway opens the door to more extractive industry: “If it was built, it would open up areas of Maine that are currently very difficult to get to for companies like Nestlé to mine for water and sell it on the global market.”

 

Read more...

Anti-corporate crafting: a strong message on a cool medium!

Here's what the back of the shirt looks like!

Admit it. You've always wanted one of those t-shirts that say:

Slavery is the Legal Fiction that a Person is Property

__

Corporate Personhood is the Legal Fiction that Property is a Person

Well, now it can be yours, with a little work, a plain light-colored shirt (or tote bag or banner), and a couple of those iron-on transfer sheets that you can run through your printer at home. Just print out these two pdf files, t-shirt front, and t-shirt back for an Alliance for Democracy shirt. In order to transfer "right-side-to" onto a t-shirt, you'll have to print these two mirror-image files of the final artwork and slogan.

You can find the transfers online, or at local craft or office supply stores. Use an ink-jet printer to print, and a regular iron to transfer to your fabric. The transfer sheets also come with good instructions.

To get a better idea of the artwork or to print out "right-side-to" files for a poster, use these files: the famous quote by Bill Meyers, in the public domain, and the famous cartoon by Matt Wuerker, which was drawn and given by the artist to the original Women's International League for Peace and Freedom campaign to "Challenge Corporate Power--Assert the People's Rights" in 2001.  Thanks to Jan Edwards for updating this classic for the current campaign against corporate personhood, and thanks to you in advance for using a fair-trade or union-made shirt as you stay cool this summer and show your support for human persons. 

Read more...

Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 12: Congress to vote on FTAs

It's time to make one more call. Jobs and justice are on the line!

If you have not spoken out against these trade agreements, now must be the time. If you have called, speak out again. Please contact your senators and representative at 1-800-718-1008 and tell them NO Colombia, Panama, or South Korean FTAs.

These three undemocratic and job-killing free trade agreements will be voted on tomorrow by Congress.

We've sent out several alerts as these agreements have worked their way closer to a vote, and we thank you for speaking out against them.

All of these FTAs allow corporate attacks on democratic laws, and will result in the loss of US jobs and the further abuse of communities overseas. And each of the three agreements undermines the democratic process and the common wealth in its own way, whether it's the Panama FTA making it tougher for our government to go after money launderers and tax evaders, to the South Korea FTA creating trade protections for sweatshop-made goods in other countries, to the Colombia FTA "rewarding" those in power for their poor protection of labor rights. For more background information, see these posts on our blog.

Congress needs to hear that the big-budget corporate backers behind these agreements, like the US Chamber of Commerce, don't speak for the majority of Americans. Call Congress at 1-800-718-1008 and demand fair trade policies that promote workplace rights, environmental justice, and democratic governance, create good jobs, and build sustainable local economies. Thank you.

Read more...

Panel at Netroots Nation considers corporate power in elections post Citizens United

This year's Netroots Nation, featured a panel discussion on energizing voters and activists to take on issues surrounding election funding, corporate power, and how to challenge the influence of big money on public interest-based governance. "After Citizens United: Combating Corporate Power in Elections" featured Jay Harris introducing the sponsoring groups, as well as John Nichols, Laura Flanders, Amanda Terkel and Leo Gerard. Netroots Nation organizers are posting panel discussion videos online; we'll keep an eye on the site and link to the video when it's available--from reports, it was a very popular and energizing discussion.

Netroots Nation also saw the launch of the United for the People web portal, a site with links to lots of groups working on issues surrounding corporate personhood, political bribery, democratic governance, and your political participation. The portal is a project of People for the American Way. Check out all the sites and get active!


Finally, here's some good good words by blogger April Lukes-Streich, an activist working in the banking industry in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She writes for ethecofem on gender, class issues, and local politics. In the excerpt below, the emphasis is ours.

The third session was After Citizens United: Combating Corporate Power in Elections. Like many of the panels I attended, money was a central focus of the discussion. The solution offered by the panelists here was, perhaps surprisingly, a constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood. Many people think that such an amendment would never pass, as it’s been quite some time since we’ve amended the Constitution; on the other hand, the support is behind the spirit of the amendment. It was mentioned that we often perceive the fact that there are so many grassroots, progressive non-profits that are working toward the same thing as an indication of factions within the progressive movement; this is not necessarily true. On the contrary, these groups are fighting for the same end goal and are mobilizing their communities. As is another frequent theme of Netroots this year, starting small and coming together to effect real, nationwide change is key to progressive victory. Simple measures work best, as Laura Flanders of GritTV noted: contact local media, local candidates who they are accepting donations from, be present at as many open forums and townhall meetings as you can manage. We can make a difference if we’re willing to be persistent.

Read more...

July 4: Declare your independence from corporate rule

As a member of the Move to Amend coalition, we're passing on this alert and we strongly urge our members and supporters to get out and organize actions for Independence Day. And, of course, let us know what you're planning and we'll help publicize it--and send us pictures afterwards!

Join Move to Amend this 4th of July as we Declare Our Independence from Corporate Rule in communities across the nation! Let's educate our fellow citizens about the corporate threat to our democracy, and get them engaged in the movement to take back our country!

View yesterday's Take Action Webinar for details and tips to organize the creative ideas listed below, and more! Need some  inspiration for what to do? How about... an I Miss Democracy pageant, complete with swimsuits, tiaras and sashes, and a talent competition showcasing all the things that corporate persons are really good at. Or pick another way to be visible--and don't be afraid to be as outrageous as the idea that corporations have the same kind of constitutional rights as human beings!

• Dress as corporate judges and corporate "persons" and dance and sing about the takeover of our democracy in your local 4th of July parade
• Host a Corporate Personhood picnic
• Stage a human-corporate mock wedding
• Organize a birthday party for Democracy. Read this "Declaration of Independence from Corporate Rule".

And more!

Find tips and ideas for these events and more on our website... or invent your own creative ways to educate your community about Corporate Personhood and the Move to Amend campaign.

Don't have a Move to Amend affiliate group in your community yet? Start one up! The 4th of July is a great time to spread the word and expand the movement.

Help us collect signatures and grow the number of local Move to Amend groups across the country. Americans of all political persuasions are fed up! Let's offer them an opportunity to join our cause.

Yours for democracy,
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap
Move to Amend Executive Committee & Field Organizing Coordinator

Read more...

Fixing democracy: the newsbeat

● Alan Simpson, a Republican who represented Wyoming in the US Senate for almost 20 years and is now co-chair of Americans for Campaign Reform, explains why the GOP should get behind publicly funded campaigns: "Even a cursory glance at campaign finance disclosures shows that the lion’s share of campaign money comes from individuals and groups with vested tax-and-spending interests before Congress."

● Shareholder meetings provide a spotlight for those who have been victimized by corporate practice to confront boards of directors, as foreclosure victims did to Wells Fargo last week. And this year in particular, more shareholder proposals ask boards of directors to report on corporate spending and contributions. In fact, according to ProxyMonitor's Findings page report that among Fortune 100 companies, “the share of social policy proposals focusing on political spending has increased 84% in 2011 from the three previous years (2008-2010)” One of the most ambitious proposals will be heard at Home Depot's stockholder meeting on June 2, where a vote will consider asking the corporation to submit political expenditures to a shareholder advisory vote.

● The coalition Campaign Accountability Watch is asking US attorneys to prosecute outside groups for using nonprofits to take anonymous donations in what it says is a violation of election laws that require transparency. Forty US attorneys have received letters from the coalition.

● Nevada's secretary of state is seeking to beef up that state's campaign finance laws, including passage of a bill that would require earlier and on-line filing of campaign contributions, to allow voters to see who or what was funding a candidate's campaign before election day. Other reforms include restriction of creation of multiple PACs to get around donation limits, online voter registration, a "cooling off" period between lawmaking and lobbying gigs, and disclosure of entities or individuals spending more than $100 for or against a candidate.

Read more...

It's not a bribe, it's a contribution!

by Rachel Slajda. Posted on Talking Points Memo, November 24

A casino owner indicted on charges of bribery and honest services fraud is trying to get 11 of his 33 counts thrown out, arguing that campaign contributions don't count as bribery.

Federal prosecutors say that Milton McGregor, a businessman with controlling stakes in two Alabama casinos, hired lobbyists to bribe state politicians into supporting electronic gambling legislation. A fellow businessman, the lobbyists and four state legislators were also indicted in the sweep.

Prosecutors say McGregor and his alleged co-conspirators promised $100,000 in campaign contributions to one state senator and $2 million to another.

So McGregor filed a motion to dismiss 11 charges of defrauding voters of honest services, arguing that "'Honest Services' bribery does not include campaign contributions." He also argues that direct personal payments don't constitute bribes unless tied to a specific action.

His lawyers argued that their point is proved by the recent Skilling Supreme Court case, which dramatically narrowed the definition of honest services fraud and has the potential to reverse convictions in countless corruption cases. Defendants had for years complained that the definition of such fraud, "to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services," was too vague.

In Skilling, a case brought by former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling, the court ruled that prosecutors must prove that a defendant has committed "bribery or kickbacks," the so-called "core" of honest services. In other words, they had to prove a quid pro quo.

Prosecutors in the McGregor case disagreed with his lawyers, writing a scathing brief this week calling them flat-out "wrong" about Skilling, arguing that McGregor's alleged promises of campaign cash for certain votes falls well within the honest services core.

The case is being tried in federal district court in Alabama. A judge has not yet ruled on McGregor's motion.

Read more...

Statements from October 20: Bill McKibben

Climate activist and author Bill McKibben sent this congratulatory statement to mark the Monahan brothers arrival in DC. McKibben was arrested with Granny D and the other 32 members of the 4th AfD John Muir Democracy Brigade of April 21, 2000. The Brigade members entered The Rotunda of the Capitol and read statements calling for an end to endangerment of the earth by the oil, coal and nuclear industries.

The Monahan Brothers are walking in giant footsteps! Good for them for carrying on the work of my old friend Granny D—this witness has never been more necessary, as we face an election awash in corporate cash, and a country literally being sold down the river. Across America people are repulsed by this spectacle, but we need leaders to remind us what united citizens (as opposed to Citizens United) really looks like!

Read more...

Amend the Constitution to end corporate personhood

"Proud, patriotic and pissed-off American citizen" David Cobb talks about corporate personhood and the need for a constitutional amendment to abolish it. David is a former Green Party USA presidential candidate and a member of the steering and executive committees of Move to Amend. This is part 1 of a talk he gave in Florida recently, sponsored by the Green Party of Florida and Progressive Democrats of America. More of the talk is available at the DUHC (Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County) website.

Read more...

Pittsburgh's City Council to consider a ban on drilling for natural gas in the city

At a City Hall press conference today, Councilman Doug Shields announced he will introduce a bill that would ban corporations from drilling for gas in the city of Pittsburgh. He said he will introduce the ordinance following Council's current recess.

At the heart of "Pittsburgh's Community Protection from Natural Gas Extraction Ordinance" is this statement of law: It shall be unlawful for any corporation to engage in the extraction of natural gas within the City of Pittsburgh.

Also included in the ordinance is a local "bill of rights" that asserts legal protections for the right to water, the rights of natural communities, the right to local self-government, and the right of the people to enforce and protect these rights through their municipal government.

The bill was drafted by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund at the invitation of Council members.

Commenting on his legislative proposal, Shields stated, "Many people think that this is only about gas drilling. It's not - it's about our authority as a municipal community to say "no" to corporations that will cause damage to our community. It's about our right to community, local self-government."

Shields urged all municipalities in the Commonwealth to enact similar laws "to send a message to Harrisburg," and he insisted that a temporary moratorium "will not be an acceptable consolation prize for a failure of the State to recognize this local law and these fundamental rights."

Energy corporations are setting up shop in communities throughout Pennsylvania, with plans to drill for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation. The frenzy of industrial gas extraction that once appeared to be confined to rural communities and state forest lands has taken residents of the city by surprise. Corporate "land men" have busily signed-up Pittsburgh property owners to contracts allowing wells to be erected on private property throughout the city. The prospect of paved-over green spaces, nights lit like airport runways, round-the-clock sounds of loud machinery, broken and pitted roads from the high volume truck traffic, and the threat of toxic trespass by a cocktail of patented chemicals and escaping methane into the ground water, has alarmed neighbors of lease-holders, and they've begun to organize in opposition to the proposed drilling.

Ben Price, Projects Director for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, said he applauds the Council member for taking a stand on behalf of community rights. "Some will say it's controversial, or that the city doesn't have the authority to ban gas drilling. The only way that's true is if the State has the authority to strip the residents of the city of their rights, and it doesn't."

Price commented that "we don't have a gas drilling problem. What we have is a democracy problem. We need to stop treating the environmental symptoms and cure the societal disease that's brought fracking to our doorstep. The State says we don't have the right to decide whether or not we get fracked and that only the corporate-lobbied members of the General Assembly have the wisdom to decide how much harm should be legalized through state-issued permits. There's something sick about that kind of thinking. If we cure the systemic anti-democratic disorder manifested by our state's refusal to recognize the right to local, community self-government, gas drilling without consent of the governed will go away."

The gas extraction technique known as "fracking" has been cited as a threat to surface and ground water throughout the region, and has been blamed for fatal explosions, the contamination of drinking water, local streams, the air and soil. Collateral damage includes lost property value, ingestion of toxins by livestock, drying up of mortgage loans for prospective home buyers, and threatened loss of organic certification for farmers in the affected communities.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, located in Chambersburg, has been working with people in Pennsylvania since 1995 to assert their fundamental rights to democratic local self-governance, and to enact laws which end destructive and
rights-denying corporate action aided and abetted by state and federal governments.

Read more...

The choice? Amendment or corporate rule!

While the mainstream media didn't pay a heck of a lot of attention to the US Social Forum, alternative media were there, writing, audio and videotaping. Kevin Gosztola of OpEd news did this interview with David Cobb, speaking on behalf of Move to Amend and the need to strip corporations of their illegitimate claims to be "persons" with constitutional rights continues to grow.

Did you sign the organizing petition? Did you forward it to family and friends? The corporate media is not going to cover us until we are so large and loud that they can't ignore us, so please help us make that happen.

Read more...

From the floor show for the casino economy?

No, from a collaboration between NPR's Planet Money, This American Life, and a team of investigative journalists from ProPublica, who exposed some of the conflicts of interest that created the financial collapse -- and cost the public a huge amount of money and millions of people their jobs -- in "Inside Job." Listen at the link. Not unexpectedly, the journalists found that many on Wall Street anticipated the collapse and set the public up for it for the fees, bonuses and other gains they reaped.

Bet Against The American Dream from Planet Money on Vimeo.

Read more...

Back and forth on the art of the possible in health care legislation

Grassroots activism, most compellingly by doctors, nurses, and patients, nudged single payer into the public eye in 2009 and, at times, into Congress, although there was never a debate or vote on the single payer bill, HR 676, or the Weiner and Sanders amendments that would have substituted single payer programs for the House and Senate bills. In 2010, the underwhelming end result of a year of citizen activism and government dealmaking has progressives dismayed about the pending legislation, and their criticisms are, in turn, getting some attention from mainstream media.

Much of the mainstream commentary urges the left to stop whining. Some compare health care reform to social security, which itself started small, with delays in implementation and major exemptions. Of course, there was never a private "social security industry" out to protect its interests against the expansion of a popular and vital public program. On yesterday's edition of Democracy Now!, writer and surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande defended Massachusetts' program of individual mandates with subsidies, and said that the current reform bill could, in time, lead to a single payer system. But will a future committed movement to "reform health care reform" be able to make headway against the same corporate interests who limited the scope of legislation in this go round?

Hendrik Hertzberg blames breakdowns in the legislative process, particularly in the Senate, and says progressive anger at Democrats is misdirected. In reply, Firedoglake's Marcy Wheeler points out that progressives' criticisms have been well-directed at deserved Democratic party targets, and for specific reasons.

The lack of a real conference committee is another criticism well-directed, since important changes to the bill, including empowering states to institute their own single payer systems if they choose, were hopefully going to be addressed there. And, as C-SPAN argues, negotiations, whatever form they take, need to proceed on camera. Otherwise, who runs the show? A select number of legislators (working for a not-so-select coterie of lobbyists and industries), who, as John Nichols writes, "are already thinking--make that, already worrying--about the fall and who have set themselves up as conduits for campaign cash."

Finally, there is growing concern on the right and the left as to whether an individual mandate sets a dangerous precedent--kicking privatization up a notch by requiring citizens to buy into the services of private corporations.

Critics of health care reform are not just sniping at a party or a person who didn't live up to the campaign hype. The state of the final health care bill and the path it took points up some serious systemic flaws in our governance and in the way we allow corporate interests to influence legislation and legislators. Despite hyperbole in the comments sections of some blogs, these criticisms point to the need for ongoing work not only on health care, but also governance, campaign finance, and corporate personhood. The challenge for activists in 2010 and beyond is to organize in a way that recognizes we are dealing with politics and the "art of the [incremental] possible", but continues to advance on all these issues as part of a badly-needed system-wide fix.

Read more...

Socialism, capitalism, or what?

Is an individual mandate taxation without representation? In a New Year's Day interview on MSNBC, Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, described the individual mandate as "worse than a tax," adding the understatement that both right and left are "finding that our politicians in Washington DC are much too responsive to what the corporations want these days."



Hamsher points out that the individual mandate is a legally required 8% income turnover to private corporations--entities over which the public has no control. Where any of that 8% winds up is up to the discretion of the corporation to which it is paid. (She didn't go into detail, but think about it--some might, for instance, be used for lobbying Congress to eliminate pesky regulations on providing or expanding patient care. Some might be used, depending on the Citizens United v. FEC outcome, to buoy independent campaigns promoting candidates friendly to the needs of insurance companies.)

"That's not capitalism, it's not socialism," says Hamsher. "It's socializing the loss and privatizing the profits."

We saw the same thing with the bank bailout--a government forced to prop up but unable to reform corporations and a greedy elite gone off the rails. So if it's not socialism, or capitalism, what's left? Corporism is a good start, if we don't want to go all the way and quote Franklin D. Roosevelt: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group.”

Hyperbole and history have made fascism a kind of political "that which must not be named." At a recent conference in Boston, keynoted Frances Moore Lappe said that she feels uncomfortable using "the 'f-word'" without also citing Roosevelt's definition. But regardless of what we call it, we need to start naming it out loud, now, before we all become so used to the withering away of democratically determined public purpose that using government to ensure private, short-term gain for a few becomes not an outrage, but the norm, accepted with cynicism and resignation.

Read more...

What is corporate personhood?

What is corporate personhood and why is it so important whether institutions have personhood rights? Here's an excerpt from "The Santa Clara Blues: Corporate Personhood versus Democracy" by William Meyers, that lays out the history and the issues at stake. Follow the link to read the complete article.

In the United States of America all natural persons (actual human beings) are recognized as having inalienable rights. These rights are recognized, among other places, in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

Corporate personhood is the idea (legal fiction, currently with force of law) that corporations have inalienable rights (sometimes called constitutional rights) just like real, natural, human persons.

That this idea has the force of law both resulted from the power and wealth of the class of people who owned corporations, and resulted in their even greater power and wealth. Corporate constitutional rights effectively invert the relationship between the government and the corporations. Recognized as persons, corporations lose much of their status as subjects of the government. Although artificial creations of their owners and the governments, as legal persons they have a degree of immunity to government supervision. Endowed with the court-recognized right to influence both elections and the law-making process, corporations now dominate not just the U. S. economy, but the government itself.

Read the entire article here.

Read more...

EPA attorneys critical of cap-and-trade are asked by the agency to keep objections private

Two EPA attorneys who publicly criticized "cap-and-trade" as "fatally flawed" in both a YouTube video and a Washington Post op-ed have been told by the agency to remove or edit their video, entitled "The Huge Mistake."

EPA also said that the attorneys, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, would have to get prior approval for any outside writing projects they did.

Williams and Zabel say the solution to controlling carbon emissions is a system of fees and rebates, and that a cap-and-trade scheme, as written in the bill currently under consideration, locks us into our current pattern of climate degradation for approximately twenty years. They recently appeared on Democracy Now! to discuss their experiences with EPA and their views on climate change policy. The video is below.

Read more...