Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Pipeline Quagmire
It was the most extraordinary citizen organizing feat in recent White House history. Over 1200 Americans from 50 states came to Washington and were arrested in front of the White House to demonstrate their opposition to a forthcoming Obama approval of the Keystone XL dirty oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada down to the Gulf Coast.
Anyone who has tried to mobilize people in open non-violent civil disobedience knows how hard it is to have that many people pay their way to Washington to join a select group of civic champions. The first round of arrestees - about 100 of them - were brought to a jail and kept on cement floors for 52 hours - presumably, said one guard, on orders from above to discourage those who were slated to follow this first wave in the two weeks ending September 3, 2011.
The Keystone XL pipeline project - owned by a consortium of oil companies - is a many faceted abomination. It will, if constructed, take its raw, tar sands carbon down through the agricultural heartland of the United States - through the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the great Ogallala aquifer, fragile natural habitats and Native American lands. Major breaks and accidents on pipelines - four of them with loss of human life- have occurred just in the past year from California to Pennsylvania, including a recent, major Exxon/Mobile pipeline rupture which resulted in many gallons of oil spilling into the Yellowstone River.
The Office of Pipeline Safety in the Department of Transportation has been a pitiful rubberstamp patsy for the pipeline industry for 40 years. There are larger objections - a huge contribution to greenhouse gases and further expansion of the destruction of northern Albertan terrain, forests and water - expected to cover an area the size of Florida.
Furthermore, as the Energy Department report on Keystone XL pointed out, decreasing demand for petroleum through advances in fuel efficiency is the major way to reduce reliance on imported oil with or without the pipeline. There is no assurance whatsoever that the refined tar sands oil in Gulf Coast refineries will even get to the motorists here. They can be exported more profitably to Europe and South America.
In ads on Washington, D.C.'s WTOP news station, the industry is claiming that the project will create more than 100,000 jobs. They cannot substantiate this figure. It is vastly exaggerated. TransCanada's permit application for Keystone XL to the U.S. State Department estimated a "peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel" to build the pipeline.
The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) oppose the pipeline. In their August 2011 statement they said: "We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil [...] Many jobs could be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation - jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency."
The demonstrators before the White House, led by prominent environmentalist Bill McKibben and other stalwarts, focused on President Obama because he and he alone will make the decision either for or against building what they call "North America's biggest carbon bomb." He does not have to ask Congress.
Already the State Department, in their latest report, is moving to recommend approval. The demonstrators and their supporters, including leaders of the Native American Dene tribe in Canada and the Lakota nation in the U.S., filled much of the area in front of the White House and Lafayette Square. On September 2, I went down to express my support for their cause. Assistants to Mr. McKibben asked me to speak at the final rally at the square on Saturday. I agreed. At 6:25 p.m. we received an e-mail from Daniel Kessler withdrawing their invitation because of "how packed our schedule already is. We'd love to have Ralph there in any other capacity, including participating in the protest."
The next day, many of the speakers went way over their allotted five to six minute time slots. Observers told me that there were to be no criticisms of Barack Obama. McKibben wore an Obama pin on the stage. Obama t-shirts were seen out in the crowd. McKibben did not want their efforts to be "marginalized" by criticizing the President, which they expected I would do. He said that "he would not do Obama the favor" of criticizing him.
To each one's own strategy. I do not believe McKibben's strategy is up to the brilliance of his tactics involving the mass arrests. (Which by the way received deplorably little mass media coverage).
Obama believes that those demonstrators and their followers around the country are his voters (they were in 2008) and that they have nowhere to go in 2012. So long as environmentalists do not find a way to disabuse him of this impression long before Election Day, they should get ready for an Obama approval of the Keystone XL monstrosity.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
68 Comments so far
Show AllIt is apparent that the more that the right attacks and abuses Obama, the more he does what they want to placate them. I do not understand McKibben's refusal to see this and use it.
Placate them? I was on vacation for a few days. What happened while I was gone?
He'll approve. He doesn't care whether he's reelected, as long as he has a big fat paycheck coming his way next year. oBOMBer has shown his true colors for a long long time.
I have the impression that the presidential elections have become like the "Little League" episode of South Park, where the kids are trying to lose a game and not go to finals when they realize the other team is doing the same thing, only better. Gore conceding to the village idiot, Kerry being a bigger idiot, McCain picking Palin and the Dems run a black man. Suddenly,it all makes sense, they want to lose, but they can't make it look like they are throwing the game. As they get more and more outrageous, they must really be starting to wonder what it will take to get people to vote for the other guy.
Supply of crude oil is at high levels right now. What is a problem is refinery capacity. The refiners will not build new capacity because it is not in their interest.
Does anyone see the real problem???
Instead of giving tax cuts and tax breaks to refiners we should use the money to build publicly owned refineries and if producers/refiners try to limit or cut supplies seize oil fields/wells/refineries. The country and the private sector of refiners and drillers must serve the public interest and when they do not measures should be taken to insure that they do serve the common/public interest.
This Tar Sands oil will not be used by the US-unless another nation that refines it-we won't- then sells it back to us!
Oil is a world commodity, and what better place to ship it out there but via the Gulf ports of Texas??! This nightmare is a done deal-Obama will not earn the rebuke of his corporate masters by turning this thing down. They own him and keep him on a fairly short leash. Canadians will most likely be brought down here and they will get most of the jobs, I'll bet.
Did you watch the TV series on AMC titled "Rubicon?" The one that was cancelled? Because it was too close to the truth? Sounds like this deal. Try to get a DVD if you haven't seen it.
It won't work. People vote on hereditary lines and they're scared shitless of the other side. The only thing that could work is Instant Runoff Voting, but that doesn't deal with the other problem: the Citizens United Decision. There is effectively no limit to the money that corporations can spend on campaigns.
Progressives who don't vote for Obama will get so much shit for it that most will never stray from the Party again. They'll get blamed for him losing and the Dems will continue to get a pass. At least if you write in some random person it won't result in a good man like Ralph Nader getting excoriated by partisan hacks.
Re: Instant Runoff Voting
Let voters express consent and dissent, not just preference.
Instant Runoff Voting is, pardon the expression, a “lesser of two evils” piece of crap.
- -
BenFromEugene wrote:
It won't work. People vote on hereditary lines and they're scared shitless of the other side. The only thing that could work is Instant Runoff Voting, but that doesn't deal with the other problem: the Citizens United Decision. There is effectively no limit to the money that corporations can spend on campaigns.
Progressives who don't vote for Obama will get so much shit for it that most will never stray from the Party again. They'll get blamed for him losing and the Dems will continue to get a pass. At least if you write in some random person it won't result in a good man like Ralph Nader getting excoriated by partisan hacks.
* * * * *
..
My Reply:
BenFromEugene,
I can't imagine why your comment has been flagged. Occasionally, a comment appears as flagged when there is no conceivable reason that I or many of the other people who post here can imagine as why anyone would have flagged it for cause.
Nevertheless, I would like to reply to your comment.
I am sure that you must realize it is too late for Instant Runoff Voting in 2012. Actually, that’s not such a bad thing, because Instant Runoff Voting is, pardon the expression, a “lesser of two evils” piece of crap.
I mean this both in the sense that IRV is the "lesser of two evils" when compared to Plurality Voting, and in the sense that the IRV "solution" to the "lesser of two evils" and "spoiler effect" problems is a bad solution that doesn't particularly empower voters.
Too often IRV will simply transfer a voter's vote from his or her "preferred" candidate to one of the two major party candidates on the ballot who the voter considers to be the "lesser of two evils." This is consistent with proto-democracy, but not with genuine democracy.
There are, of course, variations on the IRV theme.
Consider for example IRV with a "None of the Others" option added to the ballot, courtesy of folks in the Green-Rainbow Party (the Green Party, USA affiliate in Massachusetts). But none of the "improved" versions of IRV, including IRV plus "None of the Others", is significantly better than the original. It is hard to fix something that is fundamentally flawed at the core.
Instant Runoff Voting is simply incapable of determining whether or not the consent of the governed exists for any of the candidates on the ballot, because Instant Runoff Voting prohibits voters from directly and fully expressing their opinions (including their support or oppostion, and their preferences) about each and any of the individual candidates on the ballot. More importantly, Instant Runoff Voting prohibits voters, both individually and as a whole, from exercising the sort of political power with respect to the possible election of each and any of the individual candidates on the ballot, which is consistent with the power of a boss and which is the sovereign right of "We the People."
Both elected and appointed government officials are supposed to be public servants engaged in public service working on our behalf in our best interests. Genuinely democratic government is supposed to be government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
"We the People" should have the power to easily choose not just which political surrogates of the wealthy power elite will run the government on behalf of the wealthy, as is characteristic of a proto-democracy; but whether or not political surrogates of the wealthy power elite will run the government, or people like us who actually represent us will run the government for us on our behalf.
Once again, wealthy people who control large corporations and proto-democratic government have turned governments at the federal and state level into part of a rapacious predator state.
But neither Plurality Voting nor Instant Runoff Voting can even pass the “We Them” test or resolve the Majority Rule Voting Paradox in a manner which in reliably consistent with the consent of the governed.
This fact should not be surprising. After all, the standard verions of Instant Runoff Voting prohibits voters from dissenting by directly opposing and in some way voting "No" against each and any of the individiual candidates on the ballot, while at the same time consenting by directly supporting and in some way voting "Yes" for any of the other individual candidates on the ballot they as they choose.
Even when a "None of the Others" option is added to a IRV ballot, Instant Runoff Voting is like Plurality Voting fundamentally still a preference based voting procedure that treats the "None of the Others" option just like another candidate, rather than using a procedure to determine the election outcome which is thoroughly based upon determining the consent of the governed.
The only way that “We the People” will be able to exercise power in a manner consistent with our role as the ultimate sovereign and boss in a democracy is to replace Plurality Voting with a voting procedure that enables voters to directly oppose and vote “No” against each and any candidate on the ballot, while at the same time enabling them to directly support and vote “Yes” for any other candidate on the ballot according to their choice.
There are two consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedures, Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting and Category Scale Power Voting, that expand each voter’s freedom of speech and freedom of political association in this way and that determine the winner of an election in a manner similar to the standard procedure commonly used by a boss or hiring manager when hiring someone for a job.
Simply put Plurality Voting should be replaced with a consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure such as Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting or Category Scale Power Voting.
And of course, both Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo need to be overturned. Like Plurality Voting those two Supreme Court decisions are undemocratic and unconstitutional, because they favor the speech and political association of the wealthy in violation of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of "equal protection of the law".
Peter K. Harrell
The Consent of the Governed (The "We Hate Them" Test)
Instant Runoff Voting and Plurality Voting Fail the "We Hate Them" Test
- -
The basic "We Hate Them" test can easily be demonstrated with a 3 person electorate.
However, in order to demonstrate that the addition of a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option to Plurality Voting or a "None of the Others" (NOTO) option to Instant Runoff Voting will still not enable these two voting procedures to pass the "We Hate Them" test, a somewhat larger electorate is needed.
Please consider this 9 person example electorate where the 9 people are grouped into 3 categories according to their opinions in order to make visualization of the relationships among potential voters easy.
Group 1:
Consisting of 4 people who . . .
Prefer Candidate A to Candidate B
Like / Support Candidate A
Dislike / Oppose Candidate B
Group 2:
Consisting of 3 people who . . .
Prefer Candidate B to Candidate A
Like / Support Candidate B
Dislike / Oppose Candidate A
Group 3:
Consisting of 2 people who . . .
Prefer Candidate B to Candidate A
Dislike / Oppose Candidate B
Dislike / Oppose Candidate A.
The 2 people in Group 3 are confronted with the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.
If you look at these 9 people you will notice that they prefer Candidate B to Candidate A by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 3 people in Group 2 plus the 2 people in Group 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1.
Similarly, these 9 people dislike / oppose Candidate A by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the same 3 people in Group 2 and 2 people in Group 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1.
However, you will also notice that these same 9 people dislike / oppose Candidate B by a 6 to 3 majority consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 plus the 2 people in Group 3 versus the 3 people in Group 2.
In other words these 9 people dislike / oppose both Candidate A and Candidate B by by 5 to 4 and 6 to 3 majorities respectively consisting of different groupings of the 9 potential voters in the election.
A look at election outcomes, given this 9 person electorate, when either Plurality Voting or Instant Runoff Voting is used, indicate that any voting procedure used in single member district elections must permit each voter much greater freedom of speech and freedom of political association than is allowed by either Plurality Voting or Instant Runoff Voting, even when a NOTA or NOTO option is added to the ballot.
Clearly, Plurality Voting without NOTA will elect Candidate B by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 5 people in Groups 2 and 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1, if the people in Group 3 vote do decide to vote. Otherwise, Plurality Voting without NOTA will elect Candidate A by a 4 to 3 majority consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 versus the 3 people in Group 2, with the 2 people in Group 3 declining to vote.
Plurality Voting with NOTA will also elect Candidate A this time by a 4 to 3 to 2 plurality consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 versus the 3 people in Group 2 and the 2 people in Group 3, demonstrating the "vote splitting effect" characteristic of Plurality Voting.
In other words even adding the “None of the Above” option to Plurality Voting doesn’t enable Plurality Voting to pass the “We Hate Them” [both] test. This violates the fundamental democratic principle of the consent of the self-governed.
Just replace Instant “Runoff Runoff Voting” for the words “Plurality Voting” and NOTO for NOTA in the above analysis and you will get very nearly the same results for Instant Runoff Voting with or without the “None of the Other” option as you get for Plurality Voting with or without the “None of the Above” option.
The primary different between the Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting results occurs when NOTA and NOTO are included as options on the ballot for these two voting procedures respectively.
The initial result for Instant Runoff Voting with NOTO gives the following intermediate result. Candidate A has 4 votes from Group 1, Candidate B has 3 votes from Group 2 and NOTO has 2 votes from Group 3, if the people in Group 3 do decide to vote, otherwise Candidate A will win outright with a 4 to 3 majority.
Assuming the people in Group 3 decide to vote, then according to the way Instant Runoff Voting works, NOTO is eliminated from contention because NOTO has the fewest votes of any of the “candidates". The IRV votes of the 2 people in Group 3 are transferred to their second choice Candidate B giving candidate B a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 5 people in Groups 2 and 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1. This is an example where IRV transfers the votes of voters from their first choice to their second choice who they considered to be the "lesser of two evils," thereby electing a candidate disliked and opposed by a 6 to 3 majority of the voters.
Both Candidate A and Candidate B are disliked and opposed by a majority of the electorate. The only way that Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will not elect anyone is if all 9 people decide not to vote. But both Candidate A and Candidate B have a number of supporters among the 9 person electorate. That support guarantees that Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will manufacture the appearance of consent, even when no such consent exists, in violation of the fundamental democratic principle of the consent of the governed.
How often this happens, where both major candidates in an election are disliked and opposed by more voters than like and support them, is difficult to say without examining large amounts of opinion poll data.
Some Examples of “We Hate Them” Elections
Consider these two high profile elections where according to considerable evidence both major party candidates were very likely disliked and opposed by more potential voters than liked and supported them.
There is something bizarre, and of course profoundly undemocratic, about a voting and election system, that cannot determine whether or not the candidates on the ballot are opposed by more voters than support them, which procedes to elect someone to office even though both "common knowledge" and ample evidence indicate that the major contending candidates are intensely disliked by the voters.
- - - - -
1) The 1991 Lousiana governor's race between Edwin Edwards (the crook) and David Duke (white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader), featuring car bumper stickers that read "Vote For the Crook. It's Important" and "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard."
"Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1991", Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_gubernatorial_election,_1991
"Edwin Edwards", Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards
"David Duke, WIkipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke
- - - - -
2) The 2002 California governor's race between incumbent Democrat Gray Davis and Republican challenger Bill Simon. The San Francisco Chronicle reported results of field polls that indicated both Gray Davis and Bill Simon had higher negatives than positives for the entire duration of the general election campaign.
“California Gubernatorial Election 2002”, Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2002
“Gray Davis”, Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis
“Bill Simon (politician)”, Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Simon_(politician)
On October 7, 2003, Gray Davis was recalled with 55.4% of the votes in favor of the recall, and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in a Plurality Voting election to replace him as governor which featured 135 candidates who qualified for the ballot.
“California gubernatorial recall election, 2003” , Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2003
- - - - -
3) The 2012 Presidential Election? Both Barack Obama and potential Republican opponents have received higher negatives than positives in opinion polls. The Obama "Enthusiasm Gap" was an important reason why Democrats did so poorly in the 2010 elections.
The Consent of the Governed (The Majority Rule Voting Paradox)
IRV and Plurality Voting Cannot Resolve The Majorirty Rule Voting Paradox
- -
The "We Hate Them" test describes circumstances where both Instant Runoff Voting and Plurality Voting will elect a candidate to office despite the fact that both candidates (or both the viable major party candidates) are disliked and opposed by a majority of potential voters.
The Majority Rule Voting Paradox describes circumstances where both Instant Runoff Voting and Plurality Voting will elect a candidate to office who is disliked and opposed by a majority of potential voters, despite the fact that there is another candidate on the ballot that is liked and supported by a majority of the potential voters.
A three person example electorate is sufficient to describe the Majority Rule Voting Paradox.
Majority Rule Voting Paradox
Person 1:
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Likes / Supports Candidate A
Likes / Supports Candidate B
Person 2:
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Dislikes / Opposes Candidate A
Dislikes / Opposes Candidate B
Person 3:
Prefers Candidate B to Candidate A
Likes / Supports Candidate B
Dislikes / Opposes Candidate A.
Person 2 is experiencing the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.
A close examiination of this 3 person electorate reveals that there are 3 simultaneous majorities in this electorate.
Candidate A is preferred to Candidate B by a majority of the electorate consisting of Person 1 and Person 2 versus Person 3. But Candidate A is also disliked and opposed by a majority of this same electorate consisting of Person 2 and Person 3 versus Person 1. However, Candidate B, who is preferred by only a minority of the electorate, is nevertheless liked and supported by a majority of this electorate consisting of Person 1 and Person 3.
Both Instant Runoff Voting and Plurality Voting will elect Candidate A who is disliked and opposed by a majority of the electorate in violation of the fundamental democratic principle of the consent of the governed, despite the fact that Candidate B is liked and supported by a majority of the electorate.
Denruter wrote:
Ralph. I know it is much to ask. Please consider one more run for president so that the voters DO HAVE somewhere to go in 2012. The electoral situation begs your participation for millions of us.
* * * * *
My Reply:
Denruter,
I'd like to see Ralph Nader run again as the Green Party nominee for president.
That would strengthen the Green Party, relegate the differences over the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections to the past, and give voters a potent left alternative in 2012, which is something that is greatly needed.
Excerpt from "Progressives Vow to Challenge Obama in Democratic Primaries" by Single Payer Action, September 19, 2011:
Progressive leaders led by Ralph Nader and Cornel West unveiled a proposal today to challenge President Obama in the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries in 2012.
The proposal, which has been endorsed by over 45 distinguished leaders, seeks to have a slate of six candidates run against President Obama, each representing a field in which Obama has never clearly staked a progressive claim or where he has drifted toward the corporatist right.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/19-7
* * * * *
My Comment:
While I think that the idea to field six progressive Democratic challengers to Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries, who have expertise in areas that are of deep concern to progressives regarding Obama's policies, is a "creative" and "interesting" approach to a major problem; there is of course no reason to expect anything more than a temporary change in rhetoric from Barack Obama.
Absent a strong third party challenge, neither discrediting Barack Obama in the primaries nor temporarily pushing Obama's rhetoric in a more progressive direction will help voters in the general election.
Once again politicians appear to be using the undemocratic, freedom of speech and freedom of political association smothering character of Plurality Voting for their own purposes.
This time to play it safe, while temporarily pushing Barack Obama's rhetoric further away from right wing talking points which are anathema to so many voters.
This is a plan that many establishment Democrats might even like. After all, most politicians are primarily concerned about re-election and this time at least they may well be concerned about the possibility of losing their seats.
But what about fighting for genuine democracy in the United States and the interests of working class people?
So, take a closer look at the letter as well as the list of people who have signed the letter.
There are no Democrats who are currently holding office who have signed the letter. What's more the letter indicates that the signers are still looking for qualified people to run against Barack Obama in the primaries as one of the six challengers.
Is this shrewd politics, an attempt on the part of Ralph Nader to get progressive Democrats to at least do something, or a sign of desperation, or both?
I think the only real value in this plan is if the six "Trojan Horse" challengers can in some way further discredit Barack Obama's record among reluctant Obama supporters, thereby improving the chances of a third party challenge in the general election.
I would still like to see Ralph Nader follow up this effort to somehow move progressive Democrats to action by seeking the Green Party nomination for president.
We all need a strong third party alternative intend on winning in the general election.
Nader says here: "Obama believes that those demonstrators and their followers around the country are his voters (they were in 2008) and that they have nowhere to go in 2012. So long as environmentalists do not find a way to disabuse him of this impression long before Election Day, they should get ready for an Obama approval of the Keystone XL monstrosity."
Those sporting Obama buttons and t-shirts at the protest can't disabuse Obama of this impression, because they WILL vote for him again. Sadly, they've been infected with a deadly (and I do mean deadly) disease called Obamaphilia. There is a cure for this disease - they simply have to Wake The Fuck Up! But for some reason, they can't wake up. Apparently, permanent blindness and hypersomnia are two notable symptoms of this disease.
Well said.
Yes. well said.
I'm with you Ralph. I admire the action of the protesters but deplore their protection of Obama. When will these folks reject the idea that we have to vote for one of 2 choices: Tweedledum OR Tweedledee.
Nader writes:
"The next day, many of the speakers went way over their allotted five to six minute time slots. Observers told me that there were to be no criticisms of Barack Obama. McKibben wore an Obama pin on the stage. Obama t-shirts were seen out in the crowd. McKibben did not want their efforts to be "marginalized" by criticizing the President, which they expected I would do. He said that "he would not do Obama the favor" of criticizing him.
To each one's own strategy. I do not believe McKibben's strategy is up to the brilliance of his tactics involving the mass arrests. (Which by the way received deplorably little mass media coverage)."
I told you so. Multiple times. Before and during the protest. Thank you for the vindication, Ralph.
And, hey McKibben, do you think there could be a relationship between the uninspiring pansy tactics of your protest, and the resultant near blackout of MSM coverage?
Consider that openly angry challenge to an unpopular failure of a president, rather than these awkward signals of "respectful" protest, would have gyved better with the public and created more feedback and support and interest. That kind of protest would have also been much more honest.
Too late now, huh?
Nader is diplomatically saying that he was excluded from the speaker's roster because his straight-shooting style conflicts with McKibben's bizarre ideas about tolerating no criticism of Obama.
It isn't enough to just "do something," not if the statement the demonstration leaders craft is a craven fantasy. There are constructive and futile outlets for political energies. If McKibben isn't deliberately channeling justified outrage in a harmless direction, he sure is doing a thorough job of it.
Aleph Null wrote:
Nader is diplomatically saying that he was excluded from the speaker's roster because his straight-shooting style conflicts with McKibben's bizarre ideas about tolerating no criticism of Obama.
* * * * *
My Reply:
I agree that Ralph Nader was being diplomatic.
I also think that it was a mistake to exclude Ralph Nader from the speaker's roster simply because Nader very likely would have criticized Barack Obama. I agree that Bill McKibben's idea that critizing Barack Obama in any way would do Obama a favor is rather bizarre. What's more, excluding Ralph Nader from the speaker's roster is not an effective way to build a movement.
However, I do not agree that the protest and civil disobedience organized by Bill McKibben and others was unsuccessful, futile or completely harmless. Apparently, neither does Ralph Nader.
Still, Ralph Nader could have done more.
Ralph Nader could have chosen to stand in solidarity with Bill McKibben, James Hansen, Naomi Klein and all of the others against TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline and participate in what Nader himself described as "the most extraordinary citizen organizing feat in recent White House history" by engaging in civil disobedience without wearing an Obama 08 button. But Nader chose not to participate and get arrested.
We need that kind of solidarity, that Ralph Nader's civil disobedience and arrest would have symbolized and demonstrated.
No one can co-opt Ralph Nader or accuse him of pandering.
What's more in my opinion Ralph Nader would have enhanced his own credibility with those in the "McKibben" wing of the movement, whenever in the future he criticizes Barack Obama or the unwillingness of McKibben to confront Obama.
I would also like to thank Ralph Nader for writing this article.
Al Gore, Ralph Nader and Civil Disobedience
- -
Excerpt from “The Big Melt”, By Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, August 16, 2007:
“Not only is the U.S. not leading on climate change, we’re holding others back,” said Jessica Bailey, who works on climate issues for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. “We’re inhibiting progress on climate change globally.”
I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue — recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don’t emanate from Al Qaeda.
“We are now treating the Earth’s atmosphere as an open sewer,” he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.
“I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers,” Mr. Gore said, “and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”
Article URL: http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/opinion/16kristof.html
* * * * *
My Comment:
Al Gore has already advocated civil disobedience on behalf of protecting the climate from further fossil carbon emissions in the past.
I think Al Gore should have actually participated in civil disobedience in front of the White House along with the over 1200 others who were arrested and gotten arrested himself.
It would have been even more effective had Ralph Nader and Al Gore gotten arrested together.
Now, wouldn't that have been something!
I suggested MSM coverage would have improved had the protesters attended in birthday attire...I salute their courage anyway.
The fat lady has stepped into the spotlight and taken a deep breath. Not much to do now but hunker down and wait.
What I want to know is: how can we recruit some advocates on this issue in the MSM? I know it sounds like a naive question, but I think that's the only way to really reach out to enough people to put pressure on Obama to STOP the Keystone XL from becoming a reality. The Vietnam "War" ended, in part, because the MSM published disturbing photos of the realities of the "war" that shocked people enough to want to put an end to the "war." Not sure if people will feel anything about this issue, but one of the best ways to reach a large number of people is via the MSM.
Coverage of the tar sands issue by the MSM has generally been slim to none. But the New York Times at least had an editorial opposing the pipeline and last Friday, a followup article on pipeline safety which was excellent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/business/energy-environment/agency-struggles-to-safeguard-pipeline-system.html?_r=1
In particular, check the graphic on spills from the article. Very interesting.
Yeah, I saw the NYT coverage, but thanks for sharing. I'd like to see *more* MSM coverage. I really think that's our only hope, given the short period of time before it is approved.
I wonder then, when all those "liberals"and "Democratic activists" will finally realize that it is well past the point of having "peaceful protests". Of course some may assume I imply violence; I don't, but there is angry civil unrest which is way more needed than this pablum-type of "we love Obama, but please, sir, listen to us because you're screwing up" protest. It makes me angry that it might take a crazed mob type of protest to start anything productive in this country. Poverty growing daily; rich gettin richer faster than ever, while the poor are getting poorer; no end to the occupation of middle east nations (thanks, Barack!); Wall Street laughing their collective asses off at us. But hey! Since Citizens United passed, it's obvious we are up against a juggernaut of endless money and corruption. I fear the end of a civil society is gonna be here sooner than I thought.
Oh, wait...it's already here
The alternative to McKibben's kiss-ass demonstration style is not necessarily violence. It means conflict, it means inconveniencing someone, certainly. There are appropriate styles of civil disobedience which are much more abrasive. An action can be angry without being violent. MLK says that "nonviolent direct action" is intended to create creative political tension. There's no possibility of tension originating from McKibben's tortured contortions to make an omelet while walking on eggs. He is making himself, and those who follow him, look ridiculous.
I was there. While I would have liked to see Nader again, I did not travel to DC to see him. Climate change is less an issue, then a rapidly approaching apocalypse.
Mckibben knows full well the political calculus. I can assure you that whatever Obama's decision- that decision will become the springboard for a mass public movement- greater than this country has ever seen. In this respect Obama may yet become the great uniter.
"Mckibben knows full well the political calculus."
If he knows it, he sure as hell *acted* on it the wrong way, which is all that matters.
And yeah, it's so reassuring that the miscalculations NOW and the failure to apply needed pressure NOW will result in a situation even worse for the public, so that we will be desperate enough to jump in on a future "mass public movement" in response to the failure to achieve results NOW. Thanks so much for that crumb of hope.
Your welcome. That hope is a lot more than your post gives me.
LJG100 wrote:
I was there. While I would have liked to see Nader again, I did not travel to DC to see him. Climate change is less an issue, then a rapidly approaching apocalypse.
Mckibben knows full well the political calculus. I can assure you that whatever Obama's decision- that decision will become the springboard for a mass public movement- greater than this country has ever seen. In this respect Obama may yet become the great uniter.
..
* * * * *
My Reply:
I hope that you are right, although I think you are overly confident that Barack Obama's "decision will become a springboard for a mass public movement- greater than this country has ever seen."
Even if by some "miracle" Barack Obama denies the people who control TransCanada the Keystone XL pipeline permit they want, much more needs to be done than simply stop one major tar sands pipeline.
I expect that massive protest, civil disobedience, and strikes by workers will be needed to bring about both the change of who is in power and the reconfiguration of our economies that are needed to avert the very worst consequences of global warming and catastrophic climate change.
I continue to be impressed by Ralph Nader's precision in choosing his words: "...to demonstrate their opposition to a **forthcoming Obama approval** of the Keystone XL **dirty oil pipeline** from Alberta, Canada down to the Gulf Coast."
And I continue to be BAFFLED by Bill McKibben's willful blindness when it comes to taking on Obama's policies head on, considering that he is otherwise such a leading light in the climate action movement. Do these people seriously think that time is on their (our) side, to wait, hope and pray for a change of heart in Obama? For such a smart and committed bunch of people, is it so hard to see through the words and look at the action (and inaction)?
I think that the secret is Ralph's ability to think on organizing and his hidden war against classism mentality which is disappointingly hard to find even among progressive and liberal voices. From what I read about BM, I think that he lacks an integrated thinking and relies too heavily on Obama's whims, a pure waste of time and energy. From what I have been reading in Eastern thinking and psychology in the last few months, actions and integrated mindsets are both critical. It's often said that people in Europe and Asia have the upperhand on both while the US is a lost soul of disintegrated minds, infighting, misguided actions, and the worst for anyone but the ruling class elites.
Alcyon wrote: "I continue to be BAFFLED by Bill McKibben's willful blindness..."
I am beyond baffled by now, well into sputtering angry curses territory. I'm beginning to think McKibben simply has no other way to be. He's an empty suit, like Obama: fine words and bottomless futility. It's time for the most important political movement in history - the demand to refrain from destroying planet Earth - to insist on more effective leaders.
Sorry Ralph, but the way I see this is: The (2) unions mentioned are in the business of transporting. T-R-A-N-S-P-O-R-T-I-N-G. Is anyone surprised at their objections to this pipeline – ANY pipeline? Since when did these guys become so sensitive to the environment anyway? Quite a stretch, I'd say.
This is a cold and hard fact: Not that I favor the pipeline, quite the contrary. But a pipeline is going to be far less prone to exposing any liquids to the environment than trucks, especially taking into account some of the nitwits who drive (and I use the term 'drive' loosely) these tankers that are forever dumping their stinking, gooey and toxic loads all over this nation on a regular basis. It happens nearly every week in some of the most sensitive areas of this country. That's simply a fact.
I love Mr. Nader, but the idea truckers can safely move oil better than a pipeline is just not cutting it. (Unless some of them sabotage it, as in the spirit of the unions up in Washington state last week –which btw there was nothing about that here at CD, at least from what I saw).
I agree that another pipeline, more drilling, blasting –whatever, isn't the way to go. But spare me the argument that these two entities are making.
Do you really think that truckers can take the place of a pipeline that's intended to move this volume of oil, and do it economically enough? This would be long-haul oil movement, and lots of it, over a long period of time. I'm not completely informed on this, but I don't think that's the calculation here.
FYI
moonpie wrote:
I love Mr. Nader, but the idea truckers can safely move oil better than a pipeline is just not cutting it. (Unless some of them sabotage it, as in the spirit of the unions up in Washington state last week –which btw there was nothing about that here at CD, at least from what I saw).
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Longshoreman's Union Rises to the Challenge" by Mark Vorpahl, September 12, 2011:
Anyone who still believes that U.S. workers and the labor movement are incapable of mounting a struggle against the conditions that the economic crisis is forcing on us has not been paying attention. Evidence to the contrary was vividly provided on the morning of September 8th, when 500 International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 21 members and their supporters took over the Port of Longview in the state of Washington. Railroad cars were damaged and the grain they carried was dumped in an effort by these workers to defend their jobs by resorting to the only tactic they had left, that is, using work site action to hurt the employers bottom line.
A union worker blocks a grain train in Longview, Wash., Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2011. Longshoremen blocked the train as part of an escalating dispute about labor at the EGT grain terminal at the Port of Longview. (AP Photo/Don Ryan)
To do so they had to use their strength in numbers to overpower the police and security guards. Though the police attempted to make arrests, the workers pushed back and managed to release their brothers and sisters. The standoff that developed was explosively tense. As the hours rolled on the police began to bring out an arsenal of "non-lethal" guns and tear gas, demonstrating that they were prepared to inflict heavy casualties in order to secure the port and defend the bosses’ property and profits.
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Longshoreman's Union Rises to the Challenge" by Mark Vorpahl, September 12, 2011:
This action was accompanied by wildcat strikes (that is, strikes not sanctioned by the union) in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington. This shows how big the stakes are at the Port of Longview. For workers to sacrifice their wages and make such extraordinary efforts, the cost of such actions have to greatly outweigh the costs of not taking them.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/12-11
* * * * *
My Reply:
moonpie,
I oppose TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline too.
I agree with you that trucks are not an efficient, practical way to move the tar sands oil (diluted bitumin) from Alberta to the Texas coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Somehow, I doubt the truckers in two unions Ralph Nader mentioned [The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU)] are really expecting to get much work moving tar sands oil that distance.
President Obama was wrong to approve this, but Ralph Nader is a dishonest slug who will never be elected even as a dog catcher. He was mean and hateful years ago and nothing has changed about him.
Ralph Nader has spent his life trying to help We, the People get more control/decision-making power over our lives.
And telling truth to power.
I don't know who else we've got who could/would be a genuine alternative to the moneymen of the D.'s and R.'s. No one I can see, unless Kucinich makes the break from the D,'s, which seems unlikely, since he always - in the end - caves and votes with his bosses. Too bad - such a waste.
Ralph Nader is a National Treasure. Most people I've spoken with (except silly Democrats who still think they lost because of him, not because Gore wouldn't stick up for himself) agree that, whether or not they voted for him, he's a good and honest man.
We've been fortunate to have him with us all these decades. He's a genuine American Hero.
Things in Big Oil are never simple. Turns out that our friend Hugo Chavez has lots of heavy crude. Tar. Goop. We got the US fingers in that ooze, and built a refinery complex that throws lots of hydrogen (clean hydrogen) into the process and makes it a blending stock. not good enough to run engines, but good enough to sell when mixed with the good stuff. Then Hugo wanted a better cut in the deal, sort of like what Saudi Arabia is getting for their petroleum. Coups, revolts. bad words, and the US walked. The pipeline is being built to bring similar ooze to Houston, and to recover some of the capital spent by the "majors". (Actually, if you look at them carefully, the "minors".)
So the pipeline is for heavy crude. Heavy crude needs to be heated before it is a liquid. Or you can add stuff to it, say benzene, and get a pumpable liquid. The real not-being-asked is just what will be in that pipeline. Certainly some form of black goo called tar from the tar sands. But just what else. Just how toxic is all of this? If you have quality crude, many hungry bugs look at that as food. However, if that crude is full of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, organometallic compounds of vanadium, etc, you can be talking of highly toxic compounds in that pipe. (Highly toxic = a little bit will get you.) I really think that there has to be some real information put out that describes in detail the answers to these two questions. 1) What exactly is the chemical composition, yes, all the compounds, that you are going to pump?, and 2) If some of those compounds are terribly toxic to biological organisms, like us, just what is your spill control plan.
Normally, toxic compounds need to stored in a tank surrounded by a berm, a mound of earth that is designed to totally contain the leak. Like, can't go down into the water table. Do you need to build the pipeline with such secondary containment? Are you willing to accept the total financial risk to make good all the damage you do with a spill?
To just trust the pipeline guys with this is really foolish. Common sense demands that we know the details. If the details are too damaging to disclose, then probably that means the pipeline can't happen. So, hiding behind "proprietary" should be equal to canceling the project. If it looks like the risks can be managed, then things are fine. But, right now, all we have is fuzz, like "trust us, we are American industry". Doesn't really cut much these days, words like that.
Obama's play book is George Orwell's "Animal Farm".
McKibben is just not very bright -- and incredibkly naiive.
And the fact that he refused to even let Nader speak (no time, my ass) tells you everything you would ever need to know about his ethics and his MO.
Above all else, McKibben loves to be the center of attention. Doesn't like anyone upstaging him or saying things that conflict with his (stupid) "strategy" (which so far, has proven highly INeffective).
Like him or not, when it comes to getting government regulations (particularly for envornmental matters) -- and thuse for getting corporations to actually change their ways -- there is no other American who rivals Ralph Nader.
McKibben should actually listen to him -- and certainly not try to squelch what he as to say.
If we fail to get any real action on climate change (which it certainly appears that we are doing), it will be largely because of the idiocy of people like McKibben.
If Bill McKibben thinks that the prez is sitting up in the oval office fretting over what might be "the right thing to do" on this issue, then he is politically naive enough to be a danger to all.
Obama follows the script written for him by his corporate sponsors. Just as Cheney did before him. And Clinton before him, ad finitum. The pattern is so easy to see.
The only occasions for this pattern to be broken are when the people form a militant organized opposition to challenge the status quo. We need to demonstrate our resourcefulness and independence from these crooks. Brown-nosed supplication never results in progress.
We are running out of time Bill, take off the damn Obama button.
It was interesting being there. On they day I was arrested and the two subsequent days, a few young Obama type types tried to start the mindless chant "Yes we can!". I said "yes we can do what?" The chant turned to "Yes we can stop the pipeline". Either because of, or despite McKibben, this issue has been brought to light and sharpened. Obama is on the line in the minds of the protesters and others they influenced. .
So little protest happens these days that I am grateful for something like this. It will take persistance to do anything. We are up against some powerful enemies. I expect Obama to make some motions about insuring the safety, how we need jobs, and then to sign a slightly modified proposal once he thinks that nobody is watching anymore. Follow up is important so he cannot sneak anything by. The least it can be is a life lesson for many about who is running the show.
I respect Nader and we need his truth telling. His work on auto safety has doubtless saved thousands of lives. However, he has never been able to rally much support, partly because he is frozen out and partly because of his abrasive style. I think he assumes that if people receive the truth, they will automatically do something. I have not found that to be true. There is something missing.
Although we did not hear Nader, and I think that was a mistake and unfair, there were many grass roots speakers from all over the country who talked about the situation on the ground (or Gulf), what is happening to their environments. They combined factual information with heart. .
Who said "people will not remember what you say to them, but how you make them feel"? Phonies like Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee have mastered that art. I believe the left, while absolutely correct on many issues, needs to develop the skill to combine thought, feeling, and opportunites for involvement when reaching out to people. Whatever limitations McKibben may or may not have, he starts with the science (350.org) and knows how to motivate people to act, a combination which is rare these days.
Thank you jclientelle for your civil disobedience and for your comments here.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
You may be right about why Nader turns some people off (though sometimes, the truth itself is just abrasive -- and many people simply do not like to hear the truth), but, if we Americans are to survive as a country -- and we humans as a species -- people REALLY need to start paying attention to the message and stop paying attention to the person giving it.
"I don't like Ralph because I think he's abrasive " or "I don't like Ralph because I think he sabotaged Al Gore's election bid" or "I don't like Al because I think he's arrogant" are simply idiotic reasons for ignoring two people who are very smart, very well informed and very effective at getting things accomplished.
Nader had a hand in getting many of America's most important environmental laws passed and Gore was instrumental in pushing for implementation of the "information superhighway" on a braod scale -- which allows you and I to converse here (and no, I'm not claiming (nor did he himself ever claim) that he "invented" the internet.)
I agree that we should not bash people who are trying to do something about the environment or other issues. It is a problem we have here on the left. It can be arrogance on OUR part. No one person, no matter how intelligent, truthful or sincere can be expected to have all the answers, nor to do the whole job alone. That's my main point. We must also find the ways to motivate, unify and organize ordinary people to fight for themselves.
"We must also find the ways to motivate, unify and organize ordinary people to fight for themselves."
The way to motivate people isn't to keep pandering to Obama!
And no, not all action is worthwhile, every little bit doesn't help, if it reinforces the same ineffective respectful master-slave attitudes towards those in power, and furthers false beliefs about how the power structure can be changed. Pandering has NEVER worked.
How is organizing thousands to support an action and 1252 people to be arrested for challenging the oil industry's chokehold on this country pandering? How is it same-old? I wish it were more common.
I do not accept that "pandering" definition of what I did. I saw it as more like outing the oil companies and their collusion with the government even though it is harmful to the people. It is easy to scoff at a tactic, but not so easy to come up with good ways to get a message out. Or maybe we have different goals. To me, the only thing that counts is people's consciousness and actions in large numbers.