• How Do You Take Your Poison?

    posted by Keito
    2012-09-25 21:32:48
    'We will all swallow our cup of corporate poison. We can take it from nurse Romney, who will tell us not to whine and play the victim, or we can take it from nurse Obama, who will assure us that this hurts him even more than it hurts us, but one way or another the corporate hemlock will be shoved down our throats. The choice before us is how it will be administered. Corporate power, no matter who is running the ward after January 2013, is poised to carry out U.S. history’s most savage assault against the poor and the working class, not to mention the Earth’s ecosystem. And no one in power, no matter what the bedside manner, has any intention or ability to stop it.

    If you insist on participating in the cash-drenched charade of a two-party democratic election at least be clear about what you are doing. You are, by playing your assigned role as the Democratic or Republican voter in this political theater, giving legitimacy to a corporate agenda that means your own impoverishment and disempowerment. All the things that stand between us and utter destitution—Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, Head Start, Social Security, public education, federal grants-in-aid to America’s states and cities, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program (WIC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and home-delivered meals for seniors—are about to be shredded by the corporate state. Our corporate oligarchs are harvesting the nation, grabbing as much as they can, as fast as they can, in the inevitable descent.

    We will be assaulted this January when automatic spending reductions, referred to as “the fiscal cliff,” begin to dismantle and defund some of our most important government programs. Mitt Romney will not stop it. Barack Obama will not stop it.

    And while Romney has been, courtesy of the magazine Mother Jones, exposed as a shallow hypocrite, Obama is in a class by himself. There is hardly a campaign promise from 2008 that Obama has not broken. This list includes his pledges to support the public option in health care, close Guantanamo, raise the minimum wage, regulate Wall Street, support labor unions in their struggles with employers, reform the Patriot Act, negotiate an equitable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, curb our imperial expansion in the Middle East, stop torture, protect reproductive rights, carry out a comprehensive immigration reform, cut the deficit by half, create 5 million new energy jobs and halt home foreclosures. Obama, campaigning in South Carolina in 2007, said that as president he would fight for the right of collective bargaining. “I’d put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll … walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America,” he said. But when he got his chance to put on those “comfortable pair of shoes” during labor disputes in Madison, Wis., and Chicago he turned his back on working men and women.

    Obama, while promising to defend Social Security, also says he stands behind the planned cuts outlined by his deficit commission, headed by Morgan Stanley board member Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican. The Bowles-Simpson plan calls for cutting 0.3 percentage points from the annual cost-of-living adjustment in the Social Security program. The annual reduction would slowly accumulate. After a decade it would mean a 3 percent cut. After two decades it would mean a 6 percent cut. The retirement age would be raised to 69. And those on Social Security who continued to work and made more than $40,000 a year would be penalized with further reductions. Obama’s payroll tax cuts have, at the same time, served to undermine the solvency of Social Security, making it an easier target for the finance corporations that seek to destroy the program and privatize the funds.

    But that is just the start. Cities and states are frantically staving off collapse. They cannot pay for most pension plans and are borrowing at higher and higher interest rates to keep themselves afloat. The country’s 19,000 municipalities face steadily declining or stagnant property tax revenues, along with spiraling costs. Annual pension payments for state and local plans more than doubled to 15.7 percent of payrolls in 2011 from 6.4 percent a decade ago, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. And local governments, which made some $50 billion in pension contributions in 2010, face unfunded pension liabilities of $3 trillion and unfunded health benefit liabilities of more than $1 trillion, according to The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. State and local government spending fell at a rate of 2.1 percent in the second quarter of this year, according to the Commerce Department. It was the 11th consecutive quarterly reduction in expenditures. And in the past year alone local governments cut 66,000 jobs, mostly those of teachers and other school employees, reported The Wall Street Journal, which accumulated this list of grim statistics.

    The costs of our most basic needs, from food to education to health care, are at the same time being pushed upward with no control or regulation. Tuition and fees at four-year colleges climbed 300 percent between 1990 and 2011, fueling the college loan crisis that has left graduates, most of them underemployed or unemployed, with more than $1 trillion in debt. Health care costs over the same period have risen 150 percent. Food prices have climbed 10 percent since June, according to the World Bank. There are now 46.7 million U.S. citizens, and one in three children, who depend on food stamps. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency under Obama has, meanwhile, expelled 1.5 million immigrants, a number that dwarfs deportations carried out by his Republican predecessor. And while we are being fleeced, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Bank has since 2008 doled out $16 trillion to national and global financial institutions and corporations.

    Fiscal implosion is only a matter of time. And the corporate state is preparing. Obama’s assault on civil liberties has outpaced that of George W. Bush. The refusal to restore habeas corpus, the use of the Authorization to Use Military Force Act to justify the assassination of U.S. citizens, the passing of the FISA Amendments Act to monitor and eavesdrop on tens of millions of citizens without a warrant, the employment of the Espionage Act six times to threaten whistle-blowers inside the government with prison time, and the administration’s recent emergency appeal of U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest’s permanent injunction of Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act give you a hint of the shackles the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, intend to place on all those who contemplate dissent.

    But perhaps the most egregious assault will be carried out by the fossil fuel industry. Obama, who presided over the repudiation of the Kyoto Accords and has done nothing to halt the emission of greenhouse gases, reversed 20 years of federal policy when he permitted the expansion of fracking and offshore drilling. And this acquiescence to big oil and big coal, no doubt useful in bringing in campaign funds, spells disaster for the planet. He has authorized drilling in federally protected lands, along the East Coast, Alaska and four miles off Florida’s Atlantic beaches. Candidate Obama in 2008 stood on the Florida coastline and vowed never to permit drilling there.

    You get the point. Obama is not in charge. Romney would not be in charge. Politicians are the public face of corporate power. They are corporate employees. Their personal narratives, their promises, their rhetoric and their idiosyncrasies are meaningless. And that, perhaps, is why the cost of the two presidential campaigns is estimated to reach an obscene $2.5 billion. The corporate state does not produce a product that is different. It produces brands that are different. And brands cost a lot of money to sell.

    You can dismiss those of us who will in protest vote for a third-party candidate and invest our time and energy in acts of civil disobedience. You can pride yourself on being practical. You can swallow the false argument of the lesser of two evils. But ask yourself, once this nightmare starts kicking in, who the real sucker is.'
  • Metapunditedgy from reddit talks about voting in the upcoming US elections...

    posted by Keito
    2012-09-25 21:22:28
    "I'm a former Obama voter. I asked myself:

    1) Did Obama stand up for regular Americans? No.

    2) Did Obama fight for what he promised? No.

    3) Did Obama sell out to the corporate and military interests? Undeniably.

    4) Is Obama REALLY that different from Bush? Not in so many ways that matter.

    5) Even if the spin is true, do I want to vote for the gradual decline of my country? No.

    But the real kicker for me is:

    6) Do I believe that Obama would do a better job than Stein (or other true liberals)? No.

    I don't understand the point of voting for someone that you think has betrayed you. If you think Obama has done a great job for you, then great, vote for him. Otherwise vote for what you believe in.

    ALSO... true liberals don't have to win the election. Winning influence is a good start."
  • Interview with Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein

    posted by Keito
    2012-08-25 10:39:49
    'In the run-up to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, it is worthwhile to take note of the third-party or independent candidates that are candidates for president. These are people trying to advance agendas of humanity, who are up against an antidemocratic system rigged in favor of the two most prominent political parties.

    Yesterday, The Dissenter began its effort to highlight the importance of third party politics. Especially given the fact that President Barack Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney could care less about talking about the rule of law and transparency while on the campaign trail, the candidacy of Justice Party presidential candidate Rocky Anderson was highlighted through an extensive interview.

    Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate, is another candidate who is raising issues and speaking to the suffering of millions of Americans that has resulted because of the inequality and injustice that seems to have grown exponentially in the past decades. She is not just a politician but an activist. Recently, she was arrested during a sit-in against home foreclosures at Fannie Mae in Philadelphia. Her participation in the protest and decision to get arrested along with other demonstrators gave her candidacy a significant boost in attention.

    Below is a transcript of the beginning of an interview with Stein. We talked for nearly an hour. This is her answer to my first question.


    KEVIN GOSZTOLA, The Dissenter: Let’s begin with you talking a bit about your background and, specifically, I’d like you to talk about your work as an activist, because I think that is something unique or exceptional that you bring to the presidential race.

    JILL STEIN, Green Party Presidential Candidate: The American people are clearly clamoring for something real out there in this political system that has become so disconnected from what real everyday Americans are struggling with and the solutions we are clamoring. So, I think the fact that our campaign is not bought and paid for by Wall Street, the fact that we are every day real people who struggle on behalf on those things that are critical to the American public is why we are getting the resonance that we are.

    My background—I’m trained as a medical doctor and I became active, both from my perspective as a health care provider but from my perspective as a mother, looking at generations of young people struggling with chronic diseases they shouldn’t have. This epidemic of asthma, learning disabilities, obesity, diabetes, cancer, autism—you name it. I said to myself, our genes didn’t change overnight. These were new diseases twenty years ago in young people. And I said, our genes didn’t change. Something’s going on at the level of our communities, and I became tired of pushing pills on people and sending them back out to the very same things that were making them sick, so I became involved in community efforts to make our communities healthy and to take them back and make them work for the people who live there, not the multinational corporations who profit from them and exploit them. And I began to work to close down our polluting incinerators and to create jobs through recycling programs or to clean up and implode our coal plants and create jobs in weatherization, conservation and renewable energy.

    I thought, well surely if our legislators knew we could save lives, money and create jobs they would throw their support behind this kind of thing. As your typical activist, it took me about ten years to see this was just a game we play to keep the discontented busy spinning their wheels while the relentless exploitive economy continues to turn its wheels. In fact, we’ve only been accelerating in the wrong direction.

    I should mention that I became involved then in getting the money out of politics, thinking that seemed to be the problem. Let’s get the money out that bribes our elected officials legally to do the wrong thing. And, I joined a large coalition here in Massachusetts to pass public financing for elections. We passed it in a referendum by a two-to-one margin and the nearly solidly Democratic legislature—about eighty-five percent Democratic—promptly began to fight the law and within a year or so had repealed it. At that point, it became clear to me if we want the jobs we need or the health care we deserve and all the rest, we need to change the sick political system in order to fix everything else that ails us. So now I say I am practicing political medicine, when people ask me what I am doing, because it is the mother of all illnesses and we got to fix this one in order to fix everything else that is literally and figuratively killing us. And I don’t just mean our health but our economy, our jobs, our civil liberties, our democracy, our health care system.

    That’s basically a long way of saying I’m here as a mother, above all, really concerned about the direction that we have taken under this predatory political system that is bought and paid for by Wall Street. And in my own experience, I found if we’re going to change it, it’s not just changing one law. It’s not just simply finding a nice person within a sick system that will prevent them from doing the right thing, even if they wanted to, but we really need fundamental system change. So, that’s why I am working with the Green Party.

    I actually got recruited to run back in 2002 against Mitt Romney, as a matter of fact. I was recruited by the Green Party, which said our values are your values. We agree. We need to reform our healthcare system. We need an environment that’s not making us sick and we need jobs consistent with all that. So, the pitch presented to me was why don’t you keep doing what you’re doing but call it a political campaign. So, I first became involved not just in electoral politics but it was the first time I became involved in a political party in the run-up to 2002.

    I had never seen a reason to participate in electoral politics. It seemed so corrupted and I had never gone to a political meeting nor identified myself with a political party. So, it was quite a discovery to see that as a candidate the landscape was not at all what it was made out to be by the corporate press and the prevailing mythology that people even in 2000 and much more so now are desperate for a politics of integrity and a human-scale politics that looks, talks, smells and walks like a human being. Right now, what we get mostly looks, talks and smells like a rat and people know difference and care far more about the humanity of their politics than any political label.

    So, I was really flabbergasted and uplifted back in 2000 to see what an exciting conversation people were begging to have about real things in their lives and I found it—I entered politics out of desperation and I came out of that first race with a lot of inspiration about the need and the potential to have a real political process that actually puts the true crises we’re facing on the table and the real solutions, for which there’s enormous public support.

    The purpose of our campaign now is to transform this breaking point that we’re facing into a tipping point to take back our democracy and the kind of future we deserve. And it’s true, I think, we are accelerating in the wrong direction under both Democrats and Republicans and we badly need to own our politics once again. There’s an enormous wake-up call going out among the American people because we really are up against a breaking point.

    The ranks of the poor are enlarging massively by the year and we’re all in the target hairs right now. One out of every two Americans are in poverty or in low-income and headed for poverty. One in three homeowners are at risk for foreclosure. Fifty million Americans don’t have health insurance and the Affordable Health Care Act is not going to solve this, even when it had a Medicaid expansion. I’ve been living with it in Massachusetts for five years and the data is in. It is not solving the problem by any means.

    At any rate, I think there is a social movement that is alive and well, out there at the grassroots. People are really struggling for their survival and literally to put food on the table and keep shelter over their heads and to have a job, especially a job that pays a living wage. The accountability is so clearly now in both partisan camps and assured by this president who has not moved us forward over four years and has embraced the fundamental policies of George Bush and in many cases gone much further on the war, on the Wall Street bailouts, on the off-shoring of jobs with these free trade agreements with the most draconian of them all being negotiated behind closed doors by this president, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

    We’re at the breaking point and it’s a really good time to turn it into a tipping point and take back our future.'

    'When Eugene Debs ran for the country’s highest office in 1912 as a Socialist Party candidate, he considered the election to be of the “profoundest interest to the working class and the country” but lamented the fact that in the campaign there were “but two parties and but one issue.”

    “There is no longer even the pretense of difference between the so-called Republican and Democratic parties. They are substantially one in what they stand for,” Debs declared. “They are opposed to each other on no question of principle but purely in a contest for the spoils of office.”

    The words and wisdom of Debs could not be more appropriate, when assessing the 2012 Election. There are often surreal moments in the election where President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney argue over how they are different from one another or argue over whether they have similar policies or views. It conveniently allows the candidates to not discuss substantive issues that, despite the delusions promoted by mass media, boy wonder Romney’s veep Paul Ryan is not going to raise. In fact, CBS reports Americans are not likely to hear any “bold pronouncements” at the parties’ upcoming lavish political conventions.

    Firedoglake has been spotlighting third party politics over the past couple days and will continue to do so because the two major parties have proven themselves to be complicit enablers of systemic corruption. The lack of a multi-party system contributes to this corruption by giving Democratic or Republican administrations the cover to erode the rule of law, violate civil liberties, look the other way when massive fraud is committed on Wall Street, abuse secrecy powers by punishing whistleblowers as it simultaneously releases its most endearing national security secrets of the day, advance construction of an unpopular pipeline project behind the scenes despite risks to the environment or stand idly by as climate change becomes more dangerous to the planet, etc.

    There are other candidates besides the two major party candidates, who are running, and they deserve more attention, especially for the bold challenge to the rigged system of electoral politics that they have mounted.

    As the interview continues we discuss what has been most striking about the erosion of civil liberties in this period of history and what her relationship to grassroots activism would be if she were to be elected president.


    KEVIN GOSZTOLA, The Dissenter: You’ve been part of it as an activist and probably been subjected to it, but what would you say has struck you about the erosion, assault or the forced sacrifice of civil liberties that has gone on in the past decade?

    JILL STEIN, Green Party Presidential Candidate: Anyone who’s not concerned and up in hiding, I think doesn’t understand and hasn’t seen what’s going on. There’s reasons for all of us to be standing up and fighting to restore our civil liberties, now fighting for all they’re worth, because they continue to be stolen out from under us in a way which is extremely dangerous and does not bode well for the future. It is very important that we use the remaining civil liberties while we have them to oppose—I wouldn’t say drift toward a police state—I’d say a surge toward a police state.

    It’s really critical that we stand up now to take back our civil liberties, including just across the board our right to First Amendment, to free speech, to protest, to petition government for redress of grievances. What we’ve seen happening to the Occupy movements over the course of the past year is a case in point where actually the White House appears to be orchestrating Homeland Security and the FBI together with local, militarized police forces, who show up in riot gear with even helicopters overhead, and have brutally attacked one Occupy site after another, all with the same playbook, the same talking point. This is clearly a coordinated effort, which makes it all the scarier, and was a flagrant attack on our civil liberties to where peaceful protesters were not only denied their right to peaceful protest but were also viciously attacked for it and beat up and put into jail and threatened with jail sentences. In terms of First Amendment, this is an endangerment.

    Add to that the HR 347, the criminalization of protest, which basically gives the federal government to declare any site of protest a national special security event and make it a felony to be there. If you were protesting in a completely legal and peaceful manner, you’re still suddenly at risk for felony charges and a ten-year prison sentence, even if you’re not aware that the status of the ground you stand on has been changed.

    Add to that the president has claimed and codified the rights of indefinite detention for him and the country’s executive and this gives him the right to lock any of us and throw away the key, if he so desires, or send us off on rendition if he so desires without having to accuse us of a crime or bring us before a jury. It’s absolutely staggering. And due process guarantees—from eight hundred years ago, the Magna Carta—has been essentially thrown out. The president now has codified his right even to assassinate his enemies. This is someone who went into office saying he was going to close Guantanamo. Well, it appears to avoid the controversies of Guantanamo he has simply adopted a take no prisoners policy and is simply doing away with them out in the field and far beyond those who might be truly justified as enemies of the state. This is president has a policy of murder first and asking questions and establishing identity later, maybe.

    This is not a policy that is consistent with American liberty and it’s certainly not consistent with a foreign policy that can win the hearts and minds being courted by our sworn enemies. This is our wonderful recruiting policy for them. It makes clear that our civil liberties are in great jeopardy.

    GOSZTOLA: Something that this blog has given great attention to is the curbing of free speech rights for government employees, those that want to blow the whistle on fraud, malfeasance or corruption. What do you have to say about the Obama administration’s policy toward whistleblowers?

    STEIN: This is just another red flag that the White House and corporate politics is not serving our needs when members of the government are precluded from informing the American people on critical matters of national and foreign policy, matters we deserve to know about. It’s just reprehensible. It’s not consistent with democracy, that they are silenced. And, in fact, Obama has not only silenced them. He’s viciously gone after them and has persecuted more whistleblowers in his couple of years than certainly in the past decades and perhaps even longer.

    Furthermore, this policy seems to be directed especially toward his political critics, those he’s not happy with. Whereas other leaks from his administration about his foreign policy stances that make him look macho, those are not pursued with any apparent vigor. It appears to be a selective process of going after his critics. And it’s a shame and the hunting down of Bradley Manning and the effort to go after Julian Assange is extremely contrary to the interests of the American people, who have been enormously informed by the content of WikiLeaks.

    The shame is that we have a president and a foreign policy, in particular, that operates with such incredible secrecy and duplicity that they really have their hackles up about the transparency that these whistleblowers have tried to bring to the functioning of our government and our foreign policy. We desperately need that greater transparency and accountability to the American people of which we have none.

    GOSZTOLA: I think you would agree that social movements create the change in this country, that typically the politicians haven’t created the change unless there was a movement that was pushing them. And, you have these ties to social movements, which I think makes you unique in the field, but if we look back to four years, Obama had connections to social movements but once elected he did everything he could to cut himself off and make sure he wasn’t being influenced or that these movement had no power to do anything while he was president.

    What would you do differently to encourage openness and participation? And then, how would you tap into these movements to create and revitalize democracy in this country?

    STEIN: Great question

    Obama came to office owing millions in return favors to the financial services industry, Goldman Sachs, health insurance, nuclear, the war industry, weapons—You name it. He owed them favors in return. It was clear even before he was inaugurated when he began to make his appointments: Larry Summers, the architect of the Wall Street waste, fraud and abuse; Timothy Geithner, who looked the other way while the New York fed enacted that waste, fraud and abuse; Jeffrey Immelt, head of his jobs council, the king of off-shoring and shipping jobs overseas. As Obama began to create his Cabinet, it was clear where he was going.

    On Day 3 of his office, he began to intensify the bombing of Pakistan and then spread it into Somalia and Yemen and surge the troops in Afghanistan and withdrew in Iraq only because of Bush’s withdrawal date and he was unable to extend that withdrawal date and allow us to perhaps still be in Iraq. It became really clear what his agenda was if you hadn’t picked up on it early on and that agenda was entirely in line with who got him into office and who gave him the hundreds of millions of dollars to create that incredible public relations campaign that swept him into office and created the persona that really took hold of the American imagination.

    What’s really different about our campaign and my history of ten years of activism is that we don’t have those relationships with the guys who are screwing us from Wall Street to the fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants, etc. We have a history of fighting them, not cutting deals with them and not taking bribes from them. Unlike the president, we would not come into office owing favors. In fact, we would be greatly indebted to the ground troops of democracy, who would be responsible for getting us into office.

    Our entire mode of operating depends on public engagement and broad widespread engagement, unlike President Obama who basically put his ground troops on the shelf. He had an enormous capacity to organize and maintain public momentum. He made a clear and conscious choice that it was not what he was about. He brought Wall Street into the White House with more members of Goldman Sachs than had been there under George W. Bush or ever before. Unlike his decision to embrace lobbyists, we would very much continue to work with a broad network of activists and would rely on that network to actually move us forward.

    Functioning as an independent president without substantial numbers in Congress, we would very much depend on public engagement in order to move legislation. Instead of being simply the commander-in-chief, the president as a Green would be an organizer-in-chief, very much, above all.

    Much like with what happened with the PIPA or SOPA bill, which was considered a slam dunk. There was no way it was going to be stopped until the public found out about the betrayal going on in Congress and self-mobilized, no thanks to the corporate media or our political representatives. This was a grassroots effort that went like a wildfire across the Internet and really made clear to our elected officials that they needed to stop that bill and vote on our behalf if they wanted a political future.

    And that needs to be the rule and not the exception in how we operate going forward and my role as organizer-in-chief, if I were called to serve, would be to make that happen, to ensure that the public knows the bill is coming up in two weeks, for example, for healthcare as a human right and to expand Medicare for all to achieve that right. And to provide people with the key talking points about how this makes comprehensive health care available to everyone, puts you back in charge, not some profiteering CEO. You decide your healthcare decisions and choose your provider and that this will save us trillions of dollars over the coming decade.

    So, by informing and empowering everyday citizens to be the driver of our democracy, we actually create that democracy. Without informing and empowering citizens, we don’t have a democracy. We continue to have the oligarchy that we have run the economic elite and the political elite that they hijack, that they collaborate with, which is just about everyone in Congress.

    There are in addition to that general philosophy operation specific reforms in the Green New Deal that really help institutionalize democracy. It is great to have a president that is an organizer in chief, but we need to restore democracy beyond the chief executive and what the president can do to get the word out. And there are all kinds of ways that a president can get the word out, including Internet organizing, sort of a gone ballistic that actually moves on from the Democratic Party in a really fundamental way; public service announcements; going on primetime TV, etc, that really creates a public discussion and engages the public and gives people reason and an efficient mechanism for weighing in. Representatives are supposed to represent us, not the lobbyists. So it is very important that they know we know what’s going on and that essentially the president would function as a whistleblower on Congress to clarify what’s going on and enable people to hold their elected officials accountable, not only when it comes to re-election but potentially for recalls for people who are not serving the public interest and the public. And everyday people need to be put back in charge of the public agenda.

    We’re the last ones to know what that public agenda is. Our congressmen or women don’t have time to read bills, which are written by lobbyists for the most part and are written in a way that is not intelligible to ordinary mortals. The president can play a huge role in re-engaging the wheels of democracy.

    But, in addition, there are several reforms that need to be passed and these would be critical to my agenda and to pass them early on so that the whole system can operate more democratically. That includes getting money out of politics through campaign finance reform and public funding. It includes limiting the power of lobbyists, for example, to convey political donations. It includes restoring the rights of personhood to people and abolishing corporate personhood. It was never intended by the writers of our Constitution, and it’s not only been Citizens United but really the drift of the Supreme Court over the past one hundred and fifty years that has essentially stolen our rights of personhood and given them to multinational corporations; so passing a constitutional amendment.

    There are many of them out there. One particular good one is the Move to Amend’s, which would clarify that money is not speech and corporations are not persons. The president obviously doesn’t amend the Constitution but can, again, be organizer-in-chief and ensure that the public is informed about this critical problem and how we can fix it.

    We need to secure our right to vote and protect it against the voter disenfranchisement, the voter ID bills. We need a constitutional amendment to ensure the right to vote and that it cannot be abridged. We need hand-marked paper ballots so that our votes cannot be electronically stolen. We need to ensure that voting is accessible, that we have same-day registration, and that the rights of ethnic and linguistic minorities are protected and they’re not at all. They are being increasingly violated.

    We need to reclaim the public airwaves for public use. Right now, they are claimed by the highest bidder and we pay the consequence so we would fire the FCC and bring on public interest representatives to change the political playing field. If we restore the use of public airwaves by right for public interest candidates and public interest candidates, including elections, this would basically take the money out of politics. Most of the money gets used right now for TV advertising. If the playing field to television was leveled for equal and guaranteed access for a political candidate that met some certain basic threshold of legitimacy, then suddenly it doesn’t matter so much if you cut backroom deals with nuclear power plants or the fracking corporations or Wall Street. It doesn’t give you the political advantage because you can still get the word out if you had a set of public airwaves in service of the public

    So, those are some of the key reforms in the democratic process that would ensure we get our democracy back on track. That in turn would open up the whole reform agenda the American people are clamoring for.'
  • I ♥ the smell of Bullshit in the morning

    posted by Keito
    2012-07-28 11:44:43
    "Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process." ~Barack Obama pre-election campaign promise.

    I wonder what Bradley Manning thinks to Obama's new 'strengthened' whistleblower protection measures.