Friday, September 6, 2019
Over 120 Groups Call on Congress to Back Constitutional Amendment Overturning Citizens United
"America needs to be
responsive to the people, not to corporations and special interests, or it is
no longer a democratic republic."
More than 120 organizations on
Thursday urged members of the U.S. House to support a constitutional amendment
that aims to reverse the damage done to American democracy by Citizens United,
the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that effectively enabled corporations to spend
unlimited amounts of money to influence political elections.
Major civil rights,
environmental, labor, LGBTQ, and good government groups sent a letter (pdf)
to lawmakers, which coincided with a national call-in day for constituents to
pressure their representatives in Congress support the measure.
The letter to House members
says, "We are writing to urge you to cosponsor H.J.Res. 2, the bipartisan
Democracy For All Amendment, which would restore the authority of Congress and
the states to set commonsense rules for the raising and spending of money on
elections to advance political equality for all Americans."
Constitutional amendments
should only be pursued "in the rarest of circumstances," the letter
continues—but the high court's widely opposed 2010 ruling in Citizens
United and related moves "have pushed America to a tipping point in
which big-moneyed interests exert control over all levers of government."
"If the wealthy
individuals and concentrations of capital can drown out the voices of ordinary
Americans in elections, we cease to be a representative democracy,"
declares the letter. "America needs to be responsive to the people, not to
corporations and special interests, or it is no longer a democratic
republic."
Highlighting the significant
public opposition to the Citizens United decision, supporters of the
letter promoted the call-in campaign on social media with the hashtags #CitizensUnited, #28thAmendment,
and #DemocracyForAll:
Introduced in
January by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), the amendment is co-sponsored by 138 other
members of the House. All but one, Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), are Democrats. The
measure was introduced in
the upper chamber by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) in July and is backed by the other
46 senators who caucus with the Democrats.
"Thanks to Citizens
United and other disastrous court decisions, our electoral system—and as a
result, our democracy—have reached a crisis point," Udall said in
July. "Ever since the Supreme Court ruled to open the floodgates for
unlimited corporate spending in our elections, secret special interest money
has poured in—and drowned out the voices of the American people."
"Now, citizens are losing
faith in our institutions because they have every reason to believe that their
government no longer answers to them," he added. "It's time to
restore the power of the American people to regulate the out-of-control, secret
spending in our elections, and make sure that our elections aren’t put up for
sale to the highest bidder."
Ethics of Drive?
“Sociopathic societies”
September 5, 2019
from Ken Zimmerman
Greed is a personality
disorder. While it is sometimes correct that without greed humans would still
be living in caves, it is also correct that left unchecked, the insatiable
desire for more and better material things can be destructive. These are the warning
signs of uncontrolled greed.
The first sign of the greed
syndrome is overly self-centered behavior. Greedy people are always saying “me,
me, me” with very little regard for the needs and feelings of others. Envy and
greed are like twins. While greed is a strong desire for more and more
possessions (such as wealth and power), envy goes one step further as a strong
desire by greedy people for the possessions of others.
Greedy people lack empathy.
Caring—being concerned about the feelings of others—is not part of their way of
life. As such, they have little qualms about causing pain to others. Their
inability to empathize, their lack of genuine interest in the ideas and
feelings of others, and their unwillingness to take personal responsibility for
their behavior and actions makes interaction with them very difficult.
Greedy people are never
satisfied. They look at the world as a zero-sum game. Instead of thinking that
everyone would benefit as the pie gets larger, they view the pie as a constant
and want the largest piece. They truly believe that they deserve more, even if
it comes at someone else’s expense.
Greedy people are experts in
manipulation. They are skilled in taking credit for work done by others. When
the occasion requires, they can be charming, but their main scheme is to have
people around them who feed their ego.
Greedy people are always in
the short run; they are focused on gratifying their immediate needs and leave
it to others to cope with the consequences. To illustrate, as leaders of
corporations, they are more interested in getting their bonuses, instead of making
investments for future innovation, or to share whatever benefits accrued with
their employees.
In the pursuit of their
material needs, they know no limits. Greedy people are not good at maintaining
boundaries. They will compromise moral values and ethics to achieve their
goals. They look for loopholes or clever ways to outsmart the rules and
regulations that have been put into place to moderate this kind of behavior.
A society where such actions
and beliefs are common is sociopathic. Americans might not recognize the term
“sociopathic society,” but today they are staring it in the face. After every
mass shooting, every cut in vital services, every sabotage of democracy, people
were afraid, rightly, for their children and themselves. Our current crisis involves
far more than military-style gun massacres and an armed, angry population. It
reflects an economy, politics, and culture that are a fertile foundation for a
sociopathic society. It’s my view that the United States, with a long history
of sociopathic institutions and practices, is now evolving toward a full-blown
sociopathic society.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Sanders Shines and Biden Crumbles During Epic Town Hall on Climate Crisis
BY
PUBLISHED
September 5, 2019
Adding climate change to
school curriculums. Geoengineering.
Thorium fuel reactors. A Blue New Deal. The Syrian war was a
climate war. Climate distress included in asylum petitions. Food deserts.
Climate denial is a literal sin. “Democracy” is a verb.
For the first time in the
history of the country, these topics and others like them were discussed in
detail by presidential candidates on live television, and all with the words “Climate
Crisis” in huge letters above them on the stage and flashed in chyrons
across the screen. Underscoring the gravity of the topic were constant updates
on the ruinous progress of Hurricane Dorian, which reclaimed Category 3 status
as it clawed its way toward landfall once again.
“Be careful what you wish for”
was the first thing to cross my mind when I heard about CNN’s plans for a
climate-related town hall involving the top 10 Democratic presidential
candidates. I’ve been howling about
the short shrift the climate crisis has gotten since the debates began, and
gadzooks, was this ever an answer to that complaint.
Bottom of Form
For the record: Climate
activists got this done, in the face of incomprehensible resistance from the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), which resoundingly
rejected a proposal for a climate-only debate late last month. “I’m so
proud of and grateful for the climate activist community,” Michelle Deatrick,
representative to the DNC Women’s Caucus and co-sponsor of the defeated climate
debate proposal, told Truthout, “which fought for a climate debate and
succeeded in getting us this town hall.”
Ten candidates were given 40
clean minutes each to answer pointed, detailed, climate-specific questions over
the course of seven hours. A cynic (or a Trump fan) might argue this was
unwatchable overkill; who is going to sit through such a marathon?
I did, and I was glad to do
it. I imagine many of the viewers who tuned in opted to dip in and out of the broadcast
throughout the night, and though they may have missed the totality of the
event, whatever parts they saw were generally uniform in content.
Virtually every candidate
described climate change as an “existential crisis” that needs to be addressed
immediately, and whatever parts people missed will be clipped and shared on
social media for weeks to come. Everything they said is out there now, and will
be for the rest of the race.
It’s about damn time.
The overarching message rang
loud and clear, and refreshingly, the format did not involve the candidates
attacking or interrupting each other. Cory
Booker even praised his rivals for their insight and attention to the
issue he described as the lens through which we must view everything else.
There was unified
consensus on the pressing nature of the crisis, with enough nuance
within the proffered policies to provide clear differentiation between 10
people running for the same nomination. Any damage done was self-inflicted (looking
at you, Joe Biden), which was the best possible outcome for a party seeking
unity around the belief that defeating Donald Trump must come first.
By far and away, Bernie
Sanders owned the event. His forceful yet understated advocacy for
policies he has championed over the entire course of his life in public service
placed him in a different category than even Elizabeth
Warren or Cory Booker, who also comported themselves well. Warren and
Booker’s grasp of the details, along with their enthusiasm in imparting them,
set them apart from the crowd, but this was Sanders’s home turf, and it showed.
Sanders brought specificity to
how he would pay for the $16 trillion price tag on his climate plan. More than
that, he was honest about what this crisis will require of us all. “There will
be a transition, and there will be some pain,” he said. “We are going to have
to ask people to make those changes now, even though they may be uncomfortable,
for the sake of future generations.”
This was needed medicine on a
night when many of the candidates — Andrew
Yang, Amy
Klobuchar, Pete
Buttigieg, Beto
O’Rourke and even Warren —
preached the gospel of the market as a cure-all: We can only address climate
change if someone can make money doing it.
Corporations, corporations,
corporations went the drumbeat of blame from the candidates; but corporations,
after all, are but a symptom of the disease, and only Sanders was bold enough
to suggest that the voracious nature of U.S.-style capitalism must
first be confronted if true climate reform is to be undertaken: “We
are going to have to change the nature of many of the things we are doing right
now,” he said. The meaning behind his words was unmistakable.
The evening saw its fair share
of clunkers, to be sure. Amy Klobuchar spent a sizeable portion of her 40
minutes telling the audience what can’t be done while reminding everyone she
was “being honest.” Kamala
Harris weaved story after story, simultaneously demonstrating her
talent as a politician even as she tap-danced around her faint grasp of the
details. Julian
Castro, like Harris, was engaging personally but ultimately failed to stand
out.
Andrew Yang and his supporters
have complained about
not getting a fair amount of media coverage. Personally, I think he should be
grateful for that; if people had seen more of what Yang had to offer on
Wednesday night, he probably wouldn’t have made the cut. “The Earth is likely
getting warmer around us,” he said at one point. Likely? Yang laughed
his way through much of his time, and though he landed some good zingers — “You
know what’s expensive? Poisoning our kids!” — his oft-professed belief in the
market as a solution to climate disruption was disqualifying.
And then there was Biden.
Picture in your mind a plane crash on top of a train wreck in the middle of an
earthquake after an attack by Godzilla, and you’ll still fall short of fully
encompassing what the former vice president did to himself on Wednesday night.
The story of the night was
Biden’s defenestration at
the hands of a young man who asked why Biden was set to attend a big-dollar
fundraiser co-hosted by a fossil fuel executive, despite his pledge
not to accept fossil fuel campaign money. “I didn’t know he did that,” Biden
exclaimed, which was a curious statement: The
executive in question, Andrew Goldman, was the northeast director of
finance for Biden’s doomed 2008 presidential campaign. Biden’s feigned (or
actual) ignorance about the company he was set to keep the very next night
was as
hollow as it was humiliating.
Had that been the extent of
the damage, it would have been a mercy, but it was not. Biden did not need nine
other candidates to interrupt him, because he interrupted himself time and
again as he staggered through a series of fathomless half-statements that
exposed his gossamer grasp of the subject matter. Biden’s prattle about “safe
fracking” rang about as true as “clean coal.” Topping it all off was his left
eye, which visibly filled with blood halfway through his allotted time. I
suppose it could have been worse, but I’m not quite sure how.
With the glaring
exception of Biden, all the candidates had their moments to shine. “It’s
happening right now,” said Klobuchar of climate change. “It’s happening today.”
O’Rourke’s suggestion that climate distress be added to the list of reasons why
migrants can petition for amnesty, which he pointedly offered in the context of
the Dorian catastrophe suffered by the Bahamas, brought a welcome dollop of
humanity to an immigration debate that has been deeply stained by cruelty and
racism.
Among the many themes that
stood out on Wednesday night was the shared consensus that climate disruption
is inextricably entwined with racial and economic justice. “Race and
ethnicity is the best predictor of your proximity to a polluter,” said O’Rourke
at one point. Castro, Booker, Warren, Buttigieg, Sanders and Harris eloquently
echoed their versions of this truth.
For all the good done by CNN’s
town hall, the Overton Window of permissible debate was very much on display.
Voters with a keen grasp of the stakes may well have come away from it
rightfully disappointed, either by the candidates’ climate
plans or by their words from that stage.
Wednesday night was not
intended for those voters, I suspect. It was aimed at the
large and growing body of citizens who may not have the minutiae in
hand, yet still feel strongly that climate disruption is as much a here-and-now
issue as the economy and health care.
Climate
change voters are now numerous enough to compel a major news network
to devote seven solid hours of broadcast time to a single topic, and that’s not
nothing. Bernie Sanders, as has been his practice since the 2016 presidential
campaign, led the way on Wednesday night.
Everything has a beginning. It
is far too late to “fix” climate disruption, but CNN’s town hall on the
topic may serve as a needed catalyst for a mass movement toward mitigating the
damage, or at least toward a general acceptance that it is really happening,
right here, right now. Seven hours was a lot, and not nearly enough, but it’s a
start.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)