|
So It Turns Out Pushing the Democrats Does Make Them Stronger |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:24 |
|
Ash writes: "The Democratic party is moving again, but it wasn't easy. It took a major insurgency by Bernie Sanders, inspired grassroots activists, and the worst, most offensive, most outrageously unethical and illegal president in U.S. history to get them their wave. To their credit, it's a wave they are managing to ride."
Beto O'Rourke, his wife Amy Sanders, and their children greet reporters after voting on Election Day 2018. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
So It Turns Out Pushing the Democrats Does Make Them Stronger
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
17 November 18
 he Democratic party is moving again, but it wasn’t easy. It took a major insurgency by Bernie Sanders, inspired grassroots activists, and the worst, most offensive, most outrageously unethical and illegal president in U.S. history to get them their wave. To their credit, it’s a wave they are managing to ride.
For decades, “the base” has been pushing the party to ditch the donors and return to community-based action. It’s not clear whether the party ever heard that message or was just overrun by the same wave that washed away the Republicans.
In either case, the Progressive challenge has played a major role in reinvigorating the Democratic Party.
In fairness, Democratic control of the House is quite likely to help immensely in the effort mitigate the damage being done to Western Democracy by Donald Trump and by proxy Vladimir Putin. The Democrats appear to grasp the scope of the threat and the exigency of the moment.
The power of subpoena is the most potent weapon the Democrats have at their disposal. Open hearings can also be used to great effect. Key Democrats seem to sense the magnitude of their new power and appear ready to use it. Open hearings have the capacity to engage the governed, also known as the voters.
It is difficult to overestimate political momentum generated by voter activism in the Trump era. Angry voters should be credited directly with saving ObamaCare. The “Blue Wave” was in practical terms a voter wave.
American voters have found their voice and with it their power, the vast power of Democracy. Now would be an excellent time to keep the pressure on. The big hurdle for the progressive wave comes when the movement has to separate the Democrats from the special interest donors.
It’s easy to say “healthcare for all” or “expand Medicare” but achieving those goals means standing up to the unbridled profiteering of the healthcare industry. That’s something Obama and the Affordable Care Act didn’t even attempt to do.
They wanted people to have access to more affordable healthcare but they also wanted to find a way to protect the profits of the healthcare companies. The ACA’s mandate largely achieved that and people, even people with pre-existing conditions, are covered, but it hasn’t done anything to break the healthcare industry’s ownership grip on healthcare in America. Americans still pay exponentially more for basic healthcare than citizens in other Western countries. Public options are at odds with private profits. This is where the rubber meets the road for the new Democratic Party. This is the bridge the voters who empowered them are waiting for them to cross.
Another darling of the Democratic Party leadership over the years has been the defense industry. Unlike the healthcare industry, which actually does save lives occasionally, the defense industry is in the very profitable business of killing. Defense spending is higher now than it has ever been. While many of the new wave Democrats ran on a promise to rein in Trump, not too many of them promised to take on the defense industry.
So it was very encouraging to see people power at the polls, but there’s a lot more work to be done. At least now we have a blueprint for success.
Marc Ash is the founder and former 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.
 |
|
This Law Helps Police Get Away With Murder. Let's End It. |
|
|
Saturday, 17 November 2018 09:24 |
|
Brooks writes: "California is widely believed to be one of the most progressive states in the country. But it's also home to some of the most unjust laws in the nation, which allow police officers and prison guards to commit violence and even murder while remaining insulated from accountability - specifically when it comes to police misconduct and violence against the public they are supposed to protect and serve."
Two police stand at their vehicle. (photo: Guardian Liberty Voice)
This Law Helps Police Get Away With Murder. Let's End It.
By Cat Brooks, BuzzFeed
17 November 18
California is a progressive stronghold. It’s also home to some of the most unjust laws in the nation.
 alifornia is widely believed to be one of the most progressive states in the country. But it’s also home to some of the most unjust laws in the nation, which allow police officers and prison guards to commit violence and even murder while remaining insulated from accountability — specifically when it comes to police misconduct and violence against the public they are supposed to protect and serve.
One of the worst of these is the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA), commonly known as the “police officers bill of rights.” It provides cops in California facing criminal accusations with an extensive list of special loopholes and escape hatches that no other public employee or everyday citizen enjoys. These are not technically “rights,” but rather ways in which police can get away with murder and misconduct.
What special benefits does POBRA grant to police? Even if an officer is questioned, they are entitled to early access to the nature of the investigation, who will interrogate them, and their name, rank, and command. They can even bring their own recording device and record the interrogation — good luck to a civilian who tries the same. There are tight time limits on how long an investigation can go on — if it goes beyond that, the officer cannot be disciplined.
Questioning must take place at a reasonable time, not during work hours — no evening interrogations. And if off duty, the officer must be paid. Can you imagine how many regular people have been forced to miss work or lose their jobs after being accused of even minor infractions, guilty or not?
It’s time repeal the POBRA and the myriad of policies and practices that protect law enforcement and endanger our communities. Today, the Justice Teams Network is launching a campaign to inform and empower impacted communities across California about these laws, to support organizing with the goal of eradicating police violence. The campaign launches with the first in a series of videos, and will include town hall meetings across the state. Join us.
The movement to break this blue wall of impunity has been growing ever since Oscar Grant was killed by Johannes Mehserle, then a BART police officer, in Oakland, California, nearly 10 years ago. Since then, we’ve seen the explosive increase in killings of community members and loved ones, such as Sahleem Tindle, Cesar Cruz, Yuvette Henderson, Luis Góngora Pat, Mario Woods, Ernesto Duenez, Anthony Nunez, Wakiesha Wilson, Eric Rivera, Kenney Watkins, Redel Jones, Grechario Mack, Kisha Michael, Tyisha Miller, Brendon Glenn, and many more. They are just a few of the approximately 100 people who die each year at the hands of California law enforcement.
Protests outside police stations, candlelight vigils, and visits to state legislators to push for radical reform fell on deaf ears, and the inaction of those in power made it clear that change will only come through tactical organizing, coalition building, and a groundswell effort to radically transform the way our communities are policed and our bodies are incarcerated.
Law enforcement dodges accountability thanks to a matrix of state and local laws, police union contracts, and court rulings.
POBRA matters because criminal prosecutions of law enforcement are so rare — the only investigations that happen are generally the internal ones done by the offending agency. That’s where POBRA comes into play. One of its many consequences is California’s extremely tight window of one year, during which an investigation into foul play must be completed for disciplinary measures to be taken. The clock starts ticking the moment an agency discovers an officer’s act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct, or once a criminal investigation or prosecution of that officer begins. If it fails to complete the investigation within one year, the public agency may not punish the officer or deny them a promotion on grounds other than merit. This window is way too narrow and provides district attorneys a convenient way to cover for police.
In San Francisco, it took District Attorney George Gascón two and three years, respectively, to conclude his investigations of SFPD’s killing of Mario Woods, 26, and Luis Góngora Pat, 45. This is double and triple the time allotted under POBRA to ensure accountability for the officers involved. Woods was shot 20 times by five officers for holding a butter knife at his side, and Góngora Pat was shot with four bean bag rounds and seven bullets by two officers less than 30 seconds after they arrived on the scene and found him sitting on the ground, allegedly holding a knife.
Even when police departments or police commissions conduct investigations and find officers guilty of wrongdoing within the time window, the guilty parties rarely face any consequences, let alone leave the policing profession. More often than not, they engage in a “lateral move,” transferring quietly to a police department and a community that know nothing about their history.
There is an unjust imbalance of power where the lives of police who commit wrongdoing are valued over the lives of the everyday citizen. Protect and serve is now kill and command. Adding insult to injury, a department must undergo an elaborate, complicated process to discipline an officer found culpable of wrongdoing. Some local police unions have won even more protections for wayward officers in labor negotiations with city officials. No other public employees have similar extra protections.
Things got worse in 2006 when the California Supreme Court ruled that records of a police officer who appeals a decision in an administrative hearing are confidential and cannot be disclosed to the public. In effect, it prevented the public from learning the extent to which police officers have committed wrongdoing and misconduct that endangers the public.
A recently passed bill, SB-1421, chipped away at this problem. However, it only breaks the seal on the most egregious forms of police misconduct — sexual assault, murder, and dishonesty. It leaves out a plethora of other forms of misconduct and does not compel police to immediately release information. The public — including journalists — will have to ask for such records proactively through public records requests, and even then, details can be redacted to protect the safety of officers and witnesses, as well as to prevent “invasion of privacy” or a pending investigation. Police can use these loopholes to delay or deny access to records.
Ultimately, the courts will decide how much of this is interpreted. But ultimately, we need new laws that expose misconduct and allow the public to see the records of past conduct by officers in their communities who may endanger them.
Beyond that, it is time not just to dismantle POBRA, but for politicians who claim to care about racial justice to stop accepting police union money. Officers, who are armed and tasked to serve and protect, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, not a lower one. In California, we believe in rights and dignity for all people, not just law enforcement.
It is clear, too, when we look at who is targeted and profiled by law enforcement — black, brown, indigenous, and LGBT community members, unhoused people, people with disabilities, people experiencing mental health crises, and people living in poverty — that these protections serve to uphold racism, ableism, anti-trans sentiment, poor-bashing, and white supremacy. Tackling these laws and policies means tackling some of the deepest and most harmful systemic forms of oppression that exist in America.
In a time when the list of names we mourn grows longer and longer, shouldn’t we, the people who live in the communities where these police officers work and whose tax dollars pay them, be able to know about histories of abuse, torture, and murder before we hire them? The answer is clear.
|
|
|
Trump Refuses to Pardon White House Turkey After Accusing It of Working for Soros |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 16 November 2018 13:55 |
|
Borowitz writes: "In a startling break with Thanksgiving tradition, Donald J. Trump refused to pardon the White House turkey after claiming that it was working as a secret operative of the billionaire George Soros."
Thanksgiving turkey. (photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Trump Refuses to Pardon White House Turkey After Accusing It of Working for Soros
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
16 November 18
 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." 
 n a startling break with Thanksgiving tradition, Donald J. Trump refused to pardon the White House turkey after claiming that it was working as a secret operative of the billionaire George Soros.
A group of fourth graders from Bethesda, Maryland, who had gathered on the White House lawn for the annual turkey-pardoning ceremony appeared unprepared for the anti-Soros outburst that Trump unleashed on the Thanksgiving bird.
“That turkey was sent by Soros to spy on me,” Trump said, angrily turning on the fowl. “A lot of people are saying this.”
While the oblivious turkey pecked desultorily at the ground, an increasingly enraged Trump spewed a stream of conspiracy theories linking the feathered animal to global élites, election fraud in Florida, and Jim Acosta.
Trump attempted to lead the fourth-grade class in a chant of “Lock It Up,” apparently directed at the Thanksgiving delicacy, but the students slowly backed away from him in silence.
Tracy Klugian, one of the children who witnessed Trump’s meltdown, said that he found it “sad.”
“I get that he’s upset about Mueller and the midterms, but he shouldn’t take it out on a turkey,” he said.
|
|
Big Oil v. the Planet Is the Fight of Our Lives. Democrats Must Choose a Side |
|
|
Friday, 16 November 2018 13:54 |
|
Sirota writes: "The world's leading scientists issued a report warning of total planetary dystopia unless we take immediate steps to seriously reduce carbon emissions. Then, oil and gas corporations dumped millions of dollars into the 2018 elections to defeat the major initiatives that could have slightly reduced fossil fuel use."
Icebergs in the Arctic. (photo: Peter Dasilva/EPA)
Big Oil v. the Planet Is the Fight of Our Lives. Democrats Must Choose a Side
By David Sirota, Guardian UK
16 November 18
The industry has political supremacy even in left-leaning states, but immediate action can hold off an environmental state of emergency
he world’s leading scientists issued a report warning of total planetary dystopia unless we take immediate steps to seriously reduce carbon emissions. Then, oil and gas corporations dumped millions of dollars into the 2018 elections to defeat the major initiatives that could have slightly reduced fossil fuel use.
Though you may not know it from the cable TV coverage, this was one of the most significant – and the most terrifying – stories of the midterms. For those who actually care about the survival of the human race, the key questions now should be obvious: is there any reason to hope that we will retreat from “drill baby drill” and enact a sane set of climate policies? Or is our country – and, by extension, our species – just going to give up?
Before answering, it is worth reviewing exactly what happened over these last few months, because the election illustrates how little the fossil fuel industry is willing to concede in the face of a genuine crisis. While the dominant media narrative has been about Democratic voters euphorically electing a House majority and yelling a primal scream at Donald Trump, the loudest shriek of defiance was the one bellowed by oil and gas CEOs. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that we have only 12 years to ward off an ecological disaster, those oil and gas executives’ message to Planet Earth was unequivocal: drop dead.
That message was most explicit in Colorado, where a drilling and fracking boom is happening in the middle of fast-growing suburbs. With oil and gas companies seeking to put noxious derricks and rigs near population centers, local activists backed a ballot measure called Proposition 112 that aimed to make sure new fossil fuel infrastructure is set a bit farther away from schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods and water sources.
The initiative was an angry response to a state government so awash in fossil fuel campaign cash that it has blocked legislation to merely allow regulators to prioritize the health and safety of residents when those regulators issue permits for drilling and fracking.
According to an industry analysis, Proposition 112 would have left much of the oil and gas reserves near Denver accessible for extraction, but yes, it is true – at a time when climate scientists say we must keep fossil fuel deposits in the ground, there was a chance the initiative would have stopped some extraction.
The oil and gas industry could have looked across a Colorado ravaged by climate-intensified wildfires, droughts and floods and decided to accept the modest measure, knowing that the initiative is the absolute minimum that is required at this perilous moment. Instead, fossil fuel companies did the opposite: they poured $40m into opposing Proposition 112 and spreading insidious agitprop.
Despite scientists warning that fracked natural gas threatens to worsen climate change, oil and gas operatives in the state promoted cartoonishly dishonest claims that burning fossil fuel “is cleaning our air and improving health”. As Colorado’s local media effectively erased the term “climate change” from its election coverage, the industry managed to defeat the measure by outspending its proponents 40-to-1. In the process, fossil fuel companies’ scorched-earth campaign was a clear statement that in the face of an environmental cataclysm, oil and gas moguls will not accept even a tiny reduction in their revenues.
In the Pacific north-west and the south-west, it was a similar tale.
In Washington State, petroleum giants funneled $25m into defeating a proposal to require polluters to pay some of the costs of the climate change havoc they are wreaking. The measure, which would have assessed a $15 fee for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit, was beaten with 56% of the vote, after the industry’s ad campaign featured criticism from a former state attorney general – who viewers weren’t told now works at Chevron’s law firm. In all, $13m of the funding against the measure came from BP – a company that simultaneously claims to unsuspecting consumers that it supports a carbon tax.
In sun-baked Arizona, you may have thought solar energy would be a fairly easy pitch. However, after the owner of the state’s major energy provider poured nearly $30m into the election, Arizonans soundly rejected a ballot initiative to force the utility to get more of its power from renewable sources.
Meanwhile, in a single California county, the fossil fuel industry spent a whopping $8m to defeat a citizens’ initiative to ban new drilling and fracking.
Realizing that they may have overreached, some fossil fuel industry spokespeople are now telling lawmakers that oil and gas companies really do want to work collaboratively on environmental issues. However, their behavior in the election proved that the industry is not operating in good faith. Oil and gas CEOs showed that they will gladly accelerate the climate crisis if doing so allows them to rake in more money.
And make no mistake about it: the industry’s roughly $100m in campaign spending this year was not just about one individual election cycle. It was a shock-and-awe spectacle designed to intimidate any prospective campaigns, organizations and movements that want to challenge the political supremacy of oil and gas – and some prominent Democrats in Washington seem to be cowering in fear.
Always nervous about the donor class and about electoral blowback from Republicans, some congressional Democrats now seem intent on avoiding any direct confrontation over climate change policy.
Indeed, days before the election, the Hill newspaper surveyed lawmakers and major environmental groups, and found that “Democrats are unlikely to pursue major climate change legislation if they win the House majority, despite a growing body of evidence suggesting time is running out to address the issue.”
As her own state was being incinerated by climate-intensified wildfires, the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, faced pressure for climate action from new lawmakers like New York Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – but Pelosi would only commit to reviving a moribund congressional committee to study the issue. The conflict-averse posture follows the party recently rescinding its policy of rejecting fossil fuel campaign cash, as well as Democratic Representative Vicente Gonzalez of climate-ravaged Texas setting up a new Oil & Gas Caucus to promote the “economic benefits of fully harnessing the country’s natural resources”.
Taken together, these developments – coupled with the Trump administration’s opposition to any serious climate policy – have left many voters and activists feeling despondent, even in the aftermath of a “blue wave” election. As former Bernie Sanders campaign aide Claire Sandberg tweeted: “Entire towns are burning to nothing in California. People are being incinerated alive in their cars attempting to flee. But a majority of Democrats still won’t reject fossil fuel money, and no one has put forward a climate plan that is remotely commensurate with the IPCC findings.”
And yet, amid the thick smoke of wildfires and industry propaganda, there is still reason to believe that our children are not guaranteed to live in a real-life version of Mad Max: Fury Road. Our fate is not – yet – sealed, as long as those who want humanity to survive pay attention to exactly what science, the fossil fuel industry and the political trends are telling us, and then act accordingly in the arenas where immediate progress is most likely.
First and foremost, there are now 14 states that have the trifecta of Democratic control of the governorship and both legislative chambers. Those include major fossil fuel producing states such as Colorado, New Mexico and California. Democratic leaders in these states cannot claim that climate inaction is a product of Republican intransigence – the Democrats in these locales have uninhibited power. And so if activists work to hold these local Democratic lawmakers accountable, there is a good chance they can force legislatures to enact emissions standards, renewable energy mandates and other environmental rules that will bolster the fight against climate change.
Similarly, states and cities collectively control trillions dollars of public pension money that can be marshaled for the battle. Shifting that cash out of oil and gas can at once provide more capital for renewable energy and drain fossil fuel companies of resources they need for their extraction binge.
Officials like New York comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, incoming Connecticut treasurer Shawn Wooden and North Carolina treasurer Dale Folwell may be unknown compared with the average backbench senator on the Sunday chat shows, but they and their colleagues who control these massive war chests have an enormous amount of divestment power that can both support the climate change fight, and boost investment returns for retirees. There’s a good chance that at least some of them can be spurred to action if they are no longer permitted to toil in obscurity, and instead face consistent grassroots pressure.
The courts are another arena where the climate fight seems to be accelerating. There, teenagers are mounting a landmark case arguing that the government’s refusal to restrict carbon emissions is endangering the next generation’s constitutional right to life, liberty and property. A federal judge also just blocked the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that the Trump administration had improperly “discarded prior factual findings related to climate change”.
At the same time, state attorneys general are pursuing a lawsuit examining whether the oil industry deliberately buried science that showed the dangers of climate change. Those cases, which bring even more pressure on the industry, can be supported by concurrent hearings and subpoenas from the low-profile House science committee, which is expected to be chaired by Texas Democratic Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who has called for more aggressive action on climate change.
So, considering both the election setbacks and opportunities, let’s go back to those original questions: is there reason to hope or are we just going to give up? The answer is contingent on our ability to focus in an age of distraction.
Will those who truly care about the survival of humanity muster the discipline to occasionally look away from the Washington DC garbage fire and focus more activism on the state and local level? Will a media that obsesses over Trump’s tweets find the will to more diligently cover a climate crisis that threatens the planet? Will our political class behold the fossil fuel industry’s sociopathy and realize that we face an existential choice between profits and ecological survival?
In short, will we as a society finally start treating this emergency as an actual emergency?
If the answer is yes, then there is still reason to believe we are not doomed – but we better get to work, because there’s no time to spare.
|
|
ost weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today, Trump’s tantrums, the Times’ revelations about Facebook, and the First Lady’s campaign to get a West Wing staffer fired.
