RSN | The Case for Who Should Not Be Vice President: Joe Biden, Are You Listening?
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55480"><span class="small">Karen Bernal and Christian Shaughnessy, Reader Supported News</span></a>
Sunday, 02 August 2020 11:54
Excerpt: "On July 20, the California Bernie delegates to this year’s Democratic National Convention issued a press release along with an open letter to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, calling on him to choose from a short list of three vice-presidential candidates they had arrived at through a democratic vote: Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), former State Senator Nina Turner (D-Ohio), and Representative Karen Bass (D-Calif.)."
Bernie Sanders, left, and Joe Biden chat before a Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, S.C. (photo: AP)
The Case for Who Should Not Be Vice President: Joe Biden, Are You Listening?
By Karen Bernal and Christian Shaughnessy, Reader Supported News
02 August 20
n July 20, the California Bernie delegates to this year’s Democratic National Convention issued a press release along with an open letter to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, calling on him to choose from a short list of three vice-presidential candidates they had arrived at through a democratic vote: Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), former state senator Nina Turner (D-Ohio), and Representative Karen Bass (D-Calif.). News of the letter was greeted with national interest; several publications quoted from its contents and mentioned that over 90 percent of those voting (most of the delegation) strongly agreed on the three women. Mainstream media were quick to point out that California senator Kamala Harris was not among those preferred by progressives – a stinging point noticed by many.
Since then, the profile of Congresswoman Bass has been elevated and promoted in the national press. But whether Biden should decide to go with Bass, Harris, or any other on his reported short list, the conversation on the vice-presidential pick is incomplete without the flip-side of what have so far been positive appeals for a strong progressive. Indeed, in a time of COVID, Black Lives Matter protests, and police-state repression, the records of both Senator Harris and Representative Val Demings (another on Biden’s short list) warrant greater scrutiny.
There can be no denying that in the era of Black Lives Matter, public awareness regarding the conduct of law enforcement is such that the spoken truth of our nation’s criminal justice system being fundamentally biased against people of color and the poor is without question. And yet, the records of both Harris and Demings indicate their careers were built and advanced on upholding wrongful convictions, backing police accused of excessive force, and a general “get tough on crime” approach that disproportionally targeted people of color, immigrants, and the poor – who had no power, financially or politically, to alter their conditions.
This included Cheree Peoples, a mother who was arrested under Harris’s signature truancy program, a project that targeted parents. Cheree’s daughter Kayla missed school often because of chronic and painful sickle cell anemia, a condition known to her school’s administrators. Unsurprisingly, Black and Latino parents were disproportionately singled out for punitive actions. This also includes Kevin Cooper, who came within four hours of being executed in 2004 and who, according to five judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, is likely innocent. As attorney general from 2011 to 2017, and with evidence in her custody that could have been tested to prove his innocence, Harris opposed DNA testing. It was not until a much-read New York Times article on the case went viral that she reversed her position.
As San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris supported a 2008 San Francisco policy that forced police to notify ICE when undocumented children committed felonies. Despite San Francisco officially being a sanctuary city, police leveled felony charges against a 13-year-old Australian boy of color who took 46 cents from a classmate he was in a fight with. The boy was detained by ICE for a few days as they prepared to deport him and his family. Good legal work and media glare ultimately prevented the deportation, but over 100 other youths fell victim to the policy she supported; many were handed over before innocence or guilt could be established.
And then there is Harris’s open and sustained defiance – to the point of nearly causing a constitutional crisis – of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling that required the state to reduce the overcrowding of its prison system, which, according to a just-published American Prospect article, “was stuffed to some 200 percent of its designed capacity.” The article goes on to highlight the case of Daniel Larsen, wrongfully convicted and serving 27-years-to-life under California’s “three strikes” law. Harris argued that “even if Danny was innocent, his conviction should not be reversed, because he waited too long to file his petition.” Thankfully, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Harris’s appeal.
While the scrutiny of upholding wrongful convictions resides with Harris, criticism over a lack of accountability for cases involving police brutality follows Florida representative Val Demings. A recent Politico article found that “Demings routinely sided with police over community complainants and operated cautiously within the system, despite longstanding complaints that the department was prone to excessive force.” Even as juries decided against the Orlando Police Department in several high-profile cases, Demings’s view that police actions were within the scope of allowable practices has remained unchanged. Her op-ed in the Washington Post written four days after the death of George Floyd, in which she asked former fellow officers, “What in the hell are you doing?” seemed to indicate that finally, a line had been crossed. Still, coming just over two years after she co-sponsored the 2018 Protect and Serve Act (which would have made assaulting a police officer a federal hate crime) – a bill that was opposed by the NAACP, ACLU, and other groups – the conversion hardly inspires faith that her newfound “wokeness” is genuine.
All of which goes to the heart of the reason so many progressives oppose both Harris and Demings as contenders for vice president: in neither candidate is a compelling case with a sense of authenticity being made for why they are the right choice for the job at this historically significant moment. Progressives are looking for the kind of exceptional leadership that can help usher in the transformational changes so urgently needed. And as progressive delegates to the convention, we are calling for a VP candidate with a history of demonstrated fortitude in the face of entrenched power, not someone skilled at just-found-religion rhetoric.
The records of the congresswomen here are otherwise: Harris succumbed to the worst sort of transactional politics when she chose not to prosecute Senate campaign donor Steven Mnuchin for foreclosure violations. Demings lacked the courage to defy the Orlando Police Union and stand up for 84-year-old Daniel Daley. At a time of increased awakening to the problems in law enforcement and politics, they both chose the side of corrupt power over those who were its victims.
Donald Trump will not be defeated without the votes of the progressive base, which now skews toward younger people of color, for whom issues of social injustice are paramount. Without their votes, Democrats will lose. California progressive delegates chose their own short list to send to Joe Biden. Did he hear them? We cannot be sure. But again, we make the case for who should – and should not – be vice president. And as with other prominent demands, come the beginning of August we will find out if the Democratic Party remains a party of outdated conventional wisdom or has become a party that listens to a future calling for it to be better.
Karen Bernal is a former chair of the California Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus and was co-chair of California’s Bernie Sanders delegation to the 2016 DNC Convention in Philadelphia. She is also a Sanders delegate to the 2020 DNC after working for the campaign as Northern California Regional Field Director. She lives in Sacramento.
Christian T. Shaughnessy is a multiracial activist from San Bernardino, California. He is a member of MEChA and the Inland Empire Democratic Socialists of America. He was an organizer in Iowa and Nevada for the 2020 Bernie Sanders campaign and is now an at-large Bernie Sanders delegate from the state of California.
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.
FOCUS: The Next Election Is About the Next 10,000 Years
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50165"><span class="small">Bill McKibben, YES! Magazine</span></a>
Sunday, 02 August 2020 10:48
McKibben writes: "It is a cliché at this point to describe an election as 'the most important of our lifetimes.' Every election is key - they're how we take stock of where we are as a nation. They're part of a chain stretching into the past and into the future."
Bill McKibben. (photo: Wolfgang Schmidt)
The Next Election Is About the Next 10,000 Years
By Bill McKibben, YES! Magazine
02 August 20
Dramatic climate action is critical because we’re about to cross tipping points that are not reversible.
he upcoming election looks to be an apocalyptic turning point for our democracy—and our planet. In Turnout! Mobilizing Voters in an Emergency, political visionaries and movement leaders such as Bill McKibben define the urgency of this moment and provide a manual for turning out voters in an age of extreme inequality, climate change, and pandemic.
It is a cliché at this point to describe an election as “the most important of our lifetimes.” Every election is key—they’re how we take stock of where we are as a nation. They’re part of a chain stretching into the past and into the future.
But if you wanted to make the argument—and I do—that this year actually is special, the climate crisis might be as good a place as any to start. And that’s because it comes with a feature that most political issues don’t: a deadline. In October 2018, the world’s climate scientists issued a special report, assessing our chances of meeting the targets set at the global climate talks in Paris a few years before. Those targets were modest—they called for attempting to hold the planet’s temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Since we’ve already raised the temperature 1 degree, and that’s been enough to melt half the summer sea ice in the Arctic, kill off vast swaths of coral reef, and set big patches of the Earth on fire, it’s not like the Paris targets are desirable. (Desirable was the world many of us were born onto.) They’re crucial. And if we hope to meet them, the scientists were quite explicit: We have to fundamentally transform our energy systems by 2030. They helpfully defined that fundamental transformation: We need to cut our carbon emissions in half. In 10 years.
Anyone who has ever spent time around governments knows that speed is not one of their hallmarks. If we have any hope of meeting that target set for a decade out, we need to be hard at work just about … now. If another four years of inaction passes, the chance is over, and with it the planet as we’ve known it.
The past four years, of course, have been more than a time of annoying stasis—it’s been a period of active regression. The Trump administration has tried, with a good deal of success, to undercut every environmental law on the books, paying particular attention to climate change. A rogue’s gallery of coal lobbyists and oil executives have taken the top jobs in the environmental and energy bureaucracies and used the posts to give their industries free rein across the landscape. Where the Obama administration had scored modest successes—ratcheting up the gas mileage for cars, for instance—they’ve sprinted in the opposite direction.
Above all, of course, they’ve removed America from those Paris climate accords, in an act of breathtaking vandalism. It took decades for the international community to reach those agreements, and now the country that has poured the most carbon into the atmosphere is also the only country not engaged in the only global effort to do something about it.
Our vote is our chance to have a say.
It’s not that the Paris accords were so amazing—even the people negotiating them acknowledged at their signing in 2015 that they fell short of the task. Even if all the countries on Earth kept their pledges, the mercury would still rise nearly 3 degrees Celsius. But the calculation was that perhaps once countries began implementing renewable energy on a large scale, they’d find it cheaper and easier than they reckoned, and a virtuous spiral would ensue, allowing much faster progress. At first, it seemed to be working—throughout the past decade the world’s engineers kept dropping the price of sun and wind, and the pace of installations started to quicken. But then appeared Trump, who labeled global warming a hoax manufactured by the Chinese and who believed that wind turbines caused cancer. It was as if the road along which we were supposed to be accelerating was suddenly filled with potholes; momentum slowed, not just here but in much of the rest of the world. (The appearance of Trump-like figures in other countries didn’t help—Brazil’s Bolsonaro, for instance, started opening up the Amazon to intense exploitation, an act as reckless as opening a new fleet of gas-fired power plants.) Having lost three decades to the oil industry’s campaign of disinformation, we were now losing time again.
And time, as I have indicated, is the most precious asset here. Most of our problems linger—my entire adult life we’ve been engaged in the fight to try to provide medical care to Americans. It’s infuriating that we haven’t done it yet; Trump’s efforts to cut back access will, of course, kill many and bankrupt more. But at least they won’t make it harder to solve the problem once we finally decide to—the day will come when some president is able to make our country match every other industrialized nation, and the preceding decades will not have made it harder. The climate crisis isn’t like that—as a team of scientists reported in November, we’re about to cross a whole series of tipping points, ranging from destabilizing Antarctic ice sheets to slowing down vast ocean currents. These are not reversible; no one has a plan for refreezing the poles.
Every election that passes, we lose leverage—this time around our last chance at limiting the temperature rise to anything like 1.5 degrees would slip through our fingers. Which is why we need to register and vote as never before. It’s also, of course, why we need to do more than that: many of us are also hard at work this year taking on the big banks that fund the fossil fuel industry, trying to pull the financial lever as well as the political one. And even within the world of politics, we need to do much more than vote: no matter who wins, Nov. 4 and 5 and 6 are as important as Nov. 3; we have to push, and prod, and open up space for the people we work to install in office.
But in the autumn of an even-numbered year, we have a superpower that will wither as soon as Election Day passes. Our vote is our chance to have a say. In the case of the climate, that is not just about what will happen for the next four years. It’s about what will happen for the next 10,000 years.
This excerpt by Bill McKibben from Turnout! Mobilizing Voters in an Emergency (Routledge, 2020) edited by Matt Nelson, Suren Moodliar, and Charles Derber, appears by permission of the publisher.
Removing Monuments Is the Easy Part. We Must Make America a Real Democracy
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55479"><span class="small">Reverend William Barber and Bernice King, Guardian UK</span></a>
Sunday, 02 August 2020 08:38
Excerpt: "We cannot understand why these monuments lasted so long without challenging the inequities they were erected to justify."
'We cannot understand why these monuments lasted so long without challenging the inequities they were erected to justify.' (photo: Chris Carlson/AP)
Removing Monuments Is the Easy Part. We Must Make America a Real Democracy
By Reverend William Barber and Bernice King, Guardian UK
02 August 20
Flags and statues may fall, but the real struggle is for genuine voting rights, equal healthcare and truly integrated schools
ne hundred and fifty-five years after Confederate troops surrendered at Appomattox and Bennett Place, their battle flag has finally come down in Mississippi and their statues are retreating from courthouse squares and university quads. As the children of generations of Black southerners who fought against the lies of the Lost Cause, we celebrate this most recent surrender and look forward to walking down streets that are not shadowed by monuments to men who claimed to own our ancestors. But we cannot understand why these monuments lasted so long without challenging the inequities they were erected to justify. In fact, many who support flags and statues coming down today also advocate voter suppression, attack healthcare and re-segregate our schools. We must attend to both the systems of injustice and the monuments that have justified them if we are to realize “liberty and justice for all”.
If you examine the bases of statues that are being hauled away, most bear a date between the 1890s and 1920s. These monuments did not rise in defiance of the federal troops who were sent by Congress and Ulysses S Grant to enforce Reconstruction and guarantee political power to the new Black citizens of the south in the 1860s and 1870s. If a statue of Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis had been proposed during Reconstruction, the very suggestion would have sparked a riot. But after the compromise of 1876, when Rutherford B Hayes agreed to remove federal troops from the south, newly established Black and white political alliances were subjected to the violence of white terrorist organizations and the propaganda of white supremacy campaigns.
As Martin Luther King Jr taught on the steps of the Alabama state house in 1965: “To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society.” Black people were driven from public life and blamed for the troubles of a society that had invested its resources in treasonous rebellion against the United States. Jim Crow laws went on the books to offer a legal structure for the caste system that had built plantation wealth with enslaved labor. “If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow,” King said. “And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man.”
George White, the last Black congressman from the south during Reconstruction, finished his term representing North Carolina’s second congressional district in 1902. Five years later, the United Daughters of the Confederacy petitioned the University of North Carolina to erect a memorial to alumni who had fought for the Confederacy. With Jim Crow established, their cause was no longer lost. In the Jim Crow south, these veterans and their descendants celebrated the sacrifices their fathers and grandfathers had made to defend white supremacy. Before a cheering crowd of more than 1,000 people who gathered to dedicate their new Confederate Monument, Julian Carr recalled how “100 yards from where we stand, less than 90 days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a Negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 federal soldiers”. Like Confederate monuments in almost every southern community, this one was erected to celebrate that no federal authority was willing to challenge white supremacy.
After the Brown v Board of Education decision rendered Jim Crow unconstitutional in 1954, Black and white people in the civil rights movement worked tirelessly to demand federal enforcement of Reconstruction-era promises: Black citizenship, equal protection under the law and the right to vote. As in the moral struggle of the civil war, our parents and their colleagues risked their lives in non-violent struggle to make the promise of America real for all of her citizens. As Coretta Scott King said: “Struggle is a never-ending process. Freedom is never really won, you earn it and win it in every generation.”
While the gains of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act transformed the horizon of possibility for millions of Americans, the Second Reconstruction’s work of establishing a genuine multiethnic democracy was not completed before calls for “law and order”, “traditional values” and a tax revolt rallied a Confederate resistance once again. By uniting white voters in the suburbs, the sun belt, and the south, the Southern Strategy promised white people political power in an increasingly diverse America for the next 50 years.
While the divisive politics of Trumpism may be the last gasp of the Southern Strategy, the question of whether America can do the work of becoming a genuine democracy still remains. Removing monuments to the lie of white supremacy is an important step, but a shared future depends on redistributing power and resources so that every American, no matter their race, income, geography or immigration status, has access to healthcare, public education, affordable housing, a living wage, clean water and a livable planet.
In this moment when millions of Americans are suffering from a triple crisis of poverty, Covid-19 and police brutality, we need more than a conversation about monuments. We need concrete action to address the incredible disparities in death rates among Black, brown and poor people. This pivotal moment for our nation and our world is beckoning us to dismantle injustice and rebuild with love as the foundation. We can build a more just, humane, equitable and peaceful world. But, as King so prophetically admonished us: “The hour is late. And the clock of destiny is ticking out. We must act now before it is too late.” We must act now, America.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55478"><span class="small">Ari Rabin-Havt, Jacobin</span></a>
Sunday, 02 August 2020 08:33
Rabin-Havt writes: "The Department of Homeland Security is a particularly unjust, and rogue, element of a sprawling federal bureaucracy that delivers punishment far better than it delivers welfare."
Federal police face off with protesters in downtown Portland. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Abolish the DHS
By Ari Rabin-Havt, Jacobin
02 August 20
The Department of Homeland Security should have never existed in the first place. It’s time to get rid of it.
n the streets of Portland unidentified men in full body armor and military style uniforms pulled people into unmarked cars in a manner that was all too similar to the behavior of authoritarian regimes.
This paramilitary operation in an American city was carried out by the US Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Rapid Deployment Force which named the action, “Operation Diligent Valor.” Following the outrage in Portland, the agency is now planning on sending 150 of its agents to Chicago. This is after deploying its forces to defend Confederate monuments.
The outrage in Portland is nothing new for the agency. The Department of Homeland Security is a particularly unjust, and rogue, element of a sprawling federal bureaucracy that delivers punishment far better than it delivers welfare. Standing out even amid other punitive institutions, DHS is a Frankensteined agency cobbled together with an insanely wide mission that no entity could possibly take on. On any given day its agents are tasked with:
Manning the US border
Rescuing Alaskan crab fisherman
Providing aid to hurricane victims
Fighting counterfeiters
Arresting protesters
And they’re doing this job with a particular mix of independence and brutality. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is at fault for the horrific and concentration camp–like conditions at their immigration detention centers. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is at fault for thousands of its officers participating in a violent and racist Facebook group. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is at fault when airport security screeners fail to stop “inspectors from smuggling weapons or explosive materials through screening” 95 percent of the time. It was the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) complete failure after Hurricane Katrina that is still impacting New Orleans and its African-American community.
This was not the product of a well-thought-out plan to engage in a massive reorganization of federal agencies. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is a historic accident. After 9/11, the answer in Washington to the errors of intelligence agencies was to create an even larger and less accountable bureaucracy.
From the start, even powerful players in the Bush White House, such as Dick Cheney, were opposed to its creation, simply believing it was more effective to coordinate domestic security operations through a White House office. But Tom Ridge, a skilled bureaucratic infighter who was the agency’s first secretary was not content with that solution and had a powerful ally in Joe Lieberman.
After the White House refused to let Tom Ridge testify before Congress, Lieberman’s legislative rationale for creating a separate federal agency gained steam. Republicans, fearful of being outflanked on security issues, switched positions, and the White House flip-flopped and backed the creation of DHS.
Early on the agency was panned for its failures. “Nearly three years after it was created in the largest government reorganization since the Department of Defense, DHS does have a story, but so far it is one of haphazard design, bureaucratic warfare and unfulfilled promises. The department’s first significant test — its response to Hurricane Katrina in August — exposed a troubled organization where preparedness was more slogan than mission,” wrote the Washington Post.
The truth is that an agency this big, with a mission this sprawling, is destined to be too large to be effective and at the same time be rife with abuses of power and civil liberties violations.
Often functions of the Department of Homeland Security remain duplicative with other federal agencies. Vox’s Dara Lind noted in 2015 that DHS created its own version of the defense department’s 1033 program which distributes weapons of war to local police departments. So even when DHS troops aren’t deployed its weapons are being used against protesters.
She also notes that the agency’s “Fusion Hubs,” which were designed to share information and intelligence between local and federal agencies, are duplicative with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and Field Intelligence Groups.
Designed to streamline the domestic security bureaucracy, the federal government instead created a completely unworkable structure that has failed time after time.
Homeland Security’s size and sprawling mission are what creates the mechanisms by which these rights can be violated with impunity. And when there is a president like Donald Trump in the White House, who isn’t embarrassed about ignoring civil liberties and constitutional rights, it is DHS agents he will call upon to act on his behalf.
It’s time to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. An agency created by two centrist lawmakers (Ridge and Lieberman), wanted by no one else, passed by a Congress cowed into believing that voting against anything with the word homeland, patriot, or terror in it would result in attack ads, and a failure from the start was a mistake of history.
Whether to abolish the Department of Homeland Security is not a question of safety versus liberty. The department makes us less safe and violates our liberties.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55477"><span class="small">Billie Holiday, Reelin' In The Years Productions</span></a>
Sunday, 02 August 2020 08:21
Excerpt: "Strange Fruit" is a song recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939, written by Abel Meeropol. It protests the lynching of Black Americans, with lyrics that compare the victims to the fruit of trees.
Blues artist Billie Holiday. (photo: Mayme A. Clayton Library and Museum)
Sunday Song: Billie Holliday | Strange Fruit
By Billie Holiday, Reelin' In The Years Productions
02 August 20
Excerpt: "Strange Fruit" is a song recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939, written by Abel Meeropol. It protests the lynching of Black Americans, with lyrics that compare the victims to the fruit of trees.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.