RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Green New Deal: Movements (Finally) Get Visionary Again Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43480"><span class="small">George Lakey, YES! Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 February 2019 09:28

Lakey writes: "Without bad-mouthing the concept, most Democratic politicians are now rushing to find ways to whittle the proposal down to something that won't upset the status quo. That would, of course, prevent it from meeting the needs of either climate or justice."

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kicks off the Women's March in New York City on January 19, 2019. (photo: Ira L. Black/Corbis/Getty Images)
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kicks off the Women's March in New York City on January 19, 2019. (photo: Ira L. Black/Corbis/Getty Images)


The Green New Deal: Movements (Finally) Get Visionary Again

By George Lakey, YES! Magazine

03 February 19


It’s bold, it’s inclusive. And Ocasio-Cortez and the young generation behind it understand that economic power needs to be met by people power.

y 2016 I’d begun to wonder whether my country was magnetically attracted to doomsday. Popular culture favored dystopias. A leading TV series about politics was beyond cynical. The presidential race had come down to the candidate of change, distasteful and negative, and the candidate of timid incrementalism, who wanted us to join her in believing that the U.S. was doing fine as is. Where was the bold vision of a better world?

Even progressive social movements had become vision-averse. It’s not that activists were no longer innovative or weren’t developing exciting alternatives on a grassroots level. It’s just that, when it came to the big picture, the power of imagination went missing.

Then in August 2016, the Movement for Black Lives broke through with its agenda and specific policy demands for Black power, freedom, and justice. Dozens of organizations began to sign on, even though the platform’s breadth and boldness meant that the signers wouldn’t necessarily agree with every sentence.

A vision, after all, is not a blueprint. The blueprints come later, after wide discussion.

In the same year, pioneering spirits in the Northwest generated Solutionary Rail, envisioning a massive, solar-based reinvention of industrial transportation across the northern tier of the country that would put new economic life into a rural America that had concluded, correctly, that the Democrats had abandoned them.

Big visions of better futures continued in 2017. PopularResistance.Org convened a gathering that wrote “The People’s Agenda” (“the people should set the agenda not the oligarchy”). Naomi Klein published No Is Not Enough, in which she told the story of progressive Canadians’ vision, “The Leap Manifesto.” The Canadians consciously chose not to frame their work as “steps toward a just Canada,” since what’s actually needed there is a leap. (And in the U.S., a broad jump!)

In early 2018 a grassroots group of Vermonters, on reading about the Nordic countries’ success in turning their countries around, realized that collective vision was a critical ingredient. The group called for a statewide “Vermont Vision Summit,” and a hundred people came together from all parts of Vermont. They decided to tackle the vision task on a state level, building their research-and-imagination muscles for the future as they figure out what Vermont’s leap forward will look like.

The Green New Deal

It’s not surprising that the boldness of the Green New Deal is associated with a very bold new member of the House, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Ocasio-Cortez’s dramatic entrance into national politics along with grassroots support from the Sunrise Movement gave strong legs to the Green New Deal even though the concept had been floated earlier by Bernie Sanders, and even before that had been urged by the U.S. Green Party.

Here’s the vision: a nation of 100 percent clean energy, a just transition to a more democratic economy, and massive public sector investments. Much as green jobs are needed, the vision goes further to include a web of economic policies, such as free higher education, that make possible the huge changes needed to make our country both sustainable and fair.

This combination, broad and inclusive, sets it apart from the ineffective strategy of single-issue environmentalists who keep expecting that fear of climate change is going to force an end to fossil fuel emissions. Fortunately, there is an alternative. Just as holistic health has taught us the value of a bigger view of human well-being, so also a big-picture strategy for our very complex society can energize us.

The very phrase “Green New Deal” evokes the 1930s and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when mass nonviolent campaigns so besieged the economic elite and disrupted the political order that those in power were forced to grant major, progressive changes. After the 1920s eclipse of trade unions, labor grew mighty in the 1930s. Other movements created alliances at the grassroots level, and cooperative ventures multiplied. The New Deal resulted from a movement of movements. Pressing environmental problems were addressed in a context where equity was also addressed. No one movement became the most important one.

In fits and starts, the United States strengthened its democracy even though we were highly polarized in the 1930s. Surprisingly, a by-product of polarization, then and now, is that incrementalists lose popular favor; attention goes increasingly to the visionaries, whose visions take large leaps that appeal to common sense.

How to give a vision “legs”

Along with the growing realization of the importance of vision and building movements of movements, more people are taking seriously the technology of nonviolent direct action campaigning.

A Washington state ballot initiative last year combined a carbon tax with a Green New Deal-style program of investments. The initiative was intolerable to the corporate elite, who defeated it with $30 million of oil money. The lesson applies to the whole country: Expect fierce opposition to major change and be ready to go beyond the constraints of electoral politics.

Ocasio-Cortez and the young generation behind the Sunrise Movement understand that economic power needs to be met by people power.

When congressional supporters of the Green New Deal proposed a committee to explore it and House leadership blocked it, Sunrise activists started a sit-in at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office. Ocasio-Cortez joined the sit-in.

It worked. Well, sort of. The sit-in won a “Select Committee on the Climate Crisis” in the House, with little power. Michael Grunwald reports in Politico that the Green New Deal concept nevertheless commands attention among Democratic office holders. After all, a December poll showed even a majority of grassroots Republicans like the idea. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found 81 percent of all registered voters support the Green New Deal. Among Democrats, 92 percent, and among Republicans, 64 percent.

Without bad-mouthing the concept, most Democratic politicians are now rushing to find ways to whittle the proposal down to something that won’t upset the status quo. That would, of course, prevent it from meeting the needs of either climate or justice.

The Democrats hope to win control of the Senate and White House in 2020. We can guess what will happen to the Green New Deal: a repeat of what happened under President Barack Obama to America’s long-deferred hunger for universal health care. By the time the sausage-making was done for the draft of the Affordable Care Act, even Obama’s strong push for a public option had been rejected by Democratic leaders.

If politicians are allowed to do business as usual, there’s no reason to believe that the Green New Deal as envisioned by the Sunrise Movement will be passed by even a Democrat-controlled White House and Congress. Sunrise spokesperson Stephen O’Hanlon says the movement understands that the Green New Deal depends on a major groundswell of pressure through action at the grassroots.

That’s where nonviolent direct action campaigning comes in. Study groups and training workshops are now spontaneously forming around the country that explore this type of campaigning to overcome roadblocks erected by those in power invested in preserving the status quo. Both new and veteran activists are studying the lessons from successful campaigns stretching back a century—especially the those that apply to this political moment of polarization and rising turbulence and violence.

The 1965 uprising in Selma, Alabama, holds one such lesson. It shows what is possible when grassroots action confronts a political class that doesn’t want to budge. When President Lyndon Johnson, arguably the most powerful individual in the world, ordered the civil rights movement to stop its next action, he encountered a still greater power—the mobilized will of the people. Johnson was forced to act for racial justice. That is what democracy looks like.

In mobilizing today, we are fortunate to have the civil rights and other movements’ experience to draw on. We also seem to be regaining the human capacity to create bold visions that inspire us and turn our values of fairness and a healthy future for planet into practical programs to fight for. We may decide that dystopias are not nearly as interesting.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Eris, Greek Goddess of Chaos, Confirms That She Wanted Trump to Be President Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 February 2019 13:24

Borowitz writes: "Partially confirming Sarah Huckabee Sanders's theory of divine intervention in the 2016 election, Eris, the Greek goddess of chaos, discord, and strife, revealed on Friday that she had wanted Donald J. Trump to be President."

The usually reclusive deity said that Trump was 'far and away' her first choice to be President in 2016. (photo: Ivy Close Images/Alamy)
The usually reclusive deity said that Trump was 'far and away' her first choice to be President in 2016. (photo: Ivy Close Images/Alamy)


Eris, Greek Goddess of Chaos, Confirms That She Wanted Trump to Be President

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

02 February 19

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


artially confirming Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s theory of divine intervention in the 2016 election, Eris, the Greek goddess of chaos, discord, and strife, revealed on Friday that she had wanted Donald J. Trump to be President.

Speaking from her temple on Mt. Olympus, the usually reclusive deity said that Trump was “far and away” her first choice to be President in 2016.

“I’d been following his career for years,” the goddess of disorder and ruin said. “The bankruptcies, the business failures. There was a lot for me to love.”

She complained that the media had given Vladimir Putin “way too much credit” for Trump’s ascent, asserting, “Who do you think made Putin President of Russia?”

Looking ahead to the 2020 election, Eris said that she was officially undecided about which candidate to back for President, but that she was leaning toward Howard Schultz. “What a shit show that would be,” she said.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I'm Being Prosecuted for Trying to Save the Lives of Three Migrants Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50077"><span class="small">Parker Deighan, CNN</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 February 2019 13:24

Deighan writes: "In a little over a month, I will go on trial for driving a vehicle in the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge, a vast wilderness area in Arizona that shares a border with Mexico. At the time of my offense, I was a volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths."

No More Deaths volunteers. (photo: Matt Nager)
No More Deaths volunteers. (photo: Matt Nager)


I'm Being Prosecuted for Trying to Save the Lives of Three Migrants

By Parker Deighan, CNN

02 February 19

 

n a little over a month, I will go on trial for driving a vehicle in the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge, a vast wilderness area in Arizona that shares a border with Mexico. At the time of my offense, I was a volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization No More Deaths, searching for three migrants who were lost without water. I was responding to a call from a family member who contacted our Search and Rescue hotline, after being turned away from law enforcement. Though I was never able to reach those migrants, I have since learned that two were detained and one was never found.

While the outcome of my case remains unclear, a recent court decision does not bode well for my future. This month, four volunteers, also with No More Deaths, were found guilty on misdemeanor charges of "Operating a Motor Vehicle in a Wilderness Area" and "Abandonment of Property." The "property" referred to was water left for migrants dying of thirst in the Cabeza Prieta.

These trials are part of the Trump administration's escalation in the targeting of humanitarian aid work in the borderlands. Rather than respecting our right to provide relief to migrants who have traversed thousands of miles in search of better lives, the administration is criminalizing our conduct in an area that government has historically done little to preserve.

And to be clear, while undocumented individuals have been crossing the border for years, the Trump administration has made the challenge of assisting that much harder. No More Deaths has worked openly since 2004, and previously enjoyed a friendly relationship with the local US attorney's office, and were told by an assistant US attorney that he was not interested in prosecuting our volunteers.

This changed in 2017. The current US attorneys have aggressively pursued charges against our volunteers, including bringing felony charges of "harboring" against one of our long-term volunteers, who provided food, water and clean clothes to two men from Central America.

The irony of the charges against me is that I fully believe in the importance of protecting wildlife and wild spaces. Prior to moving to Arizona, I worked with the Montana Conservation Corps, and spent much of my free time exploring wilderness areas. I came to love the feeling of solitude in the backcountry. But upon hearing about No More Deaths from a friend, I went to volunteer for a month in 2015.

There, No More Deaths explained how remote terrain was being weaponized against people crossing the border, many of whom were fleeing poverty and violence. More specifically, since the mid-1990s, US border enforcement strategy has been to heavily concentrate enforcement in urban areas where people traditionally have crossed, thereby intentionally funneling migrants into remote and dangerous terrain, like Cabeza Prieta. After witnessing some of the suffering taking place there, I relocated to Tucson to dedicate myself to humanitarian aid work.

While some might argue that Cabeza Prieta could evoke an awe similar to that inspired by Montana's vast wilderness -- with its towering Saguaro cacti, flat expanses against jagged mountains and vivid sunsets -- the truth is much more complex.

During World War II and the Korean War, the government used Cabeza Prieta as a military bombing range. Even today, the military uses the airspace for training exercises. As a result of military activity, visitors must get a permit and sign an agreement acknowledging that entering the refuge "presents the danger of permanent, painful, disabling, and disfiguring injury or death due to high explosive detonations from falling objects such as aircraft, aerial targets, live ammunition, missiles, bombs, and other similar dangerous situations."

This is also the same land that Border Patrol agents now traverse daily, riding ATVs, driving trucks off-road and flying helicopters to police the border. And yet, the prosecution, in the trial of my four peers, argued that it was bringing charges in an effort to protect the "pristine, untrammeled" land.

So, why do humanitarians like me need access to Cabeza Prieta? Let's take a look at the numbers. In a week of exploration on the refuge in 2016, volunteers with No More Deaths recovered four bodies in five days. Then, in 2017, the bodies of 32 people were recovered on the refuge. And given the challenges of accessing this vast wilderness, there are surely many more who have died and have yet to be discovered.

While the US border enforcement strategy intended to use the risk of death as a "deterrent" to unauthorized migration, it has actually caused a crisis of death and disappearance. And when humanitarian aid workers try to access maintained roads to recover the dead and prevent the deaths of migrants, land managers selectively weaponize the mandate of "wilderness conservation" to keep us out.

In one of the trials last week, I watched as Juliette Fernandez, regional fish and wildlife refuge manager and wilderness coordinator, testified on the importance of wilderness being a place where you can experience nature with little chance of encountering another person. What truth does this aspiration hold in a landscape where you may encounter the body of someone who has died?

Someday, I hope to walk out into the wilderness in southern Arizona, without the fear that I will encounter someone in distress, or the body of someone we were too late to help. I hope to walk out without helicopters circling overhead and armed agents driving past. I hope to feel at peace in the beauty of the Sonoran Desert.

But I know this will only happen when we no longer have a militarized border designed to funnel people into this perilous terrain. Until that day, humanitarian aid is vital to the preservation of human life and must not be criminalized.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Efforts to Oust Maduro Are Illegal and Will Kill More Venezuelans Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=18156"><span class="small">Mark Weisbrot, The Sacramento Bee </span></a>   
Saturday, 02 February 2019 13:24

Weisbrot writes: "If Russia, China and North Korea decided to recognize Nancy Pelosi as the president of the United States, would Americans go along with that?"

People stand in line to buy bread in San Cristóbal, Venezuela. (photo: Carlos García Rawlins/Reuters)
People stand in line to buy bread in San Cristóbal, Venezuela. (photo: Carlos García Rawlins/Reuters)


Trump's Efforts to Oust Maduro Are Illegal and Will Kill More Venezuelans

By Mark Weisbrot, The Sacramento Bee

02 February 19


Mark Weisbrot turns the table on "common sense" to analyze Venezuela in the international landscape.

f Russia, China and North Korea decided to recognize Nancy Pelosi as the president of the United States, would Americans go along with that?

I mean, the ones who don't like Trump, think he is a real threat to the country, and even not a legitimately elected president? I don't think so. But Trump, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Adviser John Bolton all think that the United States should be able to choose a new president for Venezuela.

So does "ouster in chief" – as the New York Times recently described him – Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). And this sordid bunch has just recruited Elliot Abrams, who many believe should have been convicted as a war criminal in the 1980s, to help make their dream come true.

How could this go wrong? Well we do have some 21st century experience with U.S.-sponsored "regime change" and it has ranged from murderous to horrific.

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Honduras – all have led to a lot of killing and suffering, mostly of civilians including children.

Many of the migrants fleeing Honduras in the caravans that Trump has recently demonized and manipulated politically were escaping from misery caused by the 2009 U.S.-backed military coup in that country.

Not to mention the much larger wave of migrants upending European politics, most of them escaping from the mess that the U.S. government created with its regime change wars in the Middle East.

We can put aside the fanciful notion that the Trump regime change operation in Venezuela has something to do with promoting democracy.

Trump is still good buddies with MBS in Saudi Arabia – that's Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman or Mister Bone Saw, as he was called after his underlings killed and chopped up a Washington Post journalist and U.S. resident.

And the murderous Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who has killed thousands in his own country; or Juan Orlando Hernandez of Honduras, who stole his re-election last year in broad daylight. And so on.

But President Nicolas Maduro has to go, they say. So Juan Guaido, a little-known Venezuelan congressman, anointed himself after a phone call from Mike Pence the night before.

What do the Trump administration and its allies want in Venezuela, besides the world's largest oil reserves for American oil companies?

Mostly they want power in the region, where just a few years ago left governments who were quite friendly with Venezuela presided over the majority of the region.

The U.S. "national security state" lost a lot of influence in Latin America during the first decade or so of the 21st century, and now they are taking it back.

To be sure, a large majority of Venezuelans want a new government, and there are good reasons that they would.

The economy has shrunk by a record 50 percent in the last five years, and inflation is over a million percent annually. It's a record-breaking depression combined with hyperinflation, and it's mostly the fault of the current government.

But the U.S. has imposed harsh sanctions to make that depression worse and make it nearly impossible to fix the hyperinflation. These sanctions, which are illegal under international and probably U.S. law, have killed many Venezuelans by worsening the scarcities of life-saving medicines.

New sanctions announced this week will take more billions of dollars of revenue and assets from the government, severely deepening the depression. More Venezuelans will die and others will flee the country, exacerbating the Venezuelan refugee crisis.

A worse scenario may unfold if the regime change operation pushes Venezuela, which is still a politically polarized country, into civil war.

Isn't it time we stopped trying to choose other people's governments and focused on trying to clean up our own mess at home?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: John Bolton Is a Serial Arms Control Killer Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50075"><span class="small">Joseph Cirincione, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 February 2019 12:08

Cirincione writes: "John Bolton relishes in targeting nuclear arms treaties. He is very good at it."

John Bolton. (photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)
John Bolton. (photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)


John Bolton Is a Serial Arms Control Killer

By Joseph Cirincione, The Washington Post

02 February 19

 

ohn Bolton relishes in targeting nuclear arms treaties. He is very good at it.

The U.S. national security adviser’s latest hit is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but his list of victims goes back decades. He had a hand in either the U.S. withdrawal or repeal of Richard Nixon’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Bill Clinton’s Agreed Framework with North Korea and Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

Now he has helped put the knife into Ronald Reagan’s landmark treaty, one that broke the back of the nuclear arms race in 1987. It was the first time that the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to destroy, not just limit, nuclear weapons. Together they destroyed almost 2,700 perfectly good nuclear weapons that they had spent billions of dollars and many years building. It began the process of massive reductions in global nuclear arms that continued until the current administration.

Why is Bolton against these nuclear security treaties that Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, have championed? Because he thinks they make America weak. In 1999, he decried the liberal “fascination with arms-control agreements as a substitute for real non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” A year later, he ridiculed “the Church of Arms Control.”

For Bolton and others like him, these agreements are part of the effort by the global Lilliputians to tie down the American Gulliver. In his mind, we must have maximum flexibility and multiple military options to preserve our security and interests around the world. We must protect our nation with military might, not pieces of paper.

Russia is likely in violation of the INF Treaty. It has deployed missiles near its border with Europe at ranges that exceed those allowed by the agreement. But when someone breaks the law, the answer is not to repeal the law. There are well-established methods for bringing an offending nation back into compliance. Reagan, in fact, negotiated the INF Treaty while the Soviets were in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He pushed and cajoled them for several years. After signing the INF Treaty, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev relented and shut down the offending radar. We could do the same for the INF Treaty by pushing for an agreement on mutual inspections, as many experts have suggested.

But Bolton does not want to fix the treaty; he wants to kill it. “Violations give America the opportunity to discard obsolete, Cold War-era limits on its own arsenal and to upgrade its military capabilities to match its global responsibilities,” Bolton wrote in 2014.

America will pay a high price for this rigid ideology. President Trump walking out of Reagan’s treaty is a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It doesn’t fix the problem; it makes it worse. Now, there will be no restraints whatsoever on Putin’s ability to deploy hundreds of missiles, should he desire. The United States will likely be blamed for the collapse of the treaty, widening the split within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Europeans are already shaken by the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Iran nuclear deal. This will increase their doubts about U.S. commitment to their security.

All this plays into Putin’s hands. It raises serious questions about whether Putin and Trump discussed this in any of their five secretive meetings. Whatever Bolton’s ideological agenda, this is certainly helping not hurting Putin’s Russia.

This goes beyond geopolitical advantage. For those who followed the arms race of the 1980s, it feels like déjà vu to again watch countries matching adversaries’ military deployments with their own in a futile effort to overcome or intimidate. And this time, it isn’t just a two-nation race. For some, the real payoff for leaving the INF Treaty is that it will allow the United States to deploy new missiles against China’s medium and intermediate-range missiles, even though we already have multiple ways to target their systems and vastly more nuclear weapons.

Thankfully, Congress has indicated that it will not idly watch as the nuclear security house burns down. Last Thursday, 10 senators, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and including three Democratic 2020 presidential candidates, introduced legislation barring any funding for any new weapon that would violate the INF Treaty. The House is certain to follow suit.

Congressional and European pressure may yet combine to pull Trump back from this self-destructive brink. European Union Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini called on Friday for both sides to stick to the treaty. “What we definitely don’t want to see is our continent going back to being a battlefield or a place where other superpowers confront themselves,” she said. “This belongs to a faraway history.”

The danger is that the INF Treaty is not the last arms control treaty to die. Many fear that Bolton has his eyes on the New START agreement that limits long-range nuclear forces. That treaty expires in 2021, unless we act to extend it. Otherwise, for the first time since 1972, there will be no limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces.

Bolton must be stopped before he strikes again.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 Next > End >>

Page 988 of 3432

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.

RSNRSN