Why ordinary citizens have no say...
By Thom Hartmann A...
The United States could be at the forefront of creating a global green economy that runs on renewable energy. Unfortunately, we can’t beat our addiction to big money. Over the weekend, the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, released a new report on the actions that need to be taken right now to prevent any further devastation from climate change and global warming.
While the report looks at climate change solutions on a global level, it also points out that here in the U.S., we need to enact some type of major climate change legislation, like a carbon tax, by the end of this decade, if we want to have any hopes of preventing the most catastrophic and devastating effects of global warming and climate change yet. Thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court, that’s a lot easier said than done.
Because of their decisions in cases like Citizens United and McCutcheon, the fossil fuel industry, with help from oil billionaires like the Koch Brothers, owns Republicans in Washington, and even owns some Democrats from coal and oil states. If our politics and democratic process weren’t owned by corporate interests and the wealthy elite, if we had an actual democracy instead of an oligarchy, we could be leading the world when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels, and creating a clean and green economy.
Instead, we're killing our planet and ourselves because the Supreme Court gave our government to millionaires, billionaires, and corporate interests who care more about money than the fate of the only planet we can call home. But how did we get to this point in American history, where money from billionaire brothers and corporate interests is more important than human lives and the fate of our planet?
Many history books suggest it all began in 1886. Back in 1886, the Supreme Court heard Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which on the surface was a fairly straightforward case about the taxation of railroad properties. And while the decision in the case wasn’t controversial or out of the ordinary, the precedent that it set was.
That’s because Santa Clara marked the first time in history that the Supreme Court - or at least a non-binding headnote in a Supreme Court case - had said that the Fourteenth Amendment gave constitutional protections to corporations, just like it did to real live human beings.
To put that in perspective, the Supreme Court didn’t recognize women under the Constitution until 1920, and didn't give full rights to African-Americans until 1954. Now, fast-forward to 1962, when conservationist and activist Rachel Carson published the book Silent Spring, and to 1965, when Ralph Nader published his book Unsafe at Any Speed. Both of those works helped to ignite a consumers’ movement, which woke Americans up, and got them active and civically engaged.
In response to this mass awakening of the American public, in August of 1971, then tobacco-lawyer Lewis Powell wrote the infamous “Powell Memo” to a friend of his at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In that memo, Powell called for corporate America to become more aggressive in shaping politics and law in the United States.
The Powell Memo and its contents sparked the creation of several high-profile right-wing think tanks, including The Heritage Foundation and ALEC. It also laid the groundwork for the far more politically-involved U.S. Chamber of Commerce that we see today. A few months later, Richard Nixon put Powell on the Supreme Court, where in a series of close cases like Buckley and First National Bank, the ideas of corporate power Powell put forth in his memo were made into law by the Court he was now part of.
Decisions in cases like First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti and Buckley v. Valeo greatly increased the powers and influences of corporations in America, and led directly to today's notions of corporate free speech and corporate personhood that were nailed into law by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen’s United decision.
Fortunately, there’s a way to stop all of this madness, and to take money out of politics: amend the Constitution. Skeptics argue that amending the Constitution to say that money is not speech - and thus not protected by the First Amendment - and that corporations are not people - and thus are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment - is too hard a task.
But back in 1971, when thousands of young Americans were being sent over to the battlefields of Vietnam to die, massive anti-war demonstrations sprung up nationwide, to protest the fact that young Americans were old enough to go off to war, and but not old enough to vote. Barry McGuire's song "Eve of Destruction" led the charge. Thanks to those massive anti-war demonstrations, the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, was passed in just five months.
Like then, Americans today are outraged. And we have the power and means to influence change and to put in place the policies that are needed to save our planet and the human race. The new IPCC report points out that converting to a clean and green economy as soon as tomorrow would cost just a fraction of economic growth. In fact, investments in renewable energy would help to end unemployment by putting millions of Americans back to work.
But we aren’t doing any of that, because a small handful of super wealthy people who sitting on trillions of tons of carbon in the form of coal, oil and gas own our politicians in Washington, and are thus blocking any type of meaningful climate change legislation. It’s time to start a new citizen’s movement, and get a Constitutional amendment passed that says that corporations are not people, and that money is not speech.
That might be the only way to save our planet and the human race from a complete climate change catastrophe. Although I have no affiliation with them at all, I have to recommend www.movetoamend.org as the best group doing work in this area. Check them out and sign up for the battle. The world - or at least the fate of humans on this world - is literally at stake.
Comments
#2
Hey Palin, m'bark's worse than m'bite. Relax, buddy!
#3
Mark: Yes, the Black Panthers were hunted down and shot..they were just a few people scattered about at that time. But they scared the police when they put on that little show in Oakland, I believe it was, when they lined up, military style with their weapons, showing that they weren't going to be pushed around. It was just a small demonstration, as was the 100 Nevadan armed civilians, that a show of force back at the authorities can get them to back down...at least for a time.
What I am talking about, however, is not just a few armed people, I'm talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of armed resisters...in numbers greatly outnumbering the police or national guard or even military. We all do greatly outnumber these forces. Let's see what is 98% of roughly 300 million? Well, that's a pretty big number. And all it would take is for millions of citizens to just own, and know how to use weapons, to show the government what they would be up against if they ticked off the people too much. But, now, since they have convinced many citizens to give up their weapons, we are ripe for screwing over. We'll keep electing Democrats that turn out to be turn-coats, no better than Republicans. And they'll keep screwing us. Sending our jobs overseas. Not paying their fair share of the taxes. Continue Wall Street trickery that depletes people's savings and investments. Maybe, even one day, disappearing your savings and checking accounts from your banks. They'll keep herding us down that chute for the slaughter. And they'll get away with it....because we are largely unarmed and unwilling to show massive force against our oppressors.
If we were all armed, as we all should be, we could keep those 1 or 2 percent scared to death that they would not be able to continue screwing everyone else as they have been. The propaganda over the years to keep us all unarmed is part of the big reason why the 1 or 2 percent have gotten away with what they have. They know that, when the people are largely unarmed, all they have to do is convince the people that they might have some say (the hope illusion) through the ballot box..ie: electing one of the two parties to office that are controlled by the ruling elite. They might have even staged incidents to frighten people into giving up their guns...MKULTRA is not dead. Sure accidents do happen, and the forces of oppression, uses that as hyped propaganda to make people want to give up their guns or not get them in the first place. And occasionally, some guy goes berserk and kills a bunch of people. But it doesn't take a gun for that. Just the other day some kid kills and injures a lot of school kids with a knife. So, what are we going to do...ban knives?
#4
So, I guess what you are saying, DAnneMarc, is that we should get rid of all of our guns...and why stop with just the citizens...the cops, the national guard, the military...everyone in the US should be without guns...maybe knives too.
All those people, the cops, national guard, the military...all never showing "a sign of strength, power, courage, or intelligence"? When they are controlled by the ruling elite who are screwing us then what's a poor citizen to do? Keep playing their corrupt ballot box charade?
And so the only people with guns will be the criminals or foreign powers trampling over us...using us all as their bitch slaves. It's too simplistic, kumbaya, wishful thinking that we all live in a peaceful world where there are no predators. But, once you cede yourself to those who do have guns to protect you then... you are at their mercy...especially when your so-called democracy has been proven to be corrupt.
If we had a democracy that we could trust, and police we could trust to be there when we needed them, we wouldn't have to worry so much about owning guns. But, you just wait! Soon, we will all be at each others throats, clawing for that last can of beans at the grocery store. Things could very well get very nasty when hordes of desperate people break into your house trying to steal whatever they can to survive. Our ship is sinking and those who have their own means of protection might live a little while longer. Some kumbaya types might just shrug their shoulders and say they wouldn't want to live in such a world anyway. So if it happens, it happens. It's kinda like the Muslims saying Inshallah, isn't it?
#5
AIW: Ok! ;-} ☮
#6
Quote Palindromedary:So, I guess what you are saying, DAnneMarc, is that we should get rid of all of our guns...and why stop with just the citizens...the cops, the national guard, the military...everyone in the US should be without guns...maybe knives too.
Palindromedary ~ I never said that. You are twisting my words. Perhaps you need to reread my previous posts. I made a definite distinction between flashing a gun and using a gun. As Mark Saulys--and St. Thomas Aquinas--so eloquently stated, and you simply don't seem to get, is that only with the blessing of the masses can we ever hope to win any uprising. We will need guns to do that--for sure.
What I am talking about is the ridiculous recent overt Reich Wing public display of fire power with neither reason or public blessing to back it up. Additionally there is no USE of the fire arms to back up the gesture. Therefore, it is pure BS.
What I'm against is pure BS. I'm also against resorting to a methodology that hasn't yet been sanctioned by the masses. I have no problem with owning a gun. I might just buy one--or more--myself in the near future. However, I am not going to rely on it solely to obtain great social change. I also am not going to broadcast the fact that I own anything. That is going to be a surprise. A Big Surprise. That is precisely how to handle the situation at hand in a responsible way. Any thing else is the result of a serious lack of endowment, blatant and blind fear, foolishness, or, simply, the grand result of a Reich Wing conspiracy designed to disable the enemy by making them incriminate themselves... (ie cause someone to display the characteristics of an "enemy combatant.")
My dear friend, if you had the slightest sense you would drop this subject and focus on the real battle ground before us. (ie Move to Amend, and Campaign Finance Reform) Any potential Revolution will happen whenever the time is right. That timing is not for you or I to decide, it is for the enemy to decide. The only mechanism you, or I, should ever rely on for that is vast public opinion. Anything more is a failed policy.
#7
Perhaps you are correct. I probably should drop this subject. I sure wouldn't want to be labeled an "enemy combatant" even though I am in no way an "enemy" or a "combatant". It is very dangerous, now a days, to actually exercise "free speech". I wouldn't want to risk being thrown into GITMO and tortured. Although, I'm sure we are all considered "enemies" by some people on the right....maybe even on the left. I suppose those people on the left, who fear to look out from under the covers of their cozy little meme composed of false beliefs of schemes like "Move to Amend" and "Campaign Finance Reform" is going to make any difference, may consider me an "enemy" because I am not falling for their blather.
That video, I just watched, again, "911-Explosive Evidence" had some psychologists talking about "cognitive dissonance" where people who earned that label said things like: "even if it were true, I wouldn't believe it!" (referring to 9/11 being an inside job). I believe that there are many people on the left who are going through a sort of cognitive dissonance when they think that they can still change a corrupt system by playing the same corrupt games by trying to convince politicians to actually represent them instead of the ruling elite. They do this over and over again without any good sense to do so. Isn't that one of the signs of insanity?
#8
Palin, I disagree with your dismissive comment regarding campaign finance reform and Move To Amend. Money as "speech" is what got us into this mess; reversing that corrosive precedent will help us begin to reverse the damage to our democracy and reclaim what we have lost. If you think not, then what is your solution? Got any better ideas?! Like I've said, bitching and complaining serves its purpose, but what we really need are concrete solutions. - AIW
#9
AIW: It would be nice if it will work. But when you are totally outgunned ('gunned' meaning financially),when you have to use the same channels (ie: rigged democracy) that has led to our present state, we won't really have a chance. So, really, all those "movements" amount to is another way of bitching and complaining. I wish I was wrong...but that's how I see it. It's going to take way more than trying to work within the current corrupt system to change things.
#10
Wow! Harry Reid wants to label those gun toting cowboys "Domestic Terrorists." Wow, who could have seen that coming?
Rachel Maddow Show: Reid Calls Armed Protesters "Domestic Terrorists"
#11
MSNBCQuote Rachel Maddow Show:Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), who of course represents Nevada, said earlier this week, “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”Article goes on to say...
Quote Rachel Maddow Show:There is, Reid said, a task force being set up to deal with the situation. “It is an issue that we cannot let go, just walk away from,” he added.
An example must be made that will set a precidence. This is precisely what the anti-fascism movement needs. Let the Government make their mistake.
#12
Just like a politician to make bluster speech signifying nothing. We'll see! The government ain't got the balls to stand up to right wing gun toting citizens. Demorats are just pussies! Harry Reid won't do anything that will jeopardize his position. Chicken...cluck...cluck...cluck!
#13
Palin -- How can you say it makes no difference which party you vote for when I gave you list of the differences? They main thing you pointed out was the differences weren't nearly big enough. I think you can say that the 99% will not get all the power back. I think I can say we are getting some of the power back. Our argument might be how big the "some" is. I think voting democratic, supporting "move to amend" and "campaign finance reform" makes our "some" larger.
It seems to get our mass movement in action things need to be much worse. For FDR the unemployment rate was 33%. For Teddy Roosevelt, the poverty line was the 90th percentile.
#14
Palin, you seem to pooh-pooh any efforts at problem solving except for guns, which many of us (myself included) feel is no solution at all. I appreciate Harry Reid's efforts to lasso in those rogue cowboys. Didn't you say the government has no balls? Again I ask: got any better ideas?! It's like, damned if they do and damned if they don't! - AIW
#15
Alright. I just filled myself in on this story and here is my opinion. The Ranchers are nuts. They have been using public lands for free for three decades and have refused to pay any taxes or follow any federal regulations regarding the use of this land. If any Corporation ever did this you guys would be screaming bloody murder. Furthermore, they have no business continuing to violate the law. They need to invest in a good lawyer and not guns. As much as a legitimate confrontation with the feds would interest me, if this turns into a massacre I simply have to say, "Oh, Well!"
Although my heart goes out to any underdog there is a certain sphere of reality that it takes to get my sympathy. For instance, the story about my hero, Mayor John L. Davie was quite similar to this. He too organized a small army that battled and defeated both the city government and the railroad. However, you have to remember, he never did anything that wasn't perfectly legal and within his rights. He was after all--amongst many, many, many other things--a trained lawyer. When he confronted the city and the railroad with a mob of armed citizens he knew that he had legal rights to his land according to current law. When he sunk the railroad ferry and destroyed the Oakland-Alameda bridges he conferred first with the best maritime lawyer he could find and knew that it was within his legal rights to do so.
I have no idea what is going through the mind of these reich wing extremist; however, the story seems like they are so blatantly wrong that I wouldn't be surprised if some Corporate puppet masters are putting them up to this for some nefarious political reason. I have yet to figure out what that might be.
Daily News: Federal Rangers Clash With Protesters in Dispute Over Public Land
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Cracking the Code:
"No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them through—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
From Screwed:
"Thom Hartmann’s book explains in simple language and with concrete research the details of the Neo-con’s war against the American middle class. It proves what many have intuited and serves to remind us that without a healthy, employed, and vital middle class, America is no more than the richest Third World country on the planet."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
AIW: #50: You never actually said anything about that, I was just being proactive (paranoid?) that you might. ;-}