Meanwhile, out here in the Real World of the Working Class, folks like
my mother-in-law face an uncertain future. Tomorrow she will
celebrate her 91st birthday. Even as my wife wades through the
multiple forms required in order to qualify her mother for SSI and
Medicaid, Service Doors are beginning to close.
My mother-in-law is currently living with us. She wants to "go home",
but it is more and more evident that she cannot live alone. Her short
term memory is like a pot of mush, Just in the weeks she's been here,
we can see the downward spiral. But by monitoring her meals and
making sure she takes her medications, she is returning to her former
physical fitness. And she really wants to "go home". She might be
okay for the short haul, if we can afford enough in-home assistance.
But all of the organizations providing such services are charging $30
per hour, and their service providers must be given at least 2 hours
at a time. My mother-in-law would need a person 7 days a week, to
arrive in the morning to assist her in taking her morning pills, a
shower and preparing breakfast as well as setting up lunch. Prior to
bedtime she would need another person to arrive to make certain that
she takes all of her evening pills, and gets into bed safely.
Assuming that this pattern held for the next 12 months, it would cost
$43,800. But of course this most likely would not stay at the present
level. Besides, her remaining annuity has only $10,000. When this
money is spent, she will need to fall back on SSI and Medicaid. That
is, if there are any openings in the programs.
Cathy and I have visited clients in most of the nursing homes, and the
few adult foster care facilities in our area, and we have found none
of the ones that my mother-in-law qualifies for, to be close to
minimal existence. My mother-in-law never dreamed that she would live
to be over 90. She had begun having Grand Maul seizures about 15
years ago, and was failing fast. Cathy took over the task of getting
her mother the sort of medical help she needed, relocate in an
apartment closer to our home, and set up her medications. Cathy and
her sister took turns taking their mother shopping and to doctor's
appointments. Cathy handles all of her mother's financial needs and
fills out all of the required forms each year, in order to make
certain her mother continues to be on the Section 8 program.
Currently, if she were to give up her apartment, my mother-in-law
would be removed from Section 8 housing. Getting back on the Program
would never happen. Cathy explored the possibility of the Program
placing her mother on some sort of "holding Pattern", so the state
could save their hefty portion of the monthly rent. But no way would
they justify what we thought would be a savings to the Program. As of
today, all the paperwork has been filed. Sow we wait. If she
qualifies, and if the Program continues to exist, and to accept new
enrollees', she may be able to stay in her apartment for a few more
months. At 91(tomorrow) her long range goals are rather short. But
even with diminished ability to stay focused on doing the most basic
activities, she wants to remain independent and maintain a sense of
dignity.
Unfortunately Dignity and Independence are not part of the thought
process of the American Corporate Empire. Worshiping the Golden Calf
leaves no room for compassion, especially compassion for the Working
Class.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/15/17, Bonnie L. Sherrell <blslarner@olypen.com> wrote:
> This is from the Vox website:
>
> Buried in Senate Republicans' new health care bill is a provision to throw
> about
> $1 billion at states where premiums run 75 percent higher than the national
> average.
>
> Curiously, there's just one state that meets this seemingly arbitrary
> designation: Alaska.
>
> That state also just so happens to be represented by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a
> crucial Republican swing vote who has spent months threatening to torpedo
> the
> entire Obamacare repeal effort over her concerns about Medicaid cuts.
>
> Nobody believes this special fund was created to give Alaska alone a big
> boost
> through sheer coincidence. Reporters on the Hill have taken to calling the
> carve-out to help Alaskans the "Polar Payoff," the "Kodiak Kickback," and
> even
> the "Juneau Jackpot" — a special gift to the state, inserted by Senate
> Majority
> Leader Mitch McConnell to win Murkowski's vote.
>
> "They really, really, really need Lisa Murkowski to vote for this, and
> they're
> thinking this may help," said Timothy Jost, a health care expert and a
> professor
> emeritus at Washington and Lee University.
>
> The big question right now is whether the approximately $1 billion in
> additional
> health spending for Alaska will be enough to win over Murkowski to a bill
> that
> would gut Medicaid and result in about $1 trillion less health spending for
> America overall.
>
> How the "Kodiak Kickback" works
>
> The Kodiak Kickback is responsive to a very real problem for Murkowski's
> constituents in Alaska: extraordinarily high premium rates in the state.
>
> As Vox's Sarah Kliff has documented, Alaska in the past struggled with high
> and
> rapidly increasing premiums that put the state's Obamacare exchanges on the
> verge of entering a death spiral. To avert it, the state started paying
> back
> insurers for especially high claims. Premiums stabilized, and the Trump
> administration just decided to let Alaska spend the savings.
>
> But premiums in its Obamacare marketplace are still high, and the current
> Republican health bill would make subsidies for most low-income people much
> skimpier. A midlevel plan in the state's Obamacare marketplace cost $905 in
> 2017
> — partly because Alaska's isolation makes it difficult to get patients to
> specialty doctors, and partly because such a large percentage of its
> population
> uses health insurance provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
>
> "It's because they have a very small market and because health care is very
> expensive in the state," Jost said. "The Alaskans in the individuals markets
> is
> a pretty small group of people, and when you have a really small risk pool
> it
> doesn't take many high-cost cases for premiums to soar for everybody."
>
> Senate Republicans' newest bill includes a special $182 billion fund that
> will
> give the Department of Health and Human Services broad latitude to help
> stabilize the Obamacare markets. This fund, which has increased as the vote
> on
> the bill draws near, is intended to reassure moderate Senate Republicans
> worried
> about its impact on the individual markets.
>
> But to make sure it helps Alaska — and, perhaps, its moderate senator —
> lawmakers added a new clause to that special fund this week that will
> require at
> least 1 percent of it be spent on states where premiums run 75 percent
> higher
> than the national average. One percent may not sound like a big number, but
> we're talking about Alaska, which only has 700,000 people. The state is
> still
> set to receive nearly $2 billion over 10 years.
>
> "One percent of a multibillion-dollar fund could be very helpful for
> Alaska,"
> Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Murkowski's Senate counterpart, told the Alaska
> Dispatch News.
>
> Murkowski could determine the fate of the entire bill
>
> Right now, as Vox's Dylan Scott explains, Senate Republicans can afford to
> lose
> zero additional votes on their health care bill. All Democrats oppose it, as
> do
> two Republican senators — Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME).
>
> In other words, Murkowski alone could kill the bill when McConnell brings it
> to
> the floor on Tuesday on a "motion to proceed" vote. But so far, she isn't
> revealing her planned vote one way or another.
>
> In an interview last month with Bloomberg, Murkowski insisted that she
> wouldn't
> be swayed by any effort to buy her off if she still opposed the overall
> bill.
> "Let's just say that they do something that's so Alaska-specific just to,
> quote,
> 'get me,'" she said in June. "Then you have a nationwide system that
> doesn't
> work. That then comes crashing down and Alaska's not able to kind of keep
> it
> together on its own." It's worth noting that Murkowski ran for Senate over
> McConnell's wishes in 2010 and doesn't owe him much by way of her political
> success.
>
> Nothing else, though, has changed in the bill. Murkowski has primarily
> expressed
> opposition to the bill's Medicaid cuts, but McConnell has preserved those
> steep
> cuts. And as the Center for American Progress's Topher Spiro points out,
> the
> bill would still have devastating impacts on Alaska's 185,000 Medicaid
> recipients despite the "Polar Payoff":
>
>
> Republicans' health care bill will cost Alaska Medicaid recipients about $3
> billion. In exchange, they're trying to buy off Murkowski with far less in
> funding for the Obamacare exchanges. We'll know soon if it worked.
>
> ----
>
> Bonnie L. Sherrell
> Teacher at Large
>
> "Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very
> wise cannot see all ends." LOTR
>
> "Don't go where I can't follow."
>
> We gave the Goblin King control of our nation!
>
>
>
>
Sunday, July 16, 2017
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: A perfect Editorial for Independence Day
To me, the central point to ponder is summed up at the very end.
"...it's easier to behave as if Trump's malevolence is distorting us
rather than recognize that he is exploiting the avarice, bigotry, and
misogyny set deep
in the marrow of this country from its beginnings. For centuries, a
malignancy has existed in America. Our inability or unwillingness to
carve it out allowed
Trump to encourage it to metastasize. And that is not normal."
from the editorial by Renée Graham
Donald Trump is like the Mama Pheasant, pretending to drag a broken
wing, in order to lure a predator away from her brood. As long as we
focus on Donald Trump, his greedy privateers have a clear field in
which to plunder.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/10/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> This is a fantastic piece.
>
>
>
> Miriam
>
>
>
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:35 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] A perfect Editorial for Independence Day
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This editorial appeared in the July 4 issue of the Boston Globe. It
> eloquently argues as many of us here have done that the trump presidency is
> not the real problem; that Trump is merely a symptom of a much wider
> problem. I think Howard zinn would have appreciated this one.
>
> Here is confirmation that the Boston Globe is at least trying to fight
> against the jingoism that is usually found in our Wall Stream Media.
>
> Bob Hachey
>
>
>
> The not-normal history of America
>
> By Renée Graham .
>
> This is not normal. Anyone who spends time on social media or cable news
> has
> certainly heard or read that phrase. Of course, it refers to the
> deteriorating presidency of Donald Trump: his predawn Twitter rants against
> the media and other perceived enemies; open disdain for the Constitution; a
> cabinet of malicious incompetents; and his grifter's eye for using his
> position for personal enrichment and turning Americans into his own ATM -
> Always Taxpayers' Money. It's a natural response to what has been an
> unnatural era since Trump was sworn in as the 45th president, yet this too
> conveniently ignores an indisputable fact: America has never been normal.
> Independence declared while subjugating others was not normal. Slaughtering
> a race of people and nearly eradicating a culture that existed on this land
> long before white people in funny hats landed here was not normal. Slavery,
> and its vile cultural and political echoes, were and are not normal. Men
> determined to seize control of women's reproductive rights is not normal. A
> 241-year-old nation that has never elected a woman, a Jew, Latino, or Asian
> as president is not normal. Leaders who adapt the chilling line from George
> Orwell's "Animal Farm" - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more
> equal than others" - as a governing principle is not normal. Treating
> health
> care, housing, and good schools as a privilege for the few and not a right
> for all is not normal. Criminalizing and demonizing those who practice a
> particular religion is not normal. Forgetting about soldiers still in
> harm's
> way and ignoring the great debt owed to our veterans is not normal. Fearing
> and distrusting those sworn to serve and protect is not normal. With police
> killing, without accountabilty, so many people of color that such fear and
> distrust is wholly justified is not normal. Branding as "illegal" those who
> come to this country undocumented to escape persecution or seek a better
> life is not normal. Tearing apart families through deportation without any
> legal recourse is not normal. Allowing elected officials to get away with
> treating our democracy as a theocracy is not normal. Any American city or
> town with water too polluted to drink is not normal. That high-ranking
> pharmaceutical company officials and complicit doctors aren't spending
> decades behind bars for promoting as safe drugs they knew to be highly
> addictive is not normal. More than 59,000 people dead from opioid overdoses
> in 2016 - the most recorded in a single year - is not normal. America
> having
> more incarcerated people than any nation in the world is not normal. Hiding
> behind the Second Amendment as thousands of men, women, and children are
> lost to gun violence every year is not normal. Failing to enact even the
> most basic gun-control measures, after 20 elementary school kids and six of
> their educators were murdered in 2012, is not normal. Condemning a foreign
> terror threat while ignoring the insidious threat of too many angry men
> with
> too many guns is not normal. Neglecting the epidemic of domestic violence
> is
> not normal. To be outraged by long-festering inequities because they're now
> threatening you and not "them" is not normal. None of this lets Trump off
> the hook. His presidency is a catastrophe. He is attacking institutions and
> dangerously weaponizing his supporters to defend him from his detractors,
> especially journalists. Still, it's easier to behave as if Trump's
> malevolence is distorting us rather than recognize that he is exploiting
> the
> avarice, bigotry, and misogyny set deep in the marrow of this country from
> its beginnings. For centuries, a malignancy has existed in America. Our
> inability or unwillingness to carve it out allowed Trump to encourage it to
> metastasize. And that is not normal. Renée Graham can be reached at
> renee.graham@globe.com <mailto:renee.graham@globe.com> . Follow her on
> Twitter @reneeygraham
>
>
"...it's easier to behave as if Trump's malevolence is distorting us
rather than recognize that he is exploiting the avarice, bigotry, and
misogyny set deep
in the marrow of this country from its beginnings. For centuries, a
malignancy has existed in America. Our inability or unwillingness to
carve it out allowed
Trump to encourage it to metastasize. And that is not normal."
from the editorial by Renée Graham
Donald Trump is like the Mama Pheasant, pretending to drag a broken
wing, in order to lure a predator away from her brood. As long as we
focus on Donald Trump, his greedy privateers have a clear field in
which to plunder.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/10/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> This is a fantastic piece.
>
>
>
> Miriam
>
>
>
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:35 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] A perfect Editorial for Independence Day
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This editorial appeared in the July 4 issue of the Boston Globe. It
> eloquently argues as many of us here have done that the trump presidency is
> not the real problem; that Trump is merely a symptom of a much wider
> problem. I think Howard zinn would have appreciated this one.
>
> Here is confirmation that the Boston Globe is at least trying to fight
> against the jingoism that is usually found in our Wall Stream Media.
>
> Bob Hachey
>
>
>
> The not-normal history of America
>
> By Renée Graham .
>
> This is not normal. Anyone who spends time on social media or cable news
> has
> certainly heard or read that phrase. Of course, it refers to the
> deteriorating presidency of Donald Trump: his predawn Twitter rants against
> the media and other perceived enemies; open disdain for the Constitution; a
> cabinet of malicious incompetents; and his grifter's eye for using his
> position for personal enrichment and turning Americans into his own ATM -
> Always Taxpayers' Money. It's a natural response to what has been an
> unnatural era since Trump was sworn in as the 45th president, yet this too
> conveniently ignores an indisputable fact: America has never been normal.
> Independence declared while subjugating others was not normal. Slaughtering
> a race of people and nearly eradicating a culture that existed on this land
> long before white people in funny hats landed here was not normal. Slavery,
> and its vile cultural and political echoes, were and are not normal. Men
> determined to seize control of women's reproductive rights is not normal. A
> 241-year-old nation that has never elected a woman, a Jew, Latino, or Asian
> as president is not normal. Leaders who adapt the chilling line from George
> Orwell's "Animal Farm" - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more
> equal than others" - as a governing principle is not normal. Treating
> health
> care, housing, and good schools as a privilege for the few and not a right
> for all is not normal. Criminalizing and demonizing those who practice a
> particular religion is not normal. Forgetting about soldiers still in
> harm's
> way and ignoring the great debt owed to our veterans is not normal. Fearing
> and distrusting those sworn to serve and protect is not normal. With police
> killing, without accountabilty, so many people of color that such fear and
> distrust is wholly justified is not normal. Branding as "illegal" those who
> come to this country undocumented to escape persecution or seek a better
> life is not normal. Tearing apart families through deportation without any
> legal recourse is not normal. Allowing elected officials to get away with
> treating our democracy as a theocracy is not normal. Any American city or
> town with water too polluted to drink is not normal. That high-ranking
> pharmaceutical company officials and complicit doctors aren't spending
> decades behind bars for promoting as safe drugs they knew to be highly
> addictive is not normal. More than 59,000 people dead from opioid overdoses
> in 2016 - the most recorded in a single year - is not normal. America
> having
> more incarcerated people than any nation in the world is not normal. Hiding
> behind the Second Amendment as thousands of men, women, and children are
> lost to gun violence every year is not normal. Failing to enact even the
> most basic gun-control measures, after 20 elementary school kids and six of
> their educators were murdered in 2012, is not normal. Condemning a foreign
> terror threat while ignoring the insidious threat of too many angry men
> with
> too many guns is not normal. Neglecting the epidemic of domestic violence
> is
> not normal. To be outraged by long-festering inequities because they're now
> threatening you and not "them" is not normal. None of this lets Trump off
> the hook. His presidency is a catastrophe. He is attacking institutions and
> dangerously weaponizing his supporters to defend him from his detractors,
> especially journalists. Still, it's easier to behave as if Trump's
> malevolence is distorting us rather than recognize that he is exploiting
> the
> avarice, bigotry, and misogyny set deep in the marrow of this country from
> its beginnings. For centuries, a malignancy has existed in America. Our
> inability or unwillingness to carve it out allowed Trump to encourage it to
> metastasize. And that is not normal. Renée Graham can be reached at
> renee.graham@globe.com <mailto:renee.graham@globe.com> . Follow her on
> Twitter @reneeygraham
>
>
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
from, the Real News: A Small City's Big Lessons About Progressive Organizing
A Small City's Big Lessons About Progressive Organizing
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Richmond, California,
is home to one of the largest oil refineries on the West Coast and
also a working-class
community that has seen many struggles. Chevron, the city's largest
employer, has been responsible for hundreds of industrial accidents in
the area, including
major fires, spills, explosions, and air contamination. At the same
time, for decades, it's maintained a controlling influence over the
city's electoral
politics. However, in recent years, the community at Richmond has
fought back, organizing to raise the local minimum wage and demand
fair taxation from
Big Oil.This fight is chronicled in the new book, Refinery Town: Big
Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of an American City. Its author is
Steve Early, who,
for the past 45 years, has been an organizer, lawyer, and labor
activist. I recently sat down with Steve Early in our Baltimore
studio. Steve, hello.STEVE
EARLY: Thanks for having me on the show. AARON MATÉ: Thanks for being
here. Tell us about Richmond.STEVE EARLY: Richmond, California, is an
industrial
city, 80% non-white, largely poor and working class. It's located in
the East Bay, up the coast from the better-known Oakland and Berkeley.
For the last
century its largest employer, its biggest taxpayer, its dominant
political influencer has been the oil company known today as Chevron.
It's long been a
city shaped by Big Oil's pollution of the air, the water, and local
politics.AARON MATÉ: The central focus of your book is the community's
fight against
Chevron and their presence in the town. Can you break that down for
us?STEVE EARLY: Over the last 10 to 15 years we've seen the emergence
of a broad-based,
working-class oriented, multiracial progressive movement in Richmond
that has challenged Chevron's long-time dominance over municipal
affairs. Since 2004,
this group, the Richmond progressive Alliance, has won 10 out of 16
races for city council or mayor, currently has a progressive super
majority on the
city council, and for eight years actually made Richmond the largest
city in the country with a green mayor. We've had a tremendous
breakthrough for Bernie
Sanders-style progressives at the local level, implementing a
far-reaching program of municipal reform in a very unlikely place for
that, given its history
of Big Oil domination. AARON MATÉ: Well, before we get into the broad
reforms, let's get into the Chevron fight more. When you say that
Chevron has dominated
municipal affairs, what do you mean by that?STEVE EARLY: Well, when
you have one big major employer, they tend to have a lot of influence
on local politics.
Chevron opened the refinery in Richmond in 1905. The city grew up
around it. It had other manufacturing operations, the Kaiser Shipyard
during World War
II. It has a big railroad. It has a port, but Big Oil has long been
the biggest employer, the biggest taxpayer, the biggest manipulator of
local politics.
Only the last 10 or 15 years has a coalition of community and labor
groups and environmentalists come together and successfully contested
its influence
and its use of big money in local politics and run people for city
government who tried to hold the company accountable as opposed to
doing its business
for it. AARON MATÉ: Explain how that fight played out. Were these
progressive candidates running against politicians who were backed
heavily by Chevron?STEVE
EARLY: Chevron has been part of a larger ruling, conservative,
establishment group that included the Chamber of Commerce, the
Manufacturers' Association,
leading developers, and, sadly, conservative building trades' unions
and the police and the firefighters' unions. That's essentially been
their coalition,
and until 10 or 15 years ago, they were were able to control the
mayor's office, the city council, the affairs of the city. The
emergence of progressives
has changed the political landscape. Chevron has been forced to pay
more of its fair share of taxes. We have been able to enact rent
control in Richmond,
a major progressive reform benefiting thousands of low-income black
and Latino tenants. Progressives have been able to enact major reform
at the police
department, raise the minimum wage, declare Richmond to be a sanctuary
city, and take other initiatives at the local level to address the
pressing problem
of global warming. AARON MATÉ: There was a key election in 2014, and
it's said that Chevron spent more than $3 million on that race, more,
I believe, than
they spent on congressional races. STEVE EARLY: It was pretty
extraordinary. Richmond has a population of about 110,000, an active
electorate of 20 to
30,000 people. In 2014, Big Oil and its allies spent over $3 million
trying to elect a slate of conservative candidates for mayor and city
council and
trying to smear and defeat our progressive slate, and the company
failed. It was a very rare example of people power overcoming big
money in local politics,
and it was a testament to the work that Richmond progressives have
done building a strong grassroots movement, a volunteer army of
canvassers who go door-to-door,
talk to their neighbors, get out the vote and refuse to take corporate
contributions themselves.All of our progressive candidates in Richmond
are corporate-free.
They're up against Corporate Democrats who have steadily been losing
ground because they won't support rent control, they won't support an
increase in
the minimum wage, they won't force Chevron to be accountable, and they
don't want to be a part of the serious effort to make the city cleaner
and greener
and healthier and more equitable for all its citizens.AARON MATÉ: A
lot of parallels there to the national struggle right now for the soul
of the Democratic
Party, but before we get into that, let's talk more about the Richmond
Progressive Alliance who you mention here, how they came together, who
they are.
STEVE EARLY: Well, we all have been frustrated, I think, in various
ways by the fragmentation of the US Left, the tendency of people to go
off in different
direction with a kind of single-issue focus. One of the early triumphs
of the Progressive Alliance when it came together was getting people
concerned about
diverse issues, to work together around a common agenda for municipal
reform. You had people 15 years ago in Richmond who wanted to deal
with the problem
of police brutality, who even then were concerned about housing
affordability, wanted to raise the minimum wage, and improve local
labor standards, wanted
to clean up the environment, wanted to get Chevron to pay more in
property taxes, but they were all kind of working in separate silos.
The genius of the
Progressive Alliance was getting them to come together, adopt a common
platform, start to run candidates, and candidates who would remain
accountable to
the constituencies that elected them, candidates who would use their
position as mayor or city council member to help mobilize the
community to counter
the enormous political influence of Chevron and other special interest
groups in the community. The Richmond Progressive Alliance is an
unusual hybrid
organization. It has dues-paying members. It has some labor and
community organizational partners. It doesn't just pop up every two or
four years running
candidates. It organizes year round around a wide range of really
compelling community issues.AARON MATÉ: That's interesting,
dues-paying members, modeled
on a labor union.STEVE EARLY: Very much so or a more traditional
European-style political party. Our political parties are pretty
hollow structures. They
exist mainly as banners for people to wave while they raise millions
of dollars for their own individual entrepreneurial campaigns as
candidates. The RPA
model is completely different. Our candidates are not endorsed.
They're a product of the progressive movement. They are leaders in the
Progressive Alliance.
They come out of the movements they represent, and, therefore, they
tend to be much more responsive to the people that elected them. We
have seen many
times people endorsed by labor or healthcare reform or community or
immigrant advocate groups get into elected office and disappoint in
various ways. One
of the real challenges is, how do you hold progressive elected
officials accountable to the agenda they campaigned on? I think the
Richmond track record
has been pretty good in that regard over the last 15 years. AARON
MATÉ: Speaking of challenges, I want to talk a bit more about this
coalition, this progressive
coalition that was assembled. One of the critiques of the Bernie
Sanders campaign, especially in the early stages of the primaries, was
that it didn't
do enough to attract African-American voters. Is Richmond a case where
that divide between progressive groups and African-American voters, to
the extent
that that divide exists, was overcome?STEVE EARLY: It has been, but
it's been very difficult. This is a majority minority community, 80%
non-white, 40%
Latino, 30% black, 10% Asian, but Big Oil has often had a lock on the
African-American opinion-shapers and leaders, black churches. The
NAACP is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Chevron. The company in its role as a major
philanthropist supports everything from children's breakfast programs
to Black History Month.
Chevron forged a strong alliance between conservative,
corporate-oriented African-American Democrats. The Progressive
Alliance only became successful in
challenging that connection to the black community when it was able to
develop younger black and Latino leaders who refused to take corporate
money and
were willing to take Big Oil on. Last fall, one of the Progressive
Alliance candidates who won was a 26-year-old tenant organizer, Melvin
Willis, Bernie
Sanders-inspired, first-time candidate for city council. He came first
in a field of nine up against seven Corporate Democrats, none of whom
supported
rent control. Melvin was the leading proponent of rent control in
Richmond. Rent control was on the ballot. It was adopted by a
two-to-one margin. He came
in 2000 votes ahead of a 40-year African-American Chevron-backed
council incumbent. The times are changing in Richmond, but it's only
because a younger
generation of black, Latino, and Asian activists from working-class
backgrounds have come to the fore and are willing to challenge the
relationships between
elders in their communities and the major corporate power in the
community. AARON MATÉ: Since you mentioned rent control, let's talk
about housing. It's
been a big issue in Richmond, and activists there have used a variety
of tools to advance a more progressive agenda, including eminent
domain.STEVE EARLY:
Well, during the foreclosure crisis of 2007, 2008, Richmond, like many
cities, had lots of struggling low-income homeowners losing their
homes. The city
council at the time, when there was not a progressive majority, came
up with the idea of using the threat of eminent domain to block
foreclosures, which,
of course, spread blight in communities as people were forced to
abandon their homes. This was a brave initiative. It was cutting-edge,
but the big banks,
the real estate industry counter-attacked very aggressively. No other
community would join the effort. We had enough votes on the city
council then to
adopt the idea in principle, but you needed more votes to actually
implement it. In the course of the canvassing and the campaigning that
was done, people
discovered that rent control was really what was needed. You have
thousands of tenants in Richmond facing huge rent increases as people
are displaced from
San Francisco and Berkeley and Oakland. They move into Richmond. The
landlords raise the rent and kick tenants out. Last fall, this measure
that was passed
by a two-to-one vote rolled rents back to the level of a year before,
holds landlords to future rent increases tied to the overall increase
in the Consumer
Price Index. They now cannot evict tenants unless there is just cause,
and we have a rent board that's going to adjudicate landlord-tenant
disputes. First
city in California to be able to do this in 30 years. It only covers
40% of the tenants because of restrictions imposed by the state
legislature, but it's
a tremendous breakthrough, a real economic gain, and, again, a model
for what people can do in states where it is possible at the municipal
level to regulate
rents. AARON MATÉ: Okay, keeping this thread going in terms of the
city providing a model for what people can do, let's talk about
undocumented immigration,
a big issue, and the city took steps to protect its undocumented
residents.STEVE EARLY: When Gayle McLaughlin, a leader-AARON MATÉ:
That was the mayor-STEVE
EARLY: ... of the Progressive Alliance ... yeah ... was first elected
mayor in 2006, she declared Richmond to be a sanctuary city. Many
other cities are
doing that now. Richmond was among those leading the pack, and this
was very much tied into the effort launched around the same time to
reform the police
department.A new police chief was brought in, a fellow named Chris
Magnus, one of the leading police reformers in the country. He
understood right away
in a community like this with thousands of undocumented immigrant
residents that you could not rebuild relationships within the police
department and the
community if the police were seen as acting as an arm of any kind of
federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The city, sanctuary
city, has been recently
reiterated by our current mayor and the model of sanctuary city
activity really has spread quite widely in the Trump era, but Richmond
took the stand back
in the George Bush era.AARON MATÉ: Let me read to you from your book,
"If urban political insurgencies are going to succeed in more places,
they will need
models for civil engagement like Richmond provides. Our city's
emergency response lesson is this. When we take shelter in place
together, we can change
our communities for the better. If we remain frozen in a state of
individual fear, apathy, alienation, or powerlessness, the world
around us remains the
same until the next warning siren sounds and all the ones after that,
until there are too many fires to put out and not enough time left to
reverse the
damage they've done." STEVE EARLY: Well, I should probably explain
what shelter in place is. That's a refinery town emergency protocol
that I wasn't too
familiar with until moving to Richmond five years ago and becoming a
neighbor of Chevron. When there's a major refinery fire or explosion,
like we had
five years ago this August that sent 15,000 refinery neighbors
scrambling for medical assistance at local hospital emergency rooms
and clinics, we are
told to shelter in place, which means you go into your house, you tape
the windows and doors shut, you turn off the air conditioner, you kind
of hope for
the best. That really is, I think, a symbol of a fearful, isolated
individual kind of situation. Richmond provides a good example of
people leaving their
homes, coming together, organizing in public spaces, and taking on the
causes of problems like the ones created by Big Oil in our community
and throughout
the country and the world. I know it's counterintuitive when you have
global problems. Why is going local the best way to address them?
Well, actually,
you can have more of an impact in your own community, your own
neighborhood, working in a city of human scale of 100,000 like
Richmond.AARON MATÉ: Right,
but in terms of that scale being applicable to bigger cities, there
are limitations, especially the bigger a city gets, to redoing the
local model, say,
in a place like Baltimore or New York. Right?STEVE EARLY: Very
definitely, but some of the programs that Richmond has been able to
pioneer as an aspiring
laboratory for municipal public policy innovation are actually now
being copied in cities like Baltimore and Oakland. One of our programs
is the Office
of Neighborhood Safety, an adjunct to the reformed police department.
Richmond still has a very big problem with gun activity and gang
conflict and drug
trafficking. It leads to 20 or 30 homicides a year, mainly involving
young people of color between the ages of 15 and 30.The Office of
Neighborhood Safety
in Richmond hires formerly incarcerated, former gang members to go
out, work as peacemakers, try to de-escalate gang disputes. They have
a peacemaker fellowship
program. They've recruited scores of young gang members to be part of
it. They get a stipend. They get job training and counseling. They get
support for
taking a different path in life. It's a program that's now being
reproduced in many other larger cities that have seen the failures of
a military-style
model of policing.Aggressive police tactics have not led to reductions
in homicides and gang activity and street crime, and so the Richmond
model of the
police relating differently to the community and civilians playing an
increased role in public safety, very key element of civilian
oversight of the police
department, civilian activity in neighborhoods, and this Office of
Neighborhood Safety. It's a pretty powerful package for real change in
the area of public
safety. AARON MATÉ: For those, though, who might look at Richmond and
say, "Okay, well look, it's easy for this California town to enact all
these progressive
measures, but it's just not possible for us to do here in our, say,
Midwestern town. Not every town has a police chief like the one in
Richmond who held
up a Black Lives Matter sign at a rally." What do you say to them?
STEVE EARLY: Well, we would never have had Chris Magnus as our police
chief in Richmond
if we hadn't started to make some progress done 12 years ago in
electing more progressives to the city council, electing a green
mayor. They were the folks
who hired a new city manager, hired a new police chief. Chris Magnus
is one of the few gay police chiefs in the country. He came from
Fargo, North Dakota,
one of the whitest and safest communities in the country. A lot of
people didn't want to hire him because they didn't think, you know, he
would fit in
in a diverse urban environment like Richmond, but sometimes you need
an outsider, a change-maker, someone willing to really upend an
institution to bring
about real change in a city department as difficult to reform as the
police department. I think there's elements of the Richmond model that
are reproducible
in other parts of the country and in cities both larger and smaller.
AARON MATÉ: Finally, Steve, you've been involved in the labor movement
for many years,
and you saw how this movement in Richmond materialized and stayed
together, but, of course, organizing is tough and it's hard to
maintain coalitions. I'm
wondering if you could reflect on your observations about the
challenges of keeping coalitions together and organizing in general in
the society that we
live in. STEVE EARLY: Well, I think the reason the Progressive
Alliance has been distinctive to the extent that it has tried to rely
on membership dues,
membership contributions, small donor fundraising for its candidates
rather than being part of what people call the non-profit industrial
complex. It does
not take social change foundation money. It's not looking for big
sugar daddies. It's not top heavy with paid staff. That's a hard path
to take, a largely
volunteer, member-driven organization, and it's a real testament to
people's staying power in Richmond that they've been able to sustain
it.One thing that's
helped in the last couple of years, conscious effort by the founding
fathers and mothers to step back and create space for a younger
generation of black
and Latino activists, Asian, young people, to take leadership roles.
The Steering Committee of the RPA elected every year by the members is
now predominantly
people of color, predominantly female, and much younger than in the
past. We have too many institutions on the Left, from unions to
community organizations,
to churches, where older people don't want to get out of the way and
let younger people take leadership roles. I think that's an inspiring
part of the
story as well.That's why we have now viable candidates running for
city council in their 20s or 30s with a strong movement behind them.
You know, as recently
as 10, 15, 20 years ago, they would have been dismissed as marginal,
and their chances of success would have been very minimal. AARON MATÉ:
Since this
is a progressive town with progressive elected officials, can we talk
a bit about the internal struggle right now in the Democratic Party?
Bernie Sanders
has an interesting history with your town. He came there during the
Chevron fight and said that it was actually ground zero against
Citizens United. STEVE
EARLY: Yeah, in 2014, when our green mayor was up for reelection as a
member of the council and she was running on a slate with two other
progressives
and Chevron spent more than $3 million trying to defeat them,
unsuccessfully, it really was an example of how the Supreme Court
decision in Citizens United
has unleashed these independent expenditures committee. You or I in
Richmond are limited to giving any single candidate $2500.00. Chevron
set up a committee
that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on its favorite
candidates, supposedly without any coordination with their campaigns
and hundreds of thousands
of dollars trying to smear and defeat progressive candidates who were
critical of its corporate behavior. So I think the only way we can
counter that kind
of big money in politics, as Bernie has argued, is to build stronger
grassroots movements. In Richmond, we also have a modest system of
public matching
funds. So if you have the ability, as the Progressive Alliance does,
to raise money from small donors Bernie Sanders style, you get city
matching funds.
Other cities have adopted that, New York, Portland, Oregon. I think
that's a necessary election reform to kind of level the playing field
when you're up
against big corporate spenders on behalf of your opposition. The
lesson of 2014 was that if you build a strong base, if you have a
volunteer army, if you
have candidates who are corporate-free and known for that and
respected for that, they can overcome the smears and the negative ads
and the glossy mailers
and the billboards and win, even though they're outspent 30 to 1.AARON
MATÉ: Lessons that will be important as we head into 2018 and
2020.STEVE EARLY:
Very definitely. You know, the other thing that we've tried to do in
connection with Bernie, the Progressive Alliance is now part of the
Our Revolution
network that grew out of Bernie's campaign. There's other good groups
doing this kind of work or supporting it, the Working Families Party,
People's Action.
Democratic Socialists of America is now encouraging its members to run
for municipal office. Socialist Alternative, of course, in Seattle, a
great city
council member, Kshama Sawant. There's lots of networks to be part of
to get started down this path, lots of good models in cities of all
sizes and, of
course, the inspiration of the Sanders campaign.AARON MATÉ: And
Richmond. STEVE EARLY: And Richmond.AARON MATÉ: I want to thank my
guest, Steve Early,
author of Refinery Town: Big Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of an
American City. Steve, thank you.STEVE EARLY: Thank you.AARON MATÉ: And
thank you for
joining us on The Real News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Richmond, California,
is home to one of the largest oil refineries on the West Coast and
also a working-class
community that has seen many struggles. Chevron, the city's largest
employer, has been responsible for hundreds of industrial accidents in
the area, including
major fires, spills, explosions, and air contamination. At the same
time, for decades, it's maintained a controlling influence over the
city's electoral
politics. However, in recent years, the community at Richmond has
fought back, organizing to raise the local minimum wage and demand
fair taxation from
Big Oil.This fight is chronicled in the new book, Refinery Town: Big
Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of an American City. Its author is
Steve Early, who,
for the past 45 years, has been an organizer, lawyer, and labor
activist. I recently sat down with Steve Early in our Baltimore
studio. Steve, hello.STEVE
EARLY: Thanks for having me on the show. AARON MATÉ: Thanks for being
here. Tell us about Richmond.STEVE EARLY: Richmond, California, is an
industrial
city, 80% non-white, largely poor and working class. It's located in
the East Bay, up the coast from the better-known Oakland and Berkeley.
For the last
century its largest employer, its biggest taxpayer, its dominant
political influencer has been the oil company known today as Chevron.
It's long been a
city shaped by Big Oil's pollution of the air, the water, and local
politics.AARON MATÉ: The central focus of your book is the community's
fight against
Chevron and their presence in the town. Can you break that down for
us?STEVE EARLY: Over the last 10 to 15 years we've seen the emergence
of a broad-based,
working-class oriented, multiracial progressive movement in Richmond
that has challenged Chevron's long-time dominance over municipal
affairs. Since 2004,
this group, the Richmond progressive Alliance, has won 10 out of 16
races for city council or mayor, currently has a progressive super
majority on the
city council, and for eight years actually made Richmond the largest
city in the country with a green mayor. We've had a tremendous
breakthrough for Bernie
Sanders-style progressives at the local level, implementing a
far-reaching program of municipal reform in a very unlikely place for
that, given its history
of Big Oil domination. AARON MATÉ: Well, before we get into the broad
reforms, let's get into the Chevron fight more. When you say that
Chevron has dominated
municipal affairs, what do you mean by that?STEVE EARLY: Well, when
you have one big major employer, they tend to have a lot of influence
on local politics.
Chevron opened the refinery in Richmond in 1905. The city grew up
around it. It had other manufacturing operations, the Kaiser Shipyard
during World War
II. It has a big railroad. It has a port, but Big Oil has long been
the biggest employer, the biggest taxpayer, the biggest manipulator of
local politics.
Only the last 10 or 15 years has a coalition of community and labor
groups and environmentalists come together and successfully contested
its influence
and its use of big money in local politics and run people for city
government who tried to hold the company accountable as opposed to
doing its business
for it. AARON MATÉ: Explain how that fight played out. Were these
progressive candidates running against politicians who were backed
heavily by Chevron?STEVE
EARLY: Chevron has been part of a larger ruling, conservative,
establishment group that included the Chamber of Commerce, the
Manufacturers' Association,
leading developers, and, sadly, conservative building trades' unions
and the police and the firefighters' unions. That's essentially been
their coalition,
and until 10 or 15 years ago, they were were able to control the
mayor's office, the city council, the affairs of the city. The
emergence of progressives
has changed the political landscape. Chevron has been forced to pay
more of its fair share of taxes. We have been able to enact rent
control in Richmond,
a major progressive reform benefiting thousands of low-income black
and Latino tenants. Progressives have been able to enact major reform
at the police
department, raise the minimum wage, declare Richmond to be a sanctuary
city, and take other initiatives at the local level to address the
pressing problem
of global warming. AARON MATÉ: There was a key election in 2014, and
it's said that Chevron spent more than $3 million on that race, more,
I believe, than
they spent on congressional races. STEVE EARLY: It was pretty
extraordinary. Richmond has a population of about 110,000, an active
electorate of 20 to
30,000 people. In 2014, Big Oil and its allies spent over $3 million
trying to elect a slate of conservative candidates for mayor and city
council and
trying to smear and defeat our progressive slate, and the company
failed. It was a very rare example of people power overcoming big
money in local politics,
and it was a testament to the work that Richmond progressives have
done building a strong grassroots movement, a volunteer army of
canvassers who go door-to-door,
talk to their neighbors, get out the vote and refuse to take corporate
contributions themselves.All of our progressive candidates in Richmond
are corporate-free.
They're up against Corporate Democrats who have steadily been losing
ground because they won't support rent control, they won't support an
increase in
the minimum wage, they won't force Chevron to be accountable, and they
don't want to be a part of the serious effort to make the city cleaner
and greener
and healthier and more equitable for all its citizens.AARON MATÉ: A
lot of parallels there to the national struggle right now for the soul
of the Democratic
Party, but before we get into that, let's talk more about the Richmond
Progressive Alliance who you mention here, how they came together, who
they are.
STEVE EARLY: Well, we all have been frustrated, I think, in various
ways by the fragmentation of the US Left, the tendency of people to go
off in different
direction with a kind of single-issue focus. One of the early triumphs
of the Progressive Alliance when it came together was getting people
concerned about
diverse issues, to work together around a common agenda for municipal
reform. You had people 15 years ago in Richmond who wanted to deal
with the problem
of police brutality, who even then were concerned about housing
affordability, wanted to raise the minimum wage, and improve local
labor standards, wanted
to clean up the environment, wanted to get Chevron to pay more in
property taxes, but they were all kind of working in separate silos.
The genius of the
Progressive Alliance was getting them to come together, adopt a common
platform, start to run candidates, and candidates who would remain
accountable to
the constituencies that elected them, candidates who would use their
position as mayor or city council member to help mobilize the
community to counter
the enormous political influence of Chevron and other special interest
groups in the community. The Richmond Progressive Alliance is an
unusual hybrid
organization. It has dues-paying members. It has some labor and
community organizational partners. It doesn't just pop up every two or
four years running
candidates. It organizes year round around a wide range of really
compelling community issues.AARON MATÉ: That's interesting,
dues-paying members, modeled
on a labor union.STEVE EARLY: Very much so or a more traditional
European-style political party. Our political parties are pretty
hollow structures. They
exist mainly as banners for people to wave while they raise millions
of dollars for their own individual entrepreneurial campaigns as
candidates. The RPA
model is completely different. Our candidates are not endorsed.
They're a product of the progressive movement. They are leaders in the
Progressive Alliance.
They come out of the movements they represent, and, therefore, they
tend to be much more responsive to the people that elected them. We
have seen many
times people endorsed by labor or healthcare reform or community or
immigrant advocate groups get into elected office and disappoint in
various ways. One
of the real challenges is, how do you hold progressive elected
officials accountable to the agenda they campaigned on? I think the
Richmond track record
has been pretty good in that regard over the last 15 years. AARON
MATÉ: Speaking of challenges, I want to talk a bit more about this
coalition, this progressive
coalition that was assembled. One of the critiques of the Bernie
Sanders campaign, especially in the early stages of the primaries, was
that it didn't
do enough to attract African-American voters. Is Richmond a case where
that divide between progressive groups and African-American voters, to
the extent
that that divide exists, was overcome?STEVE EARLY: It has been, but
it's been very difficult. This is a majority minority community, 80%
non-white, 40%
Latino, 30% black, 10% Asian, but Big Oil has often had a lock on the
African-American opinion-shapers and leaders, black churches. The
NAACP is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Chevron. The company in its role as a major
philanthropist supports everything from children's breakfast programs
to Black History Month.
Chevron forged a strong alliance between conservative,
corporate-oriented African-American Democrats. The Progressive
Alliance only became successful in
challenging that connection to the black community when it was able to
develop younger black and Latino leaders who refused to take corporate
money and
were willing to take Big Oil on. Last fall, one of the Progressive
Alliance candidates who won was a 26-year-old tenant organizer, Melvin
Willis, Bernie
Sanders-inspired, first-time candidate for city council. He came first
in a field of nine up against seven Corporate Democrats, none of whom
supported
rent control. Melvin was the leading proponent of rent control in
Richmond. Rent control was on the ballot. It was adopted by a
two-to-one margin. He came
in 2000 votes ahead of a 40-year African-American Chevron-backed
council incumbent. The times are changing in Richmond, but it's only
because a younger
generation of black, Latino, and Asian activists from working-class
backgrounds have come to the fore and are willing to challenge the
relationships between
elders in their communities and the major corporate power in the
community. AARON MATÉ: Since you mentioned rent control, let's talk
about housing. It's
been a big issue in Richmond, and activists there have used a variety
of tools to advance a more progressive agenda, including eminent
domain.STEVE EARLY:
Well, during the foreclosure crisis of 2007, 2008, Richmond, like many
cities, had lots of struggling low-income homeowners losing their
homes. The city
council at the time, when there was not a progressive majority, came
up with the idea of using the threat of eminent domain to block
foreclosures, which,
of course, spread blight in communities as people were forced to
abandon their homes. This was a brave initiative. It was cutting-edge,
but the big banks,
the real estate industry counter-attacked very aggressively. No other
community would join the effort. We had enough votes on the city
council then to
adopt the idea in principle, but you needed more votes to actually
implement it. In the course of the canvassing and the campaigning that
was done, people
discovered that rent control was really what was needed. You have
thousands of tenants in Richmond facing huge rent increases as people
are displaced from
San Francisco and Berkeley and Oakland. They move into Richmond. The
landlords raise the rent and kick tenants out. Last fall, this measure
that was passed
by a two-to-one vote rolled rents back to the level of a year before,
holds landlords to future rent increases tied to the overall increase
in the Consumer
Price Index. They now cannot evict tenants unless there is just cause,
and we have a rent board that's going to adjudicate landlord-tenant
disputes. First
city in California to be able to do this in 30 years. It only covers
40% of the tenants because of restrictions imposed by the state
legislature, but it's
a tremendous breakthrough, a real economic gain, and, again, a model
for what people can do in states where it is possible at the municipal
level to regulate
rents. AARON MATÉ: Okay, keeping this thread going in terms of the
city providing a model for what people can do, let's talk about
undocumented immigration,
a big issue, and the city took steps to protect its undocumented
residents.STEVE EARLY: When Gayle McLaughlin, a leader-AARON MATÉ:
That was the mayor-STEVE
EARLY: ... of the Progressive Alliance ... yeah ... was first elected
mayor in 2006, she declared Richmond to be a sanctuary city. Many
other cities are
doing that now. Richmond was among those leading the pack, and this
was very much tied into the effort launched around the same time to
reform the police
department.A new police chief was brought in, a fellow named Chris
Magnus, one of the leading police reformers in the country. He
understood right away
in a community like this with thousands of undocumented immigrant
residents that you could not rebuild relationships within the police
department and the
community if the police were seen as acting as an arm of any kind of
federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The city, sanctuary
city, has been recently
reiterated by our current mayor and the model of sanctuary city
activity really has spread quite widely in the Trump era, but Richmond
took the stand back
in the George Bush era.AARON MATÉ: Let me read to you from your book,
"If urban political insurgencies are going to succeed in more places,
they will need
models for civil engagement like Richmond provides. Our city's
emergency response lesson is this. When we take shelter in place
together, we can change
our communities for the better. If we remain frozen in a state of
individual fear, apathy, alienation, or powerlessness, the world
around us remains the
same until the next warning siren sounds and all the ones after that,
until there are too many fires to put out and not enough time left to
reverse the
damage they've done." STEVE EARLY: Well, I should probably explain
what shelter in place is. That's a refinery town emergency protocol
that I wasn't too
familiar with until moving to Richmond five years ago and becoming a
neighbor of Chevron. When there's a major refinery fire or explosion,
like we had
five years ago this August that sent 15,000 refinery neighbors
scrambling for medical assistance at local hospital emergency rooms
and clinics, we are
told to shelter in place, which means you go into your house, you tape
the windows and doors shut, you turn off the air conditioner, you kind
of hope for
the best. That really is, I think, a symbol of a fearful, isolated
individual kind of situation. Richmond provides a good example of
people leaving their
homes, coming together, organizing in public spaces, and taking on the
causes of problems like the ones created by Big Oil in our community
and throughout
the country and the world. I know it's counterintuitive when you have
global problems. Why is going local the best way to address them?
Well, actually,
you can have more of an impact in your own community, your own
neighborhood, working in a city of human scale of 100,000 like
Richmond.AARON MATÉ: Right,
but in terms of that scale being applicable to bigger cities, there
are limitations, especially the bigger a city gets, to redoing the
local model, say,
in a place like Baltimore or New York. Right?STEVE EARLY: Very
definitely, but some of the programs that Richmond has been able to
pioneer as an aspiring
laboratory for municipal public policy innovation are actually now
being copied in cities like Baltimore and Oakland. One of our programs
is the Office
of Neighborhood Safety, an adjunct to the reformed police department.
Richmond still has a very big problem with gun activity and gang
conflict and drug
trafficking. It leads to 20 or 30 homicides a year, mainly involving
young people of color between the ages of 15 and 30.The Office of
Neighborhood Safety
in Richmond hires formerly incarcerated, former gang members to go
out, work as peacemakers, try to de-escalate gang disputes. They have
a peacemaker fellowship
program. They've recruited scores of young gang members to be part of
it. They get a stipend. They get job training and counseling. They get
support for
taking a different path in life. It's a program that's now being
reproduced in many other larger cities that have seen the failures of
a military-style
model of policing.Aggressive police tactics have not led to reductions
in homicides and gang activity and street crime, and so the Richmond
model of the
police relating differently to the community and civilians playing an
increased role in public safety, very key element of civilian
oversight of the police
department, civilian activity in neighborhoods, and this Office of
Neighborhood Safety. It's a pretty powerful package for real change in
the area of public
safety. AARON MATÉ: For those, though, who might look at Richmond and
say, "Okay, well look, it's easy for this California town to enact all
these progressive
measures, but it's just not possible for us to do here in our, say,
Midwestern town. Not every town has a police chief like the one in
Richmond who held
up a Black Lives Matter sign at a rally." What do you say to them?
STEVE EARLY: Well, we would never have had Chris Magnus as our police
chief in Richmond
if we hadn't started to make some progress done 12 years ago in
electing more progressives to the city council, electing a green
mayor. They were the folks
who hired a new city manager, hired a new police chief. Chris Magnus
is one of the few gay police chiefs in the country. He came from
Fargo, North Dakota,
one of the whitest and safest communities in the country. A lot of
people didn't want to hire him because they didn't think, you know, he
would fit in
in a diverse urban environment like Richmond, but sometimes you need
an outsider, a change-maker, someone willing to really upend an
institution to bring
about real change in a city department as difficult to reform as the
police department. I think there's elements of the Richmond model that
are reproducible
in other parts of the country and in cities both larger and smaller.
AARON MATÉ: Finally, Steve, you've been involved in the labor movement
for many years,
and you saw how this movement in Richmond materialized and stayed
together, but, of course, organizing is tough and it's hard to
maintain coalitions. I'm
wondering if you could reflect on your observations about the
challenges of keeping coalitions together and organizing in general in
the society that we
live in. STEVE EARLY: Well, I think the reason the Progressive
Alliance has been distinctive to the extent that it has tried to rely
on membership dues,
membership contributions, small donor fundraising for its candidates
rather than being part of what people call the non-profit industrial
complex. It does
not take social change foundation money. It's not looking for big
sugar daddies. It's not top heavy with paid staff. That's a hard path
to take, a largely
volunteer, member-driven organization, and it's a real testament to
people's staying power in Richmond that they've been able to sustain
it.One thing that's
helped in the last couple of years, conscious effort by the founding
fathers and mothers to step back and create space for a younger
generation of black
and Latino activists, Asian, young people, to take leadership roles.
The Steering Committee of the RPA elected every year by the members is
now predominantly
people of color, predominantly female, and much younger than in the
past. We have too many institutions on the Left, from unions to
community organizations,
to churches, where older people don't want to get out of the way and
let younger people take leadership roles. I think that's an inspiring
part of the
story as well.That's why we have now viable candidates running for
city council in their 20s or 30s with a strong movement behind them.
You know, as recently
as 10, 15, 20 years ago, they would have been dismissed as marginal,
and their chances of success would have been very minimal. AARON MATÉ:
Since this
is a progressive town with progressive elected officials, can we talk
a bit about the internal struggle right now in the Democratic Party?
Bernie Sanders
has an interesting history with your town. He came there during the
Chevron fight and said that it was actually ground zero against
Citizens United. STEVE
EARLY: Yeah, in 2014, when our green mayor was up for reelection as a
member of the council and she was running on a slate with two other
progressives
and Chevron spent more than $3 million trying to defeat them,
unsuccessfully, it really was an example of how the Supreme Court
decision in Citizens United
has unleashed these independent expenditures committee. You or I in
Richmond are limited to giving any single candidate $2500.00. Chevron
set up a committee
that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on its favorite
candidates, supposedly without any coordination with their campaigns
and hundreds of thousands
of dollars trying to smear and defeat progressive candidates who were
critical of its corporate behavior. So I think the only way we can
counter that kind
of big money in politics, as Bernie has argued, is to build stronger
grassroots movements. In Richmond, we also have a modest system of
public matching
funds. So if you have the ability, as the Progressive Alliance does,
to raise money from small donors Bernie Sanders style, you get city
matching funds.
Other cities have adopted that, New York, Portland, Oregon. I think
that's a necessary election reform to kind of level the playing field
when you're up
against big corporate spenders on behalf of your opposition. The
lesson of 2014 was that if you build a strong base, if you have a
volunteer army, if you
have candidates who are corporate-free and known for that and
respected for that, they can overcome the smears and the negative ads
and the glossy mailers
and the billboards and win, even though they're outspent 30 to 1.AARON
MATÉ: Lessons that will be important as we head into 2018 and
2020.STEVE EARLY:
Very definitely. You know, the other thing that we've tried to do in
connection with Bernie, the Progressive Alliance is now part of the
Our Revolution
network that grew out of Bernie's campaign. There's other good groups
doing this kind of work or supporting it, the Working Families Party,
People's Action.
Democratic Socialists of America is now encouraging its members to run
for municipal office. Socialist Alternative, of course, in Seattle, a
great city
council member, Kshama Sawant. There's lots of networks to be part of
to get started down this path, lots of good models in cities of all
sizes and, of
course, the inspiration of the Sanders campaign.AARON MATÉ: And
Richmond. STEVE EARLY: And Richmond.AARON MATÉ: I want to thank my
guest, Steve Early,
author of Refinery Town: Big Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of an
American City. Steve, thank you.STEVE EARLY: Thank you.AARON MATÉ: And
thank you for
joining us on The Real News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Fwd: On Independence Day
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Richard D. Wolff" <info@democracyatwork.info>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:22:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: On Independence Day
To: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
<https://democracyatwork.info/donate>
Carl --
Around July 4, we think back to the founding of the US. Major leaders
then had visions and programs for alternative economic systems. Thomas
Jefferson wanted a land of equals, small individual farmers,
merchants, and crafts persons, together directing a democratic
community. He feared what modern capitalism became, an economic system
divided between a rich and powerful corporate minority (share owners
and the executives they chose) and a majority of mere employees with
little property and less power.
But Jefferson's vision was defeated. The US instead proceeded toward
something closer to what Alexander Hamilton envisioned: a capitalism
that enabled and allowed vast economic inequalities and all of the
consequent injustices. The US grew quickly but paid a heavy social
price that becomes starker now every day.
So now we face perhaps a final stage of the American drama.
We are a nation born in violent revolution against a fading feudal
monarchy and all its gross economic, political, and religious
inequalities and injustices. It was a system epitomized by the
bumbling tyrant King George. Yet the system built in the independent
United States has ended up with a quite parallel set of inequalities
and injustices. And now we have our own bumbling tyrant and would-be
king.
Let's hope that we learn from our history.That means making sure this
time that the new economic system emerging is deeply anchored in a
democratic workplace. Displacing capitalist corporations in favor of
worker cooperatives enables us to build on the technical achievements
of the old system while rejecting its inequalities, injustices, and
undemocratic core. Something of Jefferson's democratic dream survives
in such a new program for social change.
Thank you for reading, and for supporting our work
<https://democracyatwork.nationbuilder.com/donate>. Every bit helps as
we continue to educate ourselves on the history of the American
economic system and what we can do to redefine the American Dream.
Richard D. Wolff
Founder
Democracy at Work
<https://democracyatwork.info/donate>
-=-=-
Democracy at Work - PO Box 1516, New York, NY 10276, United States
This email was sent to carjar82@gmail.com. To stop receiving emails:
http://www.democracyatwork.info/unsubscribe
-=-=-
Created with NationBuilder - http://nationbuilder.com/
From: "Richard D. Wolff" <info@democracyatwork.info>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:22:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: On Independence Day
To: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
<https://democracyatwork.info/donate>
Carl --
Around July 4, we think back to the founding of the US. Major leaders
then had visions and programs for alternative economic systems. Thomas
Jefferson wanted a land of equals, small individual farmers,
merchants, and crafts persons, together directing a democratic
community. He feared what modern capitalism became, an economic system
divided between a rich and powerful corporate minority (share owners
and the executives they chose) and a majority of mere employees with
little property and less power.
But Jefferson's vision was defeated. The US instead proceeded toward
something closer to what Alexander Hamilton envisioned: a capitalism
that enabled and allowed vast economic inequalities and all of the
consequent injustices. The US grew quickly but paid a heavy social
price that becomes starker now every day.
So now we face perhaps a final stage of the American drama.
We are a nation born in violent revolution against a fading feudal
monarchy and all its gross economic, political, and religious
inequalities and injustices. It was a system epitomized by the
bumbling tyrant King George. Yet the system built in the independent
United States has ended up with a quite parallel set of inequalities
and injustices. And now we have our own bumbling tyrant and would-be
king.
Let's hope that we learn from our history.That means making sure this
time that the new economic system emerging is deeply anchored in a
democratic workplace. Displacing capitalist corporations in favor of
worker cooperatives enables us to build on the technical achievements
of the old system while rejecting its inequalities, injustices, and
undemocratic core. Something of Jefferson's democratic dream survives
in such a new program for social change.
Thank you for reading, and for supporting our work
<https://democracyatwork.nationbuilder.com/donate>. Every bit helps as
we continue to educate ourselves on the history of the American
economic system and what we can do to redefine the American Dream.
Richard D. Wolff
Founder
Democracy at Work
<https://democracyatwork.info/donate>
-=-=-
Democracy at Work - PO Box 1516, New York, NY 10276, United States
This email was sent to carjar82@gmail.com. To stop receiving emails:
http://www.democracyatwork.info/unsubscribe
-=-=-
Created with NationBuilder - http://nationbuilder.com/
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Fwd: [blind-democracy] Finally Everyone Agrees: Health Care Is a Human Right
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 07:56:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Finally Everyone Agrees: Health Care Is
a Human Right
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Matt Taibbi's article caused me to think about the usual tact taken by
Liberals and Democrats in attempting to curtail the rush of Greed in
the Health Care Industry.
No matter how many compromises are offered, the Industry refuses to
budge even an inch. Since the reason for this is the fact that the
Health Industry is able to do a bit of compromising itself, through
heavy contributions to election campaigns, separating politicians from
their voter base, there is only one absolute method of opposition to
current practices. Elimination. Remove the present method of
providing Health Care in America, and replace it with a Single Payer
System. Period.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/1/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> A health care rally. (photo: Health Care for All)
>
> Finally Everyone Agrees: Health Care Is a Human Right
>
> By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
>
> 01 July 17
>
> Let's hope we all remember the moral arguments about health care once the
> Trump administration ends
>
> Many years ago, while researching a book chapter on health care reform, I
> visited a hospital in Bayonne, New Jersey that was having problems. Upon
> arrival, administrators told me a story that summed up everything that is
> terrible and stupid about American health care.
>
> A patient of theirs suffering from a chronic illness took a bad turn and
> had
> to come in for a minor surgical procedure. The only problem was, the
> patient
> had been taking Coumadin, a common blood thinner, as part of his outpatient
> care.
>
> So they brought him in to the hospital, weaned him off the Coumadin, did
> the
> surgery successfully, then sent him home. All was well until they billed
> the
> insurer. The answer came back: coverage denied, because the operation had
> not been conducted in "timely fashion."
>
> Of course, had they operated in a more "timely fashion," the patient would
> have bled to death on the operating table. But such is the logic of the
> American health care system, a Frankenstein's monster of monopolistic
> insurance zones peppered with over a thousand different carriers, each with
> their own (often cruel) procedures and billing systems.
>
> The hospitals I visited all told me they devoted enormous resources - as
> much as half of all administrative staff, in one case - to chasing claims.
> Patient care in American is in this way consistently reduced to a ludicrous
> and irrational negotiation of two competing professional disciplines:
> medicine, and extracting money from insurance companies.
>
> Patients get trapped between hospitals that overcharge for simple
> procedures
> and insurers who deny coverage for serious ones. Administrative costs and
> profit are two of the bigger factors explaining why Americans spend about
> twice as much per person or more on health care compared with other
> industrialized countries, but get consistently worse results.
>
> Ideas like a single-payer system, or ending the antitrust exemption for
> insurance companies, would be obvious fixes. But when they came up during
> the Obamacare debate, they were dismissed as politically unfeasible and/or
> too costly. Because the United States will not do what other countries do
> as
> a matter of course - declare health care to be a universal human right and
> work backward from that premise - we are continually stuck with patchwork
> political solutions that protect insurance and pharmaceutical company
> profits while leaving masses of people uninsured.
>
> This is why it's so interesting to see so many of the opponents of
> universal
> health coverage attacking the idiotic Trumpcare bill on moral, rather than
> financial, grounds. Trumpcare is, like most Republican health care
> concepts,
> a depraved and transparent effort at slashing coverage and converting the
> benefits into tax breaks for rich people. This has resulted in howls of
> outrage from people who seem to have only just discovered that denying
> people health care might be bad for their health.
>
> Take Paul Krugman's piece in the New York Times today, "Understanding
> Republican Cruelty":
>
> "More than 40 percent of the Senate bill's tax cuts would go to people with
> annual incomes over $1 million - but even these lucky few would see their
> after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.
>
> "So it's vast suffering - including, according to the best estimates,
> around
> 200,000 preventable deaths - imposed on many of our fellow citizens in
> order
> to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to some extra pocket
> change."
>
> This is interesting, because only last year Krugman was telling us we
> should
> abandon efforts to seek universal health care and focus "on other issues."
> As he put it:
>
> "If we could start from scratch, many, perhaps most, health economists
> would
> recommend single-payer, a Medicare-type program covering everyone. But
> single-payer wasn't a politically feasible goal in America."
>
> Krugman then went on to explain that the "incumbent political players" -
> private insurers, among others - simply had too much power, so it was
> better
> to give them something and get some health care than to take something away
> from them and get nothing.
>
> He also said that additional tax revenue would make a more universal
> program
> politically untenable; he said this even as he admitted that such a program
> would probably reduce costs overall, but countered that "it would be
> difficult to make that case to the broad public, especially given the
> chorus
> of misinformation you know would dominate the airwaves."
>
> Krugman's concession to what he called "Realities" meant that it was OK to
> leave an expected 31 million people uninsured. This was the argument last
> January, when most pundits and Vegas bookmakers were sure we were looking
> at
> four more years of a Democratic White House.
>
> Instead, the monster Trump is in power, and trying to further roll back
> coverage in a field he surely doesn't understand through legislation he
> apparently doesn't even like. Reports say he has "shown little interest in
> what's in the bill," but that he thought the House version was "mean, mean,
> mean."
>
> That doesn't mean Trump or the Republican Party plans on doing anything
> substantive to fix their idiotic health care bill. In a scene straight out
> of Swift or Gogol, Republican Senators were apparently stunned to their
> cores to discover via the Congressional Budget Office that their
> steal-from-the-poor, give-to-the-rich mutant of a bill would push 23
> million
> people off the health care rolls.
>
> "It knocked the wind out of all their sails," a GOP aide told reporters.
>
> While the Republicans scramble to figure out the next step, Democrats
> continue to hammer the theme that Republicans want to kill their voters.
> I'm
> not a big fan of this kind of rhetoric, but I'll take it if it means the
> party is having an epiphany about the moral aspects of the health care
> debate. Surely if pushing some people off health care is killing them, then
> leaving tens of millions more without care is no better.
>
> Health care is an absolute human right. On a policy level we already
> recognized this decades ago, during the height of the Reagan era, when the
> Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act made it illegal for public and
> private hospitals alike to turn patients away in an emergency. There is
> simply no moral justification for denying aid to a sick or dying person.
> Any
> country that does so systematically is not a country at all.
>
> Let's hope the awful Trump era awakens us to the broader issue. The sad
> thing is that doing the right thing is also the smart thing. As other
> countries have already discovered, universal coverage systems that put the
> right incentives back into health care greatly reduce costs and waste.
> Getting there isn't "unrealistic." It's necessary, morally and otherwise.
>
> e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
>
>
>
>
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 07:56:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Finally Everyone Agrees: Health Care Is
a Human Right
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
Matt Taibbi's article caused me to think about the usual tact taken by
Liberals and Democrats in attempting to curtail the rush of Greed in
the Health Care Industry.
No matter how many compromises are offered, the Industry refuses to
budge even an inch. Since the reason for this is the fact that the
Health Industry is able to do a bit of compromising itself, through
heavy contributions to election campaigns, separating politicians from
their voter base, there is only one absolute method of opposition to
current practices. Elimination. Remove the present method of
providing Health Care in America, and replace it with a Single Payer
System. Period.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/1/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> A health care rally. (photo: Health Care for All)
>
> Finally Everyone Agrees: Health Care Is a Human Right
>
> By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
>
> 01 July 17
>
> Let's hope we all remember the moral arguments about health care once the
> Trump administration ends
>
> Many years ago, while researching a book chapter on health care reform, I
> visited a hospital in Bayonne, New Jersey that was having problems. Upon
> arrival, administrators told me a story that summed up everything that is
> terrible and stupid about American health care.
>
> A patient of theirs suffering from a chronic illness took a bad turn and
> had
> to come in for a minor surgical procedure. The only problem was, the
> patient
> had been taking Coumadin, a common blood thinner, as part of his outpatient
> care.
>
> So they brought him in to the hospital, weaned him off the Coumadin, did
> the
> surgery successfully, then sent him home. All was well until they billed
> the
> insurer. The answer came back: coverage denied, because the operation had
> not been conducted in "timely fashion."
>
> Of course, had they operated in a more "timely fashion," the patient would
> have bled to death on the operating table. But such is the logic of the
> American health care system, a Frankenstein's monster of monopolistic
> insurance zones peppered with over a thousand different carriers, each with
> their own (often cruel) procedures and billing systems.
>
> The hospitals I visited all told me they devoted enormous resources - as
> much as half of all administrative staff, in one case - to chasing claims.
> Patient care in American is in this way consistently reduced to a ludicrous
> and irrational negotiation of two competing professional disciplines:
> medicine, and extracting money from insurance companies.
>
> Patients get trapped between hospitals that overcharge for simple
> procedures
> and insurers who deny coverage for serious ones. Administrative costs and
> profit are two of the bigger factors explaining why Americans spend about
> twice as much per person or more on health care compared with other
> industrialized countries, but get consistently worse results.
>
> Ideas like a single-payer system, or ending the antitrust exemption for
> insurance companies, would be obvious fixes. But when they came up during
> the Obamacare debate, they were dismissed as politically unfeasible and/or
> too costly. Because the United States will not do what other countries do
> as
> a matter of course - declare health care to be a universal human right and
> work backward from that premise - we are continually stuck with patchwork
> political solutions that protect insurance and pharmaceutical company
> profits while leaving masses of people uninsured.
>
> This is why it's so interesting to see so many of the opponents of
> universal
> health coverage attacking the idiotic Trumpcare bill on moral, rather than
> financial, grounds. Trumpcare is, like most Republican health care
> concepts,
> a depraved and transparent effort at slashing coverage and converting the
> benefits into tax breaks for rich people. This has resulted in howls of
> outrage from people who seem to have only just discovered that denying
> people health care might be bad for their health.
>
> Take Paul Krugman's piece in the New York Times today, "Understanding
> Republican Cruelty":
>
> "More than 40 percent of the Senate bill's tax cuts would go to people with
> annual incomes over $1 million - but even these lucky few would see their
> after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.
>
> "So it's vast suffering - including, according to the best estimates,
> around
> 200,000 preventable deaths - imposed on many of our fellow citizens in
> order
> to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to some extra pocket
> change."
>
> This is interesting, because only last year Krugman was telling us we
> should
> abandon efforts to seek universal health care and focus "on other issues."
> As he put it:
>
> "If we could start from scratch, many, perhaps most, health economists
> would
> recommend single-payer, a Medicare-type program covering everyone. But
> single-payer wasn't a politically feasible goal in America."
>
> Krugman then went on to explain that the "incumbent political players" -
> private insurers, among others - simply had too much power, so it was
> better
> to give them something and get some health care than to take something away
> from them and get nothing.
>
> He also said that additional tax revenue would make a more universal
> program
> politically untenable; he said this even as he admitted that such a program
> would probably reduce costs overall, but countered that "it would be
> difficult to make that case to the broad public, especially given the
> chorus
> of misinformation you know would dominate the airwaves."
>
> Krugman's concession to what he called "Realities" meant that it was OK to
> leave an expected 31 million people uninsured. This was the argument last
> January, when most pundits and Vegas bookmakers were sure we were looking
> at
> four more years of a Democratic White House.
>
> Instead, the monster Trump is in power, and trying to further roll back
> coverage in a field he surely doesn't understand through legislation he
> apparently doesn't even like. Reports say he has "shown little interest in
> what's in the bill," but that he thought the House version was "mean, mean,
> mean."
>
> That doesn't mean Trump or the Republican Party plans on doing anything
> substantive to fix their idiotic health care bill. In a scene straight out
> of Swift or Gogol, Republican Senators were apparently stunned to their
> cores to discover via the Congressional Budget Office that their
> steal-from-the-poor, give-to-the-rich mutant of a bill would push 23
> million
> people off the health care rolls.
>
> "It knocked the wind out of all their sails," a GOP aide told reporters.
>
> While the Republicans scramble to figure out the next step, Democrats
> continue to hammer the theme that Republicans want to kill their voters.
> I'm
> not a big fan of this kind of rhetoric, but I'll take it if it means the
> party is having an epiphany about the moral aspects of the health care
> debate. Surely if pushing some people off health care is killing them, then
> leaving tens of millions more without care is no better.
>
> Health care is an absolute human right. On a policy level we already
> recognized this decades ago, during the height of the Reagan era, when the
> Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act made it illegal for public and
> private hospitals alike to turn patients away in an emergency. There is
> simply no moral justification for denying aid to a sick or dying person.
> Any
> country that does so systematically is not a country at all.
>
> Let's hope the awful Trump era awakens us to the broader issue. The sad
> thing is that doing the right thing is also the smart thing. As other
> countries have already discovered, universal coverage systems that put the
> right incentives back into health care greatly reduce costs and waste.
> Getting there isn't "unrealistic." It's necessary, morally and otherwise.
>
> e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
>
>
>
>
Fwd: U.S Gun Culture
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 07:25:45 -0700
Subject: Re: U.S Gun Culture
To: Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@gmail.com>
Dear Mostafa,
We live in a violent system. Some people have established a Belief
based upon an Almighty Deity, called by various names, who knows all
from the beginning to the end, and who cannot tolerate Evil, which
also comes under a variety of names.
But the world itself is built upon a very different theme. Life
depends upon Death. Forests are built upon the decay of past forests,
the crops we depend upon for our own lives to flourish, are given
fertilizers made from the dead materials of former plant and animal
life. The big creatures live by killing the small or weaker life, and
in turn are hunted and devoured by even bigger or stronger life forms.
Every time we rejoice in the beauty of "God's Creation" we should
remind ourselves that it is built upon earlier death.
We human creatures are part of this eternal cycle. We rise up in our
villages and turn our attention upon taking control over our
neighbor's land. And if we succeed, we are usually disposed to
enslave the former occupants as our subjects. Men, being physically
stronger, dominate women. Older women dominate young women and
children.
Humans, being the first known creatures to use their brain over their
brawn in controlling their environment, set about declaring themselves
to be "different" than all other life. Humans declared themselves to
have something they named a "Soul". The Humans declared that no other
life forms on Earth had Souls, proving that Humans were superior. But
the truth is that the only way in which Humans are superior is in
their ability to dominate the planet Earth in a way no other life form
has been able to do. Humans are on a crash course with extinction if
we do not quickly alter our thinking. We think we rule this planet
Earth, but the truth is that soon we will see the planet return to its
former balance. Whether it is from starvation, murderous wars, or
through infection from mutant viruses that sweep across the planet
unchecked, Human life will either be totally erased or reduced to a
level that planet Earth can control. Our planet is the actual
controller. We either must learn to live within its limits or die
like all other life forms. Until we learn to live as part of the
entire planet Earth, we face eventual extinction, regardless of which
God we believe "created" life.
And finally, so long as we Humans divide ourselves into different
nations and adopt different Gods, we must face the fact that our fate
is sealed.
In my own mind, God's name is Imagination, and the Evil One is named
Greed. Currently Greed is dominating over Imagination. But my hope
is that when enough of us turn to Imagination, we will collectively
create new methods to destroy Greed, and bring Peace to all Live on
Planet Earth.
With Kind thoughts and great respect, I remain,
Carl Jarvis
On 7/1/17, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@gmail.com> wrote:
> At least 25 people were shot at a concert in Arkansas early Saturday
> morning and others injured as they tried to escape, police said. This
> is the second fatal shooting in less than 24 hours. On Friday, a
> disgruntled former employee went in and began to shoot at Bronx
> Lebanon hospital in New York. Hmm, are we suppose to be just numb to
> such incidents? People do not finish mourning an incident until they
> are instantly shocked with another one. Americans have abused and
> violated the spirit of Constitution second amendment. The national
> rifle association, also known as NRA has dominated congress and
> blocked any gun regulation bills. It surely wants to keep its greed
> grow. I genuinely would rather not disparage my passport by labeling
> the U.S visa on it. It is truly a shame to be anything like American.
> How on earth they refuse to restrict guns and keep them in sickly
> demented hands for the sake of their sempiternally terrestrial gain?
> This is America folks, a country which basis its foundation on
> capitalistic tenets. It is a major threat for me to reside there. I
> could be shot at a store, a theatre, a campus, a social club, a
> worship centre and even a hospital. There are no restrictions on where
> could people go with their guns. They could be anywhere. Is that
> natural? I am seriously asking, is that natural? This is what pride
> does to the mind. It makes someone stubbornly arrogant to see and
> respectfully admit his shortcomings. Despite these consecutively
> incessant mass shootings, nothing will change as for gun laws and who
> is eligible to bear arms. It is most likely that we are going to hear
> about similar incidents taking place in some public gallery in the
> near future. Thank you for reading, Mostafa
>
>
> --
> (Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
> shoreless ocean.)
>
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 07:25:45 -0700
Subject: Re: U.S Gun Culture
To: Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@gmail.com>
Dear Mostafa,
We live in a violent system. Some people have established a Belief
based upon an Almighty Deity, called by various names, who knows all
from the beginning to the end, and who cannot tolerate Evil, which
also comes under a variety of names.
But the world itself is built upon a very different theme. Life
depends upon Death. Forests are built upon the decay of past forests,
the crops we depend upon for our own lives to flourish, are given
fertilizers made from the dead materials of former plant and animal
life. The big creatures live by killing the small or weaker life, and
in turn are hunted and devoured by even bigger or stronger life forms.
Every time we rejoice in the beauty of "God's Creation" we should
remind ourselves that it is built upon earlier death.
We human creatures are part of this eternal cycle. We rise up in our
villages and turn our attention upon taking control over our
neighbor's land. And if we succeed, we are usually disposed to
enslave the former occupants as our subjects. Men, being physically
stronger, dominate women. Older women dominate young women and
children.
Humans, being the first known creatures to use their brain over their
brawn in controlling their environment, set about declaring themselves
to be "different" than all other life. Humans declared themselves to
have something they named a "Soul". The Humans declared that no other
life forms on Earth had Souls, proving that Humans were superior. But
the truth is that the only way in which Humans are superior is in
their ability to dominate the planet Earth in a way no other life form
has been able to do. Humans are on a crash course with extinction if
we do not quickly alter our thinking. We think we rule this planet
Earth, but the truth is that soon we will see the planet return to its
former balance. Whether it is from starvation, murderous wars, or
through infection from mutant viruses that sweep across the planet
unchecked, Human life will either be totally erased or reduced to a
level that planet Earth can control. Our planet is the actual
controller. We either must learn to live within its limits or die
like all other life forms. Until we learn to live as part of the
entire planet Earth, we face eventual extinction, regardless of which
God we believe "created" life.
And finally, so long as we Humans divide ourselves into different
nations and adopt different Gods, we must face the fact that our fate
is sealed.
In my own mind, God's name is Imagination, and the Evil One is named
Greed. Currently Greed is dominating over Imagination. But my hope
is that when enough of us turn to Imagination, we will collectively
create new methods to destroy Greed, and bring Peace to all Live on
Planet Earth.
With Kind thoughts and great respect, I remain,
Carl Jarvis
On 7/1/17, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@gmail.com> wrote:
> At least 25 people were shot at a concert in Arkansas early Saturday
> morning and others injured as they tried to escape, police said. This
> is the second fatal shooting in less than 24 hours. On Friday, a
> disgruntled former employee went in and began to shoot at Bronx
> Lebanon hospital in New York. Hmm, are we suppose to be just numb to
> such incidents? People do not finish mourning an incident until they
> are instantly shocked with another one. Americans have abused and
> violated the spirit of Constitution second amendment. The national
> rifle association, also known as NRA has dominated congress and
> blocked any gun regulation bills. It surely wants to keep its greed
> grow. I genuinely would rather not disparage my passport by labeling
> the U.S visa on it. It is truly a shame to be anything like American.
> How on earth they refuse to restrict guns and keep them in sickly
> demented hands for the sake of their sempiternally terrestrial gain?
> This is America folks, a country which basis its foundation on
> capitalistic tenets. It is a major threat for me to reside there. I
> could be shot at a store, a theatre, a campus, a social club, a
> worship centre and even a hospital. There are no restrictions on where
> could people go with their guns. They could be anywhere. Is that
> natural? I am seriously asking, is that natural? This is what pride
> does to the mind. It makes someone stubbornly arrogant to see and
> respectfully admit his shortcomings. Despite these consecutively
> incessant mass shootings, nothing will change as for gun laws and who
> is eligible to bear arms. It is most likely that we are going to hear
> about similar incidents taking place in some public gallery in the
> near future. Thank you for reading, Mostafa
>
>
> --
> (Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
> shoreless ocean.)
>
Friday, June 30, 2017
Re: [blind-democracy] Prominent Democratic Fundraisers Realign to Lobby for Trump's Agenda
Who was it said that you can't buy Loyalty?
Well, there's another old saying, "If you want a job done right, do it
yourself".
A true democracy is when all members of a group roll up their sleeves
and actively participate. Even a Republic works when the people
selected to represent the majority, actually represent the majority.
But in an Oligarchy, the Ruling Class has most of the marbles and
simply pressures and buys enough of the People's representatives to
maintain their power.
We need to forget about who is busting into who's email, and turn our
attention to throwing out all DC lobbyists. Our representatives must
come home to public forums to get their instructions from the People.
At the same time we must take money out of the election process.
Establish free Radio and TV channels dedicated to anyone running for
office. Eliminate the negative slick commercial-like campaign ads.
If we do not do these basic changes, we will continue to be ruled by
money instead of ruling ourselves.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/29/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> C First Look Media. All rights reservedTerms of use
> Heather Podesta, a lawyer and lobbyist based in Washington, D.C., mingles
> in
> the crowd at an event hosted by Politico during the 2016 Democratic
> National
> Convention in Philadelphia, PA on July 27, 2016.
>
> Photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Redux
>
> Prominent Democratic Fundraisers Realign to Lobby for Trump's Agenda
>
> Lee Fang
>
> June 23 2017, 8:00 a.m.
>
> After President Donald Trump's upset election victory, Democratic insiders
> who worked on Hillary Clinton's failed presidential bid weren't necessarily
> relegated to the sidelines. Many, in fact, are cashing in as lobbyists - by
> working to advance Trump's agenda.
>
> Lobbying records show that some Democratic fundraisers, who raised record
> amounts of campaign cash for Clinton, are now retained by top telecom
> interests to help repeal the strong net neutrality protections established
> during the Obama administration.
>
> Others are working on behalf of for-profit prisons on detention issues,
> while others still are paid to help corporate interests pushing alongside
> Trump to weaken financial regulations. At least one prominent Clinton
> backer
> is working for a health insurance company on a provision that was included
> in the House Republican bill to gut the Affordable Care Act.
>
> While Republican lobbyists are more in demand, liberal lobbyists are doing
> brisk business that has them reaching out to fellow Democrats to endorse -
> or at least tamp down vocal opposition to - Trump agenda items.
>
> "These cases are clear, disturbing examples of the gulf between the
> interests of many of the Democratic Party's big-money donors and those of
> the party's progressive base and America's working families," said Kai
> Newkirk, co-founder of Democracy Spring, a progressive coalition.
>
> The net neutrality debate is a case in point. The biggest fundraisers for
> the Clinton campaign - Democratic lobbyists such as Ingrid Duran, Vincent
> Roberti, Steve Elmendorf, Al Mottur, and Arshi Siddiqui - are now lobbying
> on behalf of AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast on net neutrality. These companies
> dominate the telecom industry, which is working with the Trump
> administration to unwind one of President Barack Obama's biggest
> accomplishments.
>
> In 2015, the Obama administration, with great fanfare, reclassified
> broadband services as a utility using Title II of the Communications Act.
> In
> doing so, the reclassification avoids court challenges, paving the way for
> strong regulations that require internet service providers to treat all web
> traffic in the same way. The principle is known as net neutrality, which
> advocates say is crucial for the internet remain open to the free flow of
> information and innovative services.
>
> Ajit Pai, a former Verizon attorney appointed by Trump to serve as chairman
> of the Federal Communications Communication, is attempting to rollback the
> Title II reclassification and have companies simply commit to a voluntary
> form of net neutrality.
>
> "The industry supports strong consumer protection rules but Title II is an
> over the top, archaic regulatory framework," said Mottur, a Democratic
> lobbyist, in a brief interview with The Intercept explaining his work.
>
> Mottur raised $95,606 for the Clinton campaign. Now, as a lobbyist for
> Comcast and the National Cable And Telecommunications Association, Mottur
> is
> supporting the Trump administration's effort to undo net neutrality.
>
> In April, when the FCC decision was announced, Mottur tweeted in support of
> the plan, claiming a roll back of Title II reclassification will "lead to
> more capital investment in telecom sector and boost economy." Pai, the FCC
> chairman, liked the tweet.
>
> Net neutrality advocates have expressed concern about the growing reach of
> the telecom lobby.
>
> "The only way big phone and cable companies can get political support for
> such unpopular policies like killing net neutrality is by hiring powerful
> party operatives - Democrats and Republicans alike," said Joe Torres of
> Free
> Press, a nonprofit that advocates for net neutrality. (Free Press receives
> financial support from the Democracy Fund, which is funded by Pierre
> Omidyar. Omidyar founded The Intercept's parent company, First Look Media.)
>
> "Hopefully elected officials will reject the industry talking points being
> made by these hired operatives and look out for the communities they claim
> to represent," Torres added. "Opposing net neutrality would harm
> communities
> of color and other marginalized groups by silencing their digital voices
> and
> their ability to speak for themselves in fighting for a more just society."
>
> Other Democratic lobbyists did not respond to requests for comment, but
> many
> of their lobbying disclosures demonstrate a realignment in support of
> Trump's policy agenda.
>
> A well-known lobbyist who runs in powerful Democratic circles, Heather
> Podesta, volunteered for Clinton during the New Hampshire primaries. She
> collected at least $407,000 for the campaign. In recent months, Podesta has
> tweeted from the Center for American Progress Ideas Conference, an event
> billed as a platform for the "Resist movement," and has continued to give
> cash to congressional Democrats.
>
> Podesta, however, whose New Years Resolution was to "Make Lobbying Great
> Again," has adapted to Republican rule by rebranding her lobbying firm from
> "Heather Podesta + Partners" to "Invariant," a name change to reflect "an
> expanding bipartisan team" with ties to the Trump administration.
>
> Records show Podesta has lobbied this year on behalf of financial
> management
> and insurance giants Prudential and New York Life on the fiduciary rule,
> the
> regulation fought for by the Obama administration that was designed to
> require financial planning companies to act in the best interests of their
> clients. Early in his administration, in a decision cheered by the
> industry,
> Trump ordered a delay in the implementation of the rule.
>
> Other Democratic lobbyists have found that their corporate clients'
> interests align with the Trump administration. Some, like Podesta, are
> taking financial planning industry cash to work on the fiduciary rule.
>
> Steve Elmendorf, a former senior advisor to Clinton's 2008 run, maintained
> a
> high-profile role with Clinton's 2016 run, raising $341,000 for the
> campaign. He is now one of the most prominent corporate lobbyists in
> Washington, D.C. Records show that Elmendorf, too, lobbied on the fiduciary
> rule. His client, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
> Association,
> a trade group for firms like Prudential, has made delaying the rule a major
> goal and celebrated Trump's move to delay implementation.
>
> UnitedHealth, the health insurance giant, is also an Elmendorf client.
> Filings made to ethics officials on Capitol Hill reveal that Elmendorf is
> helping UnitedHealth work on issues related to the Affordable Care Act,
> including the health insurance industry tax, a provision of the ACA that
> UnitedHealth has made clear it seeks to repeal or delay. Congressional
> Republicans have said that, if they are successful with their overhaul of
> the law, the tax will be gone.
>
> A former Democratic National Committee fundraiser from Bill Clinton's days
> as president, Richard Sullivan, served as a major fundraiser for Hillary
> Clinton's campaign last year. He bundled at least $345,218 for the
> campaign,
> according to Federal Elections Commission records. Sullivan is also
> registered lobbyist for the public relations and lobby firm Capitol
> Counsel,
> where he works on behalf of private prison giant Geo Group to convince
> lawmakers of the "benefits of public-private partnerships in the delivery
> of
> secure residential care in correctional and detention facilities."
>
> The Florida-based Geo Group is particularly close to the Trump
> administration; it was one of the few firms to donate corporate money to a
> Trump SuperPAC during the election, finance the inauguration, and openly
> celebrate Trump's decision to vastly expand the detention and removal of
> undocumented immigrants. The firm was among the first private companies to
> win a contract from the Trump administration for a federal immigrant
> detention center, a deal worth $110 million.
>
> Lobbyists often use their ability to bundle cash for candidates and party
> organs as a way of win an audience with lawmakers on behalf of their
> clients. As The Intercept has reported, lobbyists for Goldman Sachs and the
> Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the trade group,
> raised big money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, using
> their sway to pressure the party to adopt policies favorable to their
> industries and to abandon economic populist messaging that targeted the
> financial sector.
>
> Trump's election has been called a "bonanza" for Washington lobbyists, as K
> Street seeks to enrich itself by harnessing the administration's zeal for
> rewarding corporate allies. For many Democratic insiders, there is fortune
> to made even in electoral defeat.
>
> The Intercept spoke to several progressive activists who expressed outrage
> that leading Democratic Party officials are now advancing the Trump agenda,
> but were reluctant to comment on the record, for fear of angering powerful
> Democrats. But a few activists, like Democracy Sping's Newkirk, decided to
> speak on the record.
>
>
> Becky Bond, an activist and former Bernie Sanders adviser who also spoke
> out, said, "When Democratic insiders team up with Comcast and the private
> prison industry, they make it pretty difficult to see how the party can
> rebuild relationships with the voters it needs to bring back into the
> fold."
>
> "Destroying the internet and maximizing the profitability of mass
> incarceration," she added, "is not what I would call a winning strategy for
> Democrats who want to take back power in 2018."
>
> Top photo: Heather Podesta, a lawyer and lobbyist based in Washington,
> D.C.,
> at an event hosted by Politico during the 2016 Democratic National
> Convention in Philadelphia, on July 27, 2016.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well, there's another old saying, "If you want a job done right, do it
yourself".
A true democracy is when all members of a group roll up their sleeves
and actively participate. Even a Republic works when the people
selected to represent the majority, actually represent the majority.
But in an Oligarchy, the Ruling Class has most of the marbles and
simply pressures and buys enough of the People's representatives to
maintain their power.
We need to forget about who is busting into who's email, and turn our
attention to throwing out all DC lobbyists. Our representatives must
come home to public forums to get their instructions from the People.
At the same time we must take money out of the election process.
Establish free Radio and TV channels dedicated to anyone running for
office. Eliminate the negative slick commercial-like campaign ads.
If we do not do these basic changes, we will continue to be ruled by
money instead of ruling ourselves.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/29/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> C First Look Media. All rights reservedTerms of use
> Heather Podesta, a lawyer and lobbyist based in Washington, D.C., mingles
> in
> the crowd at an event hosted by Politico during the 2016 Democratic
> National
> Convention in Philadelphia, PA on July 27, 2016.
>
> Photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Redux
>
> Prominent Democratic Fundraisers Realign to Lobby for Trump's Agenda
>
> Lee Fang
>
> June 23 2017, 8:00 a.m.
>
> After President Donald Trump's upset election victory, Democratic insiders
> who worked on Hillary Clinton's failed presidential bid weren't necessarily
> relegated to the sidelines. Many, in fact, are cashing in as lobbyists - by
> working to advance Trump's agenda.
>
> Lobbying records show that some Democratic fundraisers, who raised record
> amounts of campaign cash for Clinton, are now retained by top telecom
> interests to help repeal the strong net neutrality protections established
> during the Obama administration.
>
> Others are working on behalf of for-profit prisons on detention issues,
> while others still are paid to help corporate interests pushing alongside
> Trump to weaken financial regulations. At least one prominent Clinton
> backer
> is working for a health insurance company on a provision that was included
> in the House Republican bill to gut the Affordable Care Act.
>
> While Republican lobbyists are more in demand, liberal lobbyists are doing
> brisk business that has them reaching out to fellow Democrats to endorse -
> or at least tamp down vocal opposition to - Trump agenda items.
>
> "These cases are clear, disturbing examples of the gulf between the
> interests of many of the Democratic Party's big-money donors and those of
> the party's progressive base and America's working families," said Kai
> Newkirk, co-founder of Democracy Spring, a progressive coalition.
>
> The net neutrality debate is a case in point. The biggest fundraisers for
> the Clinton campaign - Democratic lobbyists such as Ingrid Duran, Vincent
> Roberti, Steve Elmendorf, Al Mottur, and Arshi Siddiqui - are now lobbying
> on behalf of AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast on net neutrality. These companies
> dominate the telecom industry, which is working with the Trump
> administration to unwind one of President Barack Obama's biggest
> accomplishments.
>
> In 2015, the Obama administration, with great fanfare, reclassified
> broadband services as a utility using Title II of the Communications Act.
> In
> doing so, the reclassification avoids court challenges, paving the way for
> strong regulations that require internet service providers to treat all web
> traffic in the same way. The principle is known as net neutrality, which
> advocates say is crucial for the internet remain open to the free flow of
> information and innovative services.
>
> Ajit Pai, a former Verizon attorney appointed by Trump to serve as chairman
> of the Federal Communications Communication, is attempting to rollback the
> Title II reclassification and have companies simply commit to a voluntary
> form of net neutrality.
>
> "The industry supports strong consumer protection rules but Title II is an
> over the top, archaic regulatory framework," said Mottur, a Democratic
> lobbyist, in a brief interview with The Intercept explaining his work.
>
> Mottur raised $95,606 for the Clinton campaign. Now, as a lobbyist for
> Comcast and the National Cable And Telecommunications Association, Mottur
> is
> supporting the Trump administration's effort to undo net neutrality.
>
> In April, when the FCC decision was announced, Mottur tweeted in support of
> the plan, claiming a roll back of Title II reclassification will "lead to
> more capital investment in telecom sector and boost economy." Pai, the FCC
> chairman, liked the tweet.
>
> Net neutrality advocates have expressed concern about the growing reach of
> the telecom lobby.
>
> "The only way big phone and cable companies can get political support for
> such unpopular policies like killing net neutrality is by hiring powerful
> party operatives - Democrats and Republicans alike," said Joe Torres of
> Free
> Press, a nonprofit that advocates for net neutrality. (Free Press receives
> financial support from the Democracy Fund, which is funded by Pierre
> Omidyar. Omidyar founded The Intercept's parent company, First Look Media.)
>
> "Hopefully elected officials will reject the industry talking points being
> made by these hired operatives and look out for the communities they claim
> to represent," Torres added. "Opposing net neutrality would harm
> communities
> of color and other marginalized groups by silencing their digital voices
> and
> their ability to speak for themselves in fighting for a more just society."
>
> Other Democratic lobbyists did not respond to requests for comment, but
> many
> of their lobbying disclosures demonstrate a realignment in support of
> Trump's policy agenda.
>
> A well-known lobbyist who runs in powerful Democratic circles, Heather
> Podesta, volunteered for Clinton during the New Hampshire primaries. She
> collected at least $407,000 for the campaign. In recent months, Podesta has
> tweeted from the Center for American Progress Ideas Conference, an event
> billed as a platform for the "Resist movement," and has continued to give
> cash to congressional Democrats.
>
> Podesta, however, whose New Years Resolution was to "Make Lobbying Great
> Again," has adapted to Republican rule by rebranding her lobbying firm from
> "Heather Podesta + Partners" to "Invariant," a name change to reflect "an
> expanding bipartisan team" with ties to the Trump administration.
>
> Records show Podesta has lobbied this year on behalf of financial
> management
> and insurance giants Prudential and New York Life on the fiduciary rule,
> the
> regulation fought for by the Obama administration that was designed to
> require financial planning companies to act in the best interests of their
> clients. Early in his administration, in a decision cheered by the
> industry,
> Trump ordered a delay in the implementation of the rule.
>
> Other Democratic lobbyists have found that their corporate clients'
> interests align with the Trump administration. Some, like Podesta, are
> taking financial planning industry cash to work on the fiduciary rule.
>
> Steve Elmendorf, a former senior advisor to Clinton's 2008 run, maintained
> a
> high-profile role with Clinton's 2016 run, raising $341,000 for the
> campaign. He is now one of the most prominent corporate lobbyists in
> Washington, D.C. Records show that Elmendorf, too, lobbied on the fiduciary
> rule. His client, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
> Association,
> a trade group for firms like Prudential, has made delaying the rule a major
> goal and celebrated Trump's move to delay implementation.
>
> UnitedHealth, the health insurance giant, is also an Elmendorf client.
> Filings made to ethics officials on Capitol Hill reveal that Elmendorf is
> helping UnitedHealth work on issues related to the Affordable Care Act,
> including the health insurance industry tax, a provision of the ACA that
> UnitedHealth has made clear it seeks to repeal or delay. Congressional
> Republicans have said that, if they are successful with their overhaul of
> the law, the tax will be gone.
>
> A former Democratic National Committee fundraiser from Bill Clinton's days
> as president, Richard Sullivan, served as a major fundraiser for Hillary
> Clinton's campaign last year. He bundled at least $345,218 for the
> campaign,
> according to Federal Elections Commission records. Sullivan is also
> registered lobbyist for the public relations and lobby firm Capitol
> Counsel,
> where he works on behalf of private prison giant Geo Group to convince
> lawmakers of the "benefits of public-private partnerships in the delivery
> of
> secure residential care in correctional and detention facilities."
>
> The Florida-based Geo Group is particularly close to the Trump
> administration; it was one of the few firms to donate corporate money to a
> Trump SuperPAC during the election, finance the inauguration, and openly
> celebrate Trump's decision to vastly expand the detention and removal of
> undocumented immigrants. The firm was among the first private companies to
> win a contract from the Trump administration for a federal immigrant
> detention center, a deal worth $110 million.
>
> Lobbyists often use their ability to bundle cash for candidates and party
> organs as a way of win an audience with lawmakers on behalf of their
> clients. As The Intercept has reported, lobbyists for Goldman Sachs and the
> Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the trade group,
> raised big money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, using
> their sway to pressure the party to adopt policies favorable to their
> industries and to abandon economic populist messaging that targeted the
> financial sector.
>
> Trump's election has been called a "bonanza" for Washington lobbyists, as K
> Street seeks to enrich itself by harnessing the administration's zeal for
> rewarding corporate allies. For many Democratic insiders, there is fortune
> to made even in electoral defeat.
>
> The Intercept spoke to several progressive activists who expressed outrage
> that leading Democratic Party officials are now advancing the Trump agenda,
> but were reluctant to comment on the record, for fear of angering powerful
> Democrats. But a few activists, like Democracy Sping's Newkirk, decided to
> speak on the record.
>
>
> Becky Bond, an activist and former Bernie Sanders adviser who also spoke
> out, said, "When Democratic insiders team up with Comcast and the private
> prison industry, they make it pretty difficult to see how the party can
> rebuild relationships with the voters it needs to bring back into the
> fold."
>
> "Destroying the internet and maximizing the profitability of mass
> incarceration," she added, "is not what I would call a winning strategy for
> Democrats who want to take back power in 2018."
>
> Top photo: Heather Podesta, a lawyer and lobbyist based in Washington,
> D.C.,
> at an event hosted by Politico during the 2016 Democratic National
> Convention in Philadelphia, on July 27, 2016.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)