Citizen, Ink.

10 Steps to Repair American Democracy

This article has an excerpt from Steven Hill's book, 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy. Here's the introduction to the conclusion of Hill's book. Check out the full article at the link below the excerpt:

In 2008, an economic crash of historic proportions shook the world. Without a politics that could rein in the economics, Wall Street honchos turned American banks and the financial system into their personal casinos that had to be bailed out by taxpayers. But that economic collapse was preceded by a long-standing political collapse. The U.S. political system had been captured by wealthy elites who gutted crucial regulations and oversight of the out-of-control financial system, and drained the wealth of the nation into fewer and fewer pockets. Today, American democracy finds itself plagued by out-of-control campaign spending, choiceless elections, paralyzed government, superficial debate, backward voter registration laws, a filibuster-gone-wild U.S. Senate, mindless media, untrustworthy voting equipment, even a partisan Supreme Court. In his new book, 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy: 2102 Election Edition, political reformer Steven Hill outlines a blueprint for renewing the American republic by enacting fundamental political and media reforms. In this excerpt, Hill concludes his book by presenting two alternative futures: a dystopia of post-democracy, if the U.S. continues along the current futile path; or a brighter future if fundamental reform is enacted, rescuing Americans from our nation's downward trajectory.

Read Hill's Conclusion at Truthout.

IAEA Data on Sensitive Iranian Stockpile Misled News Media

Washington, DC - News stories on the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report suggested new reasons to fear that Iran is closer to a “breakout” capability than ever before, citing a nearly 50-percent increase in its stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium and the installation of hundreds of additional centrifuges at the Fordow enrichment installation.

But the supposedly dramatic increase in the stockpile of uranium that could theoretically be used to enrich to weapons grade is based on misleading figures in the Nov. 16 IAEA report. The actual increase in the level of that stockpile appears to be 20 percent.

Read more at truth-out.org

Related links:

IAEA entry at Wikipedia

Enriched uranium entry at Wikipedia

 

Related articles

IAEA Data on Sensitive Iranian Stockpile Mislead News Media

Deficit Predators: Everything You Need to Know About the Twisted, Dangerous Debt Ceiling Fight | | AlterNet

After a week of nauseating news on Congressional ceiling debates, I found an article by James Galbraith to be refreshing, and a good source for comments to my Congressional Reps on the mindless and juvenile behavior that appears to have seized Washington and many of my fellow citizens:

Never mind that to force default on the public obligations of the United States is plainly unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th amendment says in simple language that public debts, once duly authorized by law and including pensions, by the way, “shall not be questioned.” The purpose of this language was to foreclose, to put beyond politics, any possibility that the Union would renege on debts and pensions and bounties incurred to win the Civil War. But the application is very general and the courts have ruled that the principle extends to the present day.

via www.alternet.org

I'm with E.J. Dionne Jr. - New GOP House can't govern with rhetoric alone

It was snowing here in the holler yesterday, but for a few brief moments I had some very warm thoughts toward John Boehner after he took the gavel from Nancy Pelosi. I imagined (or intuited?) his enjoyment and celebration of winning his new position as the 61st Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the pride his family would experience with his achievement.

I don't cleave to conservative ideologies, and I never would have voted for this guy even if I lived in Ohio. I can remember times when I was disappointed that a GOP candidate beat out the person I voted for, but that fact didn't threaten to drop me into a pit of dread. That has not been the case lately. George W's administration marked the end of that, though I must say that I occasionally can wrap my heart around him as well. I think I must have a lot of mirror neurons firing together in my brain's federal government.

As I listened to the Congressional shift yesterday, especially to Boehner, it occured to me that it didn't matter if I'm not from Ohio. When somebody gets to be speaker of the House, they become one of MY Reps, whether I voted for them or even like their politics.

In his remarks, Boehner spoke -- as many on both sides of the aisle have lately -- to the mandate of "the American people" via the last election. Frankly, this phrase uttered by any politician lately induces kind of a primitive growl because a good bit of the time they are claiming  to speak for me -- one of these "American people" -- in a way that sparks zero-resonance with how I really think or feel.

Boehner's rhetoric sounded at least a little inviting, open, friendly to views different than his, and a willingness to work on real solutions to the multiple crises that we face as a nation. But on that point, I'm from Missouri. I need him to show me.

That's why E.J. Dionne's opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday -- New GOP House can't govern with rhetoric alone -- spoke to me in a way that Boehner and many of his Republican and Tea Party colleagues have not:

There is nothing wrong with reading our Constitution as part of the new Congress's debut. It's a good Constitution. But note that conservatives would much prefer to pronounce various liberal initiatives "unconstitutional" - again, in the abstract - than to say whether they are for or against minimum-wage and environmental laws, Medicaid and a slew of other initiatives that never crossed the minds of those who wrote our foundational document. The Founders couldn't conceive of Facebook, either.

A couple of weeks ago I was listening to some of the rhetoric such as Dionne describes, and decided to take a few minutes to think about this phenomenon -- the empty speech more rooted in the realms of what we imagine to be real. I catch myself in it many times a day. We all do it...it's a human being thing. As a species, we are driven by unconscious beliefs and agendas for which we have virtually no awareness -- unless, of course, we have dedicated ourselves to exploring the depths of our humanity to become aware of these forces and learn to transform them.

I ended this contemplative session on two equally scary thoughts: that what's beneath this rhetoric is...nothing, and no one has a clue about how we can get out of the many messes we're in; or, that there is an agenda -- conscious or unconscious -- that no one will disclose. And maybe it's both? Or neither?

Whatever the case, I believe that every citizen will be challenged in the next two years to ferret out the truth and not succumb to fear or escape into conspiracy theory in doing so. I intend to test Mr. Boehner and the House by writing to him when the occasion seems to demand it, and tell him -- as the new Speaker of "our House" and as one who professes to have heard "the American people" -- how this American person sees things.

Boehner -- and all of our Senators and Representatives -- have a core Self, just like I do, just like you do. They get the messages that we, the people, send them at that level of being, even though the response from the smaller self may be to barf back more empty speech. Of course, that also puts it back on us, the American people, to be very clear, conscious, and conscientious about the messages we send.

 

Will the next governor of Tennessee protect our right to clean water?

Over the past few years, Tennessee's rivers and streams have been under assault by a number of folks elected to the state legislature. We had the limited resource waters bill, selenium bill, wet weather conveyance bill (which is now law), just to name a few. What may be even more worrisome is that other bills introduced would essentially have worked to limit the power of the people to have a say in what happens to the streams in their communities. (See examples here, here, here.)

Quite frankly, I'm more than a little worried about the outcome of Tennessee's 2010 gubernatorial race. I've heard from several sources that -- depending on who is elected -- some of the same players who introduced those dangerous water bills could assume even more power to flush what gains have been made toward stronger protection of streams down a capitol toilet.

This summer, the Tennessee Clean Water Network sent out a questionnaire to gubernatorial candidates -- for their trouble they only heard back from one of them:

On July 15, 2010 TCWN released its first gubernatorial questionnaire on water issues.  The questionnaire was sent to the candidates and their response was required by July 26, 2010. Only Michael McWherter returned the questionnaire.  To read the questions and Mr. McWherter's response, click here.

Who were the folks who did not respond? According to the candidates page at the Tennessean, that would be Kyle, McMillain, Gibbons, Haslam, Ramsey and Wamp.

We already have clues about where some of them stand on matters of environmental justice. Wamp's take is scary enough to have inspired me to start this blog. You can read other horror stories about Ramsey and Wamp and other Tennessee politicians at Jeff Woods' great blog, Pith in the Wind.

Well, here's a clue I would offer to all politicians, in Tennessee or elsewhere: if you think we can loosen up on protecting nature, then you don't care about people either. The environment -- water, air, land, plants, animals -- provides the necessary ground and conditions for life upon which human beings build their communities. People and nature are interdependent. If you trash one, you trash the other.

This is a fundamental spiritual principle. This is what environmental justice is all about. I would also point out that this interdependence is not just conceptual. It has a very embodied practical reality that the communities of people who were here in North and South America prior to the arrival of European colonists understand well: nature cannot continue to produce what humankind needs for life without protection of the life of Earth by people.

In a way that perhaps was not even consciously nor fully conceived, the Tennessee Water Quality Act reflects this principle where it states that all citizens of this state have a right to clean water, and then sets out how the state will protect those waters. But in the past few years I've seen significant efforts by legislators, in cahoots with corporate interests, to simultaneously dismantle protection and disempower people so that Tennessee industries can produce, produce, produce at will -- at the expense of both natural and human communities.

As a citizen of Tennessee, I intend to use my vote at every opportunity to keep politicians -- and the corporate interests that have bought them off -- accountable. I hope you will too.

Whereas, I'm totally disgusted with Tennessee House Joint Resolution 1253

and

Whereas, the Tennessee legislature’s HJR 1253 praises Arizona for becoming “the first state to enact a statute that creates a state trespassing violation for unlawful presence;” now, therefore,
 
Be it resolved that I will go through HJR 1253 – whereas by whereas – and list all the evidence I see that this resolution is deceitful, arrogant and exposes the yay-sayers as totally disconnected from historical truth.

This is going to take awhile. Until then – when I come back to name names -- please take a look at this awesome video that dramatizes some core difficulties I have with Arizona’s SB 1070:

ISPs sound ready to sue over FCC's "third way"

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski doesn't see why net neutrality needs to be contentious. His new "third way" approach to the issue, announced yesterday, was meant to be a big tent that could bring in both ISPs and Internet companies like Google, think tanks, and consumer groups. It would be "light touch," merely returning us to the "consensus" that has existed for years about regulating Internet access.

"I call on all stakeholders to work with us productively," he said again today in a YouTube video released by the Commission.

via arstechnica.com

Cathie's notes: Yay! Glad the FCC seems to have seen the light on the broadband issue. This is a social and economic justice issue in addition to any other "issue" classification you might want to stick it with.

In a recent email, Color of Change, one of many organizations advocating a free and open Internet, acknowledged the progressive turn around but asked that folks stay alert:

On Monday, The Washington Post reported that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski was on the verge of declining to reassert the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet.¹ It would have had far-reaching consequences, leaving the FCC unable to protect consumers from the worst broadband industry abuses and unable to do its part to help close the digital divide.

Before Monday's announcement, more than 53,000 of you had sent letters to the FCC demanding a free and open Internet. And when we shared Monday's frightening news, more than 500 of you took the time to call the White House, urging President Obama to fulfill his promise to be "second to no one" in fighting for network neutrality.

When the smoke cleared, your voices made a difference. Genachowski reversed course, announcing on Thursday that the FCC would reassert its authority to enact limited regulation of broadband in order to promote the basic goals of keeping the Internet free and open and promoting universal Internet access.² It's a huge victory for all of us. We should take the time to celebrate our accomplishment, but know that the fight isn't over.

Over the next few months, you can be sure that AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon will turn up the heat, pulling out all the stops to pressure Genachowski to reverse his decision and derail net neutrality.³ It will take all of us speaking out together to stop them. We will do what we can to keep you informed and to give you ways to continue to make a difference.

If you're interested in seeing the FCC's national broadband plan, go here. At the broadband homepage, you can also run a speed test on your broadband connection or download a form to report a broadband "dead zone." I also enjoyed checking out the tech policy news page at ars technica.

It's Time for a Hard Look at Our Criminal Justice System

Among several action alert emails I received today was one from the NAACP asking that I support S 714, the National Criminal Justice Commission Act, introduced last year by Virginia's Senator Jim Webb.

On Tuesday, a House version of the bill (HR 5143) was introduced by Representatives Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Tom Rooney (R-FL), and Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA).

This bill has support from a diverse list of organizations in addition to the NAACP, including the ACLU, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). And for good reason.

The United States has only 5% of the world's population, but incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners (at least those that have been reported). Over the past 30 years, drug-related incarcerations have risen by 1200%, contributing to serious overcrowding of an infrastructure never built to hold that many people.

But the systematic injustice especially reveals itself in the warehousing of people with mental illness without access to effective treatment, failure to consistently help prisoners transition from prison back into society, and the disproportionate incarceration of African-American men and boys compared to other groups of people.

According to the NAACP, these disparities for African-Americans hold true from one end of the judicial process to the other:

Initial contacts with police officers are often driven by racial profiling and other racially tainted practices, and the disparities exist through the sentencing phase:  African Americans routinely receive more jail time and harsher punishments.  Although African Americans make up just over 12% of the national population, 42% of Americans currently on death row are African American.  Nearly a million African Americans today are incarcerated in prisons and in jails, and unless there is a change, a black male born today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime. Furthermore, African American women have the highest rate of incarceration among women in our nation, a rate that is four times higher than that of White women.

"The goal of this legislation," says Senator Webb, "is nothing less than a complete restructuring of the criminal justice system in the United States. Only an outside commission, properly structured and charged, can bring us complete findings necessary to do so."

Webb says that fixing our broken criminal justice system will require us to take a hard look not only at who goes to prison and for how long, but how we deal with the long-term consequences of their incarceration. If we can't do this, he says, these problems will undermine the notion that ours is a society founded on fundamental fairness.

The NAACP has similar concerns about the impacts to society as a whole:

The bottom line is that under our current criminal justice system too many people are being incarcerated and otherwise caught up in the criminal justice system and we still have too many Americans who do not feel safe in the homes or their communities.  Furthermore, because of the disparities that result from our current system, entire communities within our country do not have confidence in the criminal justice system.

For more information, follow these links:

America's Cradle to Prison Pipeline (2007)

Prison Activist Resource Center

The Criminal Injustice System (Paul Craig Roberts)

States Must Think Outside the Box on Employment for Former Felons (Monique Morris, NAACP)

House Introduces Criminal Justice Commission Bill (Amanda Simon, ACLU)

FAMM Commends House Leaders for Commission Bill

To take action, you can access the NAACP's pdf with information and sample letter here.

So what kind of shoes does an illegal immigrant wear?

"Stop S.B. 1070 and pass real immigration reform, not racial profiling!"

I don't live in Arizona, so I can't bear first person witness to what causes such fear, hate or desperation that could require such legislation. I did live next door in New Mexico for a few years. Living in rural communities and working in a mental health center there, I saw that there are serious issues that require a serious approach to a number of complex problems, including immigration reform, immigrant rights and dismantling racism in the United States.

Stopping and interrogating people because of what they are wearing (and hair style and skin color, etc.) is not a serious approach:

The immigration enforcement bill signed by Governor Brewer yesterday does nothing to address any of these issues. If you'd like to sign a petition to President Obama to investigate the recent legislation (SB 1070) in Arizona, go here.

See some other blogs and news story links on this issue here.

t r u t h o u t | On Pop Clarity: Public Intellectuals and the Crisis of Language

In what follows, I support three increasingly unpopular positions. First, I argue that academics should assume the role of critical public intellectuals. Second, we must repudiate the popular assumption that clarity is the ultimate litmus test to gauge whether a writer has successfully engaged a general educated audience. In this regard, I insist that the appeal to clarity has become an ideological smokescreen for a notion of common sense and "simplicity" that have become excuses for abusing language as a marker of the educated mind. Third, I argue that public intellectuals need to take matters of accessibility seriously in order to combine theoretical rigor with their efforts to communicate forcefully and intelligibly to a larger public about the most pressing matters of the day. In short, I want to scramble the opposition between the work of public intellectuals and the alleged simplicity of clarity. The issue is not one or the other - a choice between a firewall of convoluted discourse or a frictionless discourse purged of complexity - but rather the challenge for public intellectuals to address important social issues by writing in a language that is accessible without sacrificing theoretical rigor. Underlying this challenge is a larger political project in which public intellectuals have a responsibility to share a commitment to language as a site of experimentation, power, struggle and hope in the interests of building larger democratically inspired social movements.

via www.truthout.org

Citizen's notes: Given the violent language we've heard in the past week of American political life, Henry Giroux's most recent article for truthout is well worth the read.