|
Democracy Is for Life, Not Just Elections |
 |
|
Thursday, 07 May 2015 14:00 |
|
Brand writes: "I have hope. I really do believe that real, radical change is possible that the tyranny of giant, transnational corporations can be ended, that ecological melt-down in pursuit of imaginary money can be arrested and reversed, that an ideology that aspires to more than materialism, individualism and profit can be realised and practiced."
Russell brand. (photo: BBC)
Democracy Is for Life, Not Just Elections
By Russell Brand, Russell Brand's blog
07 May 15
 mate who I trust said to me;
“You know what this election boils down to? Who do you want to be protesting against on May 8th?
Or whenever they finish counting, negotiating and posturing?
David Cameron and a Tory coalition or Ed Miliband and one led by Labour?”
I suppose, implicitly my argument has always been – the Tories – let them wrench out the organs of the nation with such ferocity and contempt that usually phlegmatic people are dragged into the war against the establishment by the dreadful, eviscerating G-force.
The conservatives are such cinematic villains, the Etonian gits with their Freudian slips; the “West Villa United” supporting, “career-defining”, Darth Vader toffs. If you’re auditioning for heads on spikes “come the great day”, there’s no competition.
Like the fierce and exciting Nicola Sturgeon, or anyone with ears, I thought the difference between the two main parties was insufficient. Ed Miliband’s campaign manager, David Axelrod – a more appropriate name for a spin-doctor it’s difficult to imagine – he may as well be called Zach Huxter, is the bloke who delivered unto us Barack Obama; a tidal wave of potent promise that became a drab damp patch of disappointment. If that doesn’t induce a sigh of impotent lassitude you’ve got more “Yes We Can optimism” than Rolf Harris’s art dealer.
In the episode of The Trews in which I interviewed Ed Miliband there is no Damascene moment. I did not tumble back in a white beam of enlightened reverie, scales falling, realising that the Westminster machine, with a different pilot will serve ordinary people. We decided to endorse Labour before we approached them for the interview.
The simple truth is I don’t have a “ready to wear” system of government to offer people on May 8th and neither does anyone else I’ve yet spoken to.
My fundamentalist abstemiousness became untenable because of mates making practical pleas of varying import;
1. “My brother has MS, if the Tories get in, his independent Living Fund will be cut and he’ll have to go in a home or move into mine…”
2. “My kids can’t do a production at school because of budget cuts…”
3. “My daughter can’t go to university because we can’t afford to pay a student loan back…”
4. “Our drug treatment day care program is being shut down due to cuts…
In the grand scheme of Revolution these are small problems, I agree, small problems that can be somewhat assuaged with the small solution of getting rid of the Tories.
Ultimately what I feel, is that by not removing the Tories, through an unwillingness to participate in the “masquerade of democracy”, I was implicitly expecting the most vulnerable people in society to pay the price on my behalf while I pondered alternatives in luxury.
The reason I didn’t suggest it sooner is because, twerp that I am, I have hope. I really do believe that real, radical change is possible that the tyranny of giant, transnational corporations can be ended, that ecological melt-down in pursuit of imaginary money can be arrested and reversed, that an ideology that aspires to more than materialism, individualism and profit can be realised and practiced.
People that know a lot more about this than me, and probably you, advised me that we’ll be better off rucking with a Labour government than a Conservative one – if that strikes you as a pitiful choice, more sympathetic I could not be – but some people are facing much worse dilemmas than reneging on a puritanical political stance.
Does this country need a radical new political movement? An equivalent of Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain? It feels like it does and when the next administration fails to deliver because of the limitations of parliamentary politics I’ll happily participate in setting it up. With you.
Do we need an international confederation of new political alliances that are committed to real change, real democracy, a revolutionary alternative to capitalism? That can challenge the IMF, WTO, WBO and all the other global acronyms so portentous and phony they may as well be the wrestling federations they sound like? Of course we do, my schedule’s pretty clear, I’ll join in. Will you?
What Ed Miliband said on The Trews that seemed positive is that his government will be responsive to activism and campaigning. That will be pretty easy to evaluate quickly. Are media monopolies being broken up? Are the urgently needed houses being built? Is austerity continuing? Is the NHS still being privatised? Are we still blaming immigrants, the disabled and disadvantaged for massive economic problems that they can’t have created? Is domestic policy being dictated by unelected elites in the financial and corporate world?
If the answer is yes then you know that democracy in its current form is near redundant, that we are not offered reasonable alternatives and that parties that try to, like the Greens are stymied to the point irrelevance by ancient electoral architecture.
My position will not have changed on May 8th, I’ll be doing my best to amplify movements I believe in, from housing, to trade unions, football fan campaigns, social enterprises, digital activism, student occupations, organic agriculture, crypto-currencies; the same things I’m doing today, the things I’ve been learning about for the last 18 months; since I said I don’t vote on the telly.
My recommendation that people vote Labour is an optimistic punt that the degeneration of Britain will be slowed down and the lives of the most vulnerable will be a little more bearable than they’d’ve been under the Tories.
Nothing more ambitious than that.
It will take serious activism, committed action comparable to the sacrifice of those whose memories are continually evoked as a spur for us to vote. The women who died for that right, the people all over the world branded terrorists and imprisoned or executed for demanding democracy.
I fully understand that real change, real democracy is not something that can be palmed off in a booth twice a decade, a crossed box and crossed fingers. Democracy is for life, not just elections.
 |
|
FOCUS | This Is What Democracy Is About |
|
|
Thursday, 07 May 2015 11:19 |
|
Hall writes: "How optimistic should we be that the vast majority of Americans will contribute their money, their time, their energy, and their determination to Senator Sanders' campaign to restore our form of government, the society we expect that form of government to create, and maybe, just maybe, the health of our planet, when we can't even support the news organization we rely upon?"
Tear gas rains down on a woman kneeling in the street after a demonstration in Ferguson on August 17, 2014. (photo: Scott Olsen/Getty Images)
This Is What Democracy Is About
By Nancy Hall, Reader Supported News
07 May 15
 his letter was in my mailbox this evening, and probably in yours, too:
Why RSN Chooses to Rely on Public Funding
We will start our May fundraising drive tomorrow so it's an appropriate time to talk about why we chose public funding (Reader Support) rather than rely on commercial advertising revenue.
There is no doubt that, with our readership, we could make more money by accepting advertising than by surviving on donations alone. If it were just about "making money," that would be easy. But it's not just about making money. It's about our future, about the future of the community we serve, and about change for the better.
This community-based news agency that we have all built, Reader Supported News, does not have the muscle of the larger commercial news organizations, but power does not come from muscle alone. Great power can come from participation, and community involvement. That's what we get from our Reader Supporters.
By turning down the advertisers, we travel down a harder economic path. Consequently, we have to work harder to raise our budget. Don't be alarmed by the urgency. We live in urgent times.
Let's raise a budget for RSN. Let's do it our way.
Thank you all sincerely.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
"Great power can come from participation, and community involvement." Of course it can!
Lately, we Readers have been discussing the ramifications of the upcoming election. Senator Bernie Sanders has given the campaign an entirely new face. Many of us have said he looks like our last, best hope to restore some semblance of our peculiar, American-style Constitutional government. We've all agreed that if his campaign is to succeed, the vast majority of Americans will need to pay the expenses of his campaign, campaign for him, and herd everyone we can to the polls for the primary elections, then do it all again for next November's election.
Yet Marc Ash has had to write, probably to each one of us, to beg us to remember that RSN is supported solely by us.
We read RSN all the time. Some of us have been reading RSN since its inception, and Truthout before that time. But Marc Ash STILL has had to write to us, reminding us that WE pay the bills for this news service.
How optimistic should we be that the vast majority of Americans will contribute their money, their time, their energy, and their determination to Senator Sanders' campaign to restore our form of government, the society we expect that form of government to create, and maybe, just maybe, the health of our planet, when we can't even support the news organization we rely upon?
People, participatory Democracy depends upon PARTICIPATION. If you're reading this and have not yet contributed to RSN, please do so at once. If you still read Truthout, contribute to its operation, too. If you read Move On, or any of several other news sites funded solely by private funds -- OUR funds -- please step up to the plate and toss in some money to help defray their operating expenses. They have to eat regularly, too, and probably enjoy the habit of sleeping indoors. They need salaries. They probably work with lights on; they certainly work on electronic devices that, at some point, must be plugged into the electric supply grid. Their offices have to be heated or cooled, according to the season, and they must be cleaned, and insured, and supplied with things like toilet paper and hand soap. Just imagine their bills for vehicle fuel!
If those of us who trust and rely upon privately-funded news organizations aren't even willing to chip in to run those organizations, we haven't a snowball's chance in hell of getting Senator Bernie Sanders elected.
If everyone who reads RSN, or any of the other privately funded news organizations, would commit to a measly $5.00 per month contribution, all of them could stop struggling to raise money and go about their real jobs, which is telling us what's going on in Washington, in the 50 state legislatures and governor's mansions, and in the rest of the world.
If everyone who reads any of the privately supported news reporters would contribute a paltry $5.00 per month to Senator Sanders' campaign, he'd have a shot at getting out his comments about how dire our situation is, how close to being eradicated the freedoms provided by our Constitution are, and how desperate the condition of our planet is. If he can get his message to every American, he stands a chance of being elected our next President.
Do you see the connection?
We got into this fix because we stopped paying attention, getting involved, speaking up, and supporting the things we believe in with our time, energy, money, and whole-hearted, solemn, unwavering commitment.
Being a good citizen means paying more attention to public affairs than to texting our pals, buying the latest video device, and having a smart phone. It means doing our duty and meeting our responsibilities.
All of this may sound very corny and very old-fashioned, but it's all that will work.
What are you waiting for? Are you in?
|
|
|
Loretta Lynch Has an Immediate Conflict of Interest in Baltimore |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 07 May 2015 08:36 |
|
Ash writes: "Incoming attorney general Loretta E. Lynch has opened herself up to charges of conflict of interest in Baltimore less than a week after being sworn in."
Jamal Bryant leads a rally outside a Baltimore Police Department station during a march for Freddie Gray on April 21. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
Loretta Lynch Has an Immediate Conflict of Interest in Baltimore
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
07 May 15
 ncoming attorney general Loretta E. Lynch has opened herself up to charges of conflict of interest in Baltimore less than a week after being sworn in.
Attorney General Lynch has been very vocal about wanting to separate herself from what she views as a tone of conflict between her predecessor Eric Holder and U.S. police agencies.
Lynch reportedly wants greater cooperation between the Department of Justice and American police departments and plans meetings with a number of agencies this summer to enhance cooperation and foster good will.
If Baltimore is to be the first test of her strategy, it highlights the conflicts that can arise when an attorney general mixes political objectives with law enforcement.
When state courts and local justice systems are either unable or unwilling to prosecute police officers accused of crimes, the only remaining recourse is federal. Such federal prosecution falls to the Department of Justice, under the direction of the attorney general. This is particularly true in cases where charges relating to civil rights violations may be brought. The Department of Justice is the Catcher in the Rye when local prosecution fails.
On Tuesday, May 6th, Lynch visited Baltimore. She reportedly met with the family of Freddie Gray, but she also met with a group of about a dozen Baltimore Police officers preparing to begin their shift, saying to them, “Thanks to all of you. I’m looking at the hardest-working police officers in America.”
The Department of Justice, federal prosecutors, and the attorney general often work in cooperation with state law enforcement agencies; that is not unusual. However when a department is under direct investigation by the Justice Department, criminal charges are pending, and federal charges are under consideration, contact between DoJ officials and subjects of an investigation typically becomes far more structured. Informal or collegial contact with subjects of an investigation is prohibited under department guidelines.
On April 21st, the Justice Department announced that it was opening a criminal investigation into the death of Freddie Gray while in Baltimore Police custody.
Additionally, during Lynch’s trip to Baltimore this week, on the same day that she visited a Baltimore Police Department facility to greet officers there, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake formally requested, during her meeting with Attorney General Lynch, a federal civil rights probe to examine a wide range of potentially criminal conduct by BPD on a department-wide basis. At issue, Mayor Rawlings-Blake said, was “if our police department has engaged in a pattern of stops, searches or arrests that violate the Fourth amendment.”
For Lynch, the conflict arises in her attempts to foster good will and cooperation with a department that is under investigation by the agency she now heads, the DoJ. It brings to mind the contact former attorney general Eric Holder engaged in with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon while the bank was under criminal investigation by the DoJ. Ultimately, JPMorgan Chase agreed to a financial settlement to avoid criminal charges. An option not available to the vast majority of Americans.
For those groups pressing the Obama administration and the Justice Department to act on historic levels of lethal police violence, the time has come and gone for legal action. The combination of unjustified use of deadly force and other serious abuses is dramatically compounded by the widely-held public perception that the police enjoy virtual immunity from prosecution.
Attorney General Lynch should not believe that Freddie Gray will be the last victim of unjustified police violence she will be called upon to confront. Baltimore will not be the last community outraged by the violence visited upon them. It will happen again.
The cornerstone of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s career is her experience as a prosecutor. That is exactly what the situation demands.
Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
Satanists Defending Abortion Rights? Meet 5 Conservatives Freaking Out About It |
|
|
Thursday, 07 May 2015 08:27 |
|
Marcotte writes: "The Satanists are trying to prove that conservatives are hypocrites whose interest in religious exemptions only applies to situations where they can take away someone's birth control, or ruin a same-sex couple's wedding."
The Satantic Temple announced this week that they're demanding exemptions to anti-abortion regulations, claiming such measures violate their religious beliefs. (photo: Jonathan Bachman/AP)
Satanists Defending Abortion Rights? Meet 5 Conservatives Freaking Out About It
By Amanda Marcotte, Rolling Stone
07 May 15
The Satantic Temple announced this week that they’re demanding exemptions to anti-abortion regulations, claiming such measures violate their religious beliefs.
 lessed be the Satanic Temple.
The Satanists announced this week that they're demanding exemptions to anti-abortion regulations — like Missouri's 72-hour state-mandated waiting period — claiming such measures violate their religious beliefs.
It's an obvious, and brilliant, ploy to test how serious conservatives are about their supposed belief that a person's "religious liberty" rights mean they can opt out of laws they simply don't like. The Satanists are trying to prove that conservatives are hypocrites whose interest in religious exemptions only applies to situations where they can take away someone's birth control, or ruin a same-sex couple's wedding.
Savvy conservatives would see this tactic for what it is and not take the bait. But luckily for us, many are not smart enough to do the math. Here are a few examples.
- David French of The National Review loves "religious liberty" — when it can be used as a cudgel against women.
Defending Hobby Lobby's claim that a boss' "religious liberty" rights should allow him to dictate how sexually active women use their own insurance plans, French wrote that the Hobby Lobby case was a victory for business owners' "most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually the entire panoply of property rights." (Interesting that French sees a woman's medical care as the "property rights" of her boss.) Giving these rights to bosses will bring "a dramatic halt to the latest leap forward of the allegedly unstoppable sexual revolution," he writes.
But French rejects "religious liberty" when it interferes with his desire to force unwilling women to give birth. In a piece this week headlined "Of Course the Satanic Temple Embraces Abortion, and Of Course the Left Applauds," French writes that it's "incredibly appropriate" that "the pro-abortion Left" is "wrapping its arms around Satan."
Actually, David, we did that long ago when we started tricking kids into smoking doobies by putting Satanic messages in Queen records.
- Katie Yoder of Newsbusters has characterized opposition to broad "religious liberty" exemptions as "hysterical." Shortly after Hobby Lobby was decided, Yoder went full-blown sarcastic on critics of the decision, painting them as a bunch of sex-crazed nuts who were over-reacting to a minor obstacle. Rounding up media reactions to the decision, she sneered at women who think they have a right to have sex and argued that allowing Hobby Lobby to exert so much control over their employees' private lives is no big deal because workers are "free to go work somewhere else."
But Yoder becomes hysterical over the Satanic Temple trying to invoke broad "religious liberty" exemptions to help women get abortions. Under the headline "Feminist Media Hail Satanists for Deeming Abortion a ‘Religious Belief'" (actually, they deem bodily integrity a religious belief), Yoder breathlessly writes, "The pro-abortion media crowd is embracing new ally in their fight: Satanists."
It's worth noting that "Mary," the Missouri woman the Satanists are seeking an exemption for, is going to get an abortion no matter what. What's at issue is whether she'll be able to get that abortion on a Monday, or if, due to her state's extreme waiting period law, she'll have to wait until a Thursday. While that difference means a lot to Mary, in terms of travel and other costs, it shouldn't matter to those who supposedly care about the embryo., since the outcome there will be the same either way
- When Cheryl Chumley of The Washington Times wrote in 2014 about invoking "religious liberty" to take away women's access to birth control, she noted that "Christians stand strong." Protecting religious freedom to exert power over someone else's body is, she seems to think, the great civil rights issue of our time.
Writing about the Satanist case, however, Chumley characterizes it as an attempt to "skirt state abortion laws." So when you invoke "religious liberty" to control your own body, you're just a corrupt person looking for loopholes I guess?
- Carole Novielli of Life News is clear that people get to define their own religious beliefs. . .when those beliefs are in opposition to women's rights. "The Supreme Court has ruled on behalf of Hobby Lobby against ObamaCare mandating them to pay for at least four drugs they deem abortive which would violate their religious freedoms!" she wrote last year in celebration of the Hobby Lobby case.
But what if it's your religious belief that women have rights? "We know satanists believe abortion is sacred as we have documented several times," she sneers angrily. She also complains that "Mary" is "elusive," due to the understandable use of a pseudonym to describe her in the case. Let's hope conservatives don't start demanding lists of women who have had abortions, on the grounds that they need those lists for "religious liberty" reasons.
- Writing in 2014 about an anti-Hobby Lobby ad, Breitbart.com's Austin Ruse suggested that merely raising the question of what "religious liberty" entails somehow oppresses the religious freedom of the Supreme Court justices.
When it comes to protecting women's rights, however, Ruse thinks the whole idea of "religious liberty" is a joke. "Missouri Satanists think they have Christian conservatives over a barrel with their claim that one of their members should get a religious liberty exemption from Missouri's mandated waiting period before getting an abortion," he writes.
Silly rabbit! Didn't anyone teach you that "religious liberty" means giving fundamentalists—especially male fundamentalists — control over women's bodies? Who on earth would think women have religious liberty, particularly over something so intimate as their beliefs regarding sex and reproduction?
They probably worship Satan.
|
|
