EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Clarion Call for Renewal of Democracy
Vermonters went to their town meetings last week to settle questions about dump fees, snowplowing contracts and utility meters.
They also decided to take on the corrupt campaign system that is steering the republic toward catastrophe.
And they have done so in a voice loud enough to be heard all the way to Washington.
By Thursday morning, 64 towns had moved to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling — as well as the false construct that says, in the words of Mitt Romney, “Corporations are people, my friend.”
Mitt Romney believes, “Corporations are people, my friend.”
“The resounding results will send a strong message that corporations and billionaires should not be allowed to buy candidates and elections with unlimited, undisclosed spending on political campaigns,” declared U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Vermonters are not the first Americans to move to amend. Referendums have already passed in Madison and Dane County. Cities across the country, including Los Angeles, have urged Congress to begin the amendment process. State legislatures in Hawaii and New Mexico have too. (State Reps. Mark Pocan and Chris Taylor are proposing that Wisconsin join the call.)
But what has happened in Vermont is remarkable. Town meetings endorsed what once seemed a radical response.
It is not just liberals who are saying corporations are not people.
“Support for the resolution cut across party lines. Six towns in Republican districts and 13 cities and towns that have sent both Democrats and Republicans to the state legislature voted for the resolution by wide margins,” says Aquene Freechild of Public Citizen’s Democracy Is for People Campaign. “This bipartisan opposition to the Citizens United ruling mirrors several nationwide polls on the issue.”
The Democracy Is for People Campaign played a critical role in organizing the Vermont uprising as part of the “Vermonters Say Corporations Are Not People” coalition, which includes Move to Amend, Common Cause and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.
Inspired by the success of the Vermont initiative, the Democracy Is for People Campaign is now launching the Resolutions Week project, which will encourage communities across the country to follow Vermont’s lead. The goal is to get as many local pro-amendment resolutions as possible passed in the second week of June. “Already,” organizers say, “more than 500 Public Citizen activists in 300 cities and towns have signed up to help pass resolutions in their towns.”
Public Citizen is coordinating the Resolutions Week campaign with national groups, such as the Communications Workers of America, U.S. PIRG, the Main Street Alliance, the Move to Amend coalition and People for the American Way, as well as state-based partners.
And they have a partner in the Senate.
Vermont’s Sanders is ramping up his advocacy for the Saving American Democracy Amendment, which he proposed last December. It would restore the power of Congress and state lawmakers to enact campaign spending limits like laws that were in place for a century before the controversial court ruling.
“I hope,” says Sanders, “the message coming out of the town meetings in Vermont will spark a grass-roots movement all across the United States that a constitutional amendment is needed to overturn the ruling.”
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...
65 Comments so far
Show AllI'm afraid that despite the surge of support by people across America to overturn this preposterous ruling by the Supreme Court, the corporate parties will simply ignore it until Americans stop electing Democrats and Republicans. The corporate response via their media and subservient politicians will be to respond with empty rhetoric until the public accepts that this fascist ruling is here to stay. If America were a real democracy, a Constitutional Amendment would be forthcoming as the public interest would triumph, but instead we fantasize that we can still affect government as in striking down Citizens United, stopping wars, reducing the military budget, rationally responding to global warming or anything else to empower the 99%. Our electoral process has been usurped by the 'Wheel of Fortune' as the media pretends that all is well in a consumer driven Wonderland and corporate America chooses its contestants for our viewing pleasure.
well you know we could start by impeaching the nwo ghoul obummer, the man with no past
"CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:
video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuu7ma4B8wY&feature=youtu.be
we could start there..
Constitutional Convention.
It shouldn't be impossible to turn the State Legislatures with the People.
But if the Legislatures won't call for it, the People could and should under the 9th Amendment:
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Right to Self Government is an inalienable Human Right.
And the Right to Hold a Constitutional Convention to Determine the Manner of Government is part and parcel to the Right to Self Government.
The People of the U.S. can call for a new Convention and change the Constituiton as radically as the People of Venezuela or Bolivia or Ecuador have, and it would all be fully within our current Constitutional Rights.
While I applaud this clarion call, I am reminded of the old saw about how if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it -- did it really make a sound? I hope I am wrong, but you suspect I am not. Mark this event on the day of the election on your calender so you won't forget what didn't happen. No need to ask yourself, why -- is there?
Mitt -- Corporations are my friend, people.
Wheel of Fortune Democracy :)
I applaud the clarion call and the people of Vermont as well as all the other patriots across America who work to turn this lunacy around.
As seems to be the usual here on this site, the commentors are touting their pride in their hopelessness. All is lost unless we vote for some quixotic third party savior yet to be named. He shall undo all that is evil in the land and abolish capitalism, racism, greed and money as we know it. Yep that'll be one glorious day.
In the mean time we live in a country with an electoral system that makes a two party system an inevitability. The only solution is to take over one of those parties. Third party candidates on the national level are pissing in the wind since it only serves to elect the candidate the voter most disagrees with.
I really am starting to wonder if a lot of these 'a pox on both houses' commenters here aren't shills for the GOP. High ideals can drive people to great works but poitical reality is reality. Let's never forget 2000. After all the 'there's no difference between the Bush and Gore' does anyone not think we would be in a far different place today if if all those Nader votes had been better spent on the 'lesser of the two evils'? Possibly no 9/11. Certainly no Iraq war or Afganistan war. No Patriot Act. No Citizen United as well as a different SCOTUS line up.
The USA's republic as designed by it's constitution sure is a mess but pie in the sky tilting at windmills only makes things worse.
***Great article among many Mr. Nichols*** Thank's for all of your good work.
Don't worry, your "political reality" contingent is ALWAYS around to chastise anyone daring to stray from the wise counsel you duopoly lovers tirelessly deliver. We "idealistic purists" have heard your hectoring mantra a million times, and it gets staler and more meaningless with every repetition.
The fact is, Nader didn't cause Gore to lose, the SCOTUS did, and Gore himself did, and rigged election counting did, and Joe Lieberman did, and in the end, Gore, once again, did by refusing to challenge the rigged results. Saying Nader voters caused Bush, 9/11 and all the horrors since is declaring yourself a prophetic visionary who KNOWS exactly how history would have proceeded IF one little element were changed. Well Reverse Nostrodamus, you don't know.
And if you really believe that voting eternally for the lesser of two evils is going to get you anything but EVIL, then you don't know what the meaning of evil is or implies. It means you're perfectly content with evil. BTW, how's that "taking over one of the two parties" thingy progressing? Just about there? If no third parties can ever get anywhere in this bought and paid for, thoroughly rigged and corrupt duopoly of One Big Business Party with two wings, then it's because of Democratic Party shills like yourself, Nichols, the entire lineup of MSNBC pundits, and Obamabots all over this crumbling country. Your political realism is only sealing everyone's doom.
Rather than beat the drum for theory, shouldn't you look at the actual experience of people like Nader, as documented by his campaign manager Theresa Amato? The Duopoly is so entrenched that in some states they don't even bother to PRETEND to play it straight. It's very reminiscent of, e.g., the civil rights struggle, where the law was simply ignored and obviously-guilty malefactors were routinely set free.
A small quote, from Rehnquist writing for a 6-3 majority: "The Constitution permits the Minnesota Legislature to decide that political stability is best served through a healthy two-party system. ... [S]tates need not remove all of the many hurdles third parties face in the American political arena today."
Another small example: in Oregon, the Dem Secretary of State invented unwritten rules to disqualify Nader signatures--even those certified by the county voter registrars, and the Dem-dominated Oregon Supreme Court let those unwritten rules stand, keeping Nader off the ballot.
Thanks for all that, and I couldn't agree more. But I wasn't "beating the drum for theory," I was just making the point that fpie is a typical Dem party shill accusing anyone not resigned to the "inevitable" duopoly to be GOP shills. What horseshit, but we'll keep hearing it every time this issue comes up.
I hadn't known about that quote from Rehnquist, and it aptly sums up how deeply rigged the system is against the threat of alternative parties ever playing any electoral role at all. Clowns like fpie refuse to understand any of this, pimping for the Democrats just as their standard bearers like Nichols and all the MSNBC punditocracy do every day. There are maybe five Democrats from both Houses, along with Sanders, who will do anything at all to overturn Citizens United, so there's no chance getting money out of politics as the ONLY factor that decides who's elected or even nominated. Big business and Big Money have waterboarded democracy. It's ancient history, except that it's never been allowed to exist, not then and not now.
Most Americans will remain in thrall to the 30-second attack ads and base their voting on the lies and distortions they find there. No time to waste actually learning about the issues. Too many distractions to attend to. So the Koch brothers will just keep deciding everything. The billionaire class will guarantee the endless continuation of Necessary Evil politics and the fpies will always be on hand to provide moral support.
It seems as though there might be a misunderstanding here. Fpie appears to be advocating not for continuing to futilely vote for whatever the Duopoly offers us, but for infiltrating and taking over one of the nominal parties, in much the same way Huey did. That's what I get out of this, anyway:
--------------------
"In the mean time we live in a country with an electoral system that makes a two party system an inevitability. The only solution is to take over one of those parties. Third party candidates on the national level are pissing in the wind since it only serves to elect the candidate the voter most disagrees with."
-----------------------
Huey chose to take over the Dems, who were controlled by the planter class. He pulled control of the party out from under them, and used it to serve socialist purposes, providing tax-paid textbooks for schoolchildren, good roads & bridges for the back country, hospitals, an improved university, etc.
They wanted to kill him for it, and someone did kill him (tho at whose behest is by no means clear even yet--it might have been FDR's henchpeople).
The important point is that Huey didn't need to create a third party, and it wouldn't have worked if he'd tried---people in Louisiana were used to voting for a Dem automatically because the Dem machine controlled the state completely. Huey hijacked the machine.
Valid points, but I'm pretty sure fpie doesn't think we should all be trying to take over the Dem party without also voting for every Dem on every ballot. And while Huey Long started out with the right intentions, he became dictatorial and corrupt himself, just like Lenin did. Seems to happen every time, as concentration of power in one person never leads anywhere but same dead end for the people.
Besides, the party isn't about to allow another Huey to arise within its ranks. Look what they've done to Kucinich, gerrymanderd him right out of the picture. If they can't do that, they'll just sit back and allow the Repugs to buy seats in office with their billionaire backers. It's what happened to Feingold in WI and Grayson in FL.
All potentially progressive voices are silenced and driven out by both parties, and no "inflitration" by all the fpies running around will make any difference. They'll either learn to toe the party line or be shown the door. This "change the party from within" slogan is a convenient excuse for staying with the ruling duopoly's stranglehold on the whole system forever. That's what fpie really means by "political reality."
On the effort to infiltrate and take over the Democratic Party, after George McGovern lost to Richard Nixon, the party itself instituted rules that makes that extremely difficult and unlikely. They instituted Super-Delegates for one, thus allowing party stalwarts to overturn a popular uprising. It is fairly easy to become a member of a local party club, or even to get to be a delegate at a convention. If you are a genuine reformer, they will even give you a seat on the platform committee. This truly influences the national candidate almost zero.
Also indicative is the effort of the CA Democratic Party Progressive Caucus, which was last year threatened with decertification for trying to organize a primary challenge to Obama.
What that tells me is that the takeover has to operate at the grassroots level, not the primary/caucus level. If a majority of people support reform, the party ruling class will have no choice but to accede. The alternative would be to be publicly repudiated and denied both money and votes.
We can cast aside the concern about money as it is precisely money that steers the true policies of any major candidate. (ps - I'm all for trying to influence local politics, but you can pass local resolutions forever without changing national trends.) This leaves votes. Being that the public will be bombarded with the media-filtered-final-candidate's ads; enough people seem to be willing to vote for one of the Corporate Duopoly candidates at every go round. And they're always informed, "It is the most important election."
I'm not sure I quite follow. I agree that local resolutions have no influence further up, if they are few enough to be ignored.
But it's difficult for me to believe that if, say, 80% of local party units were to declare for reform, that the bigwigs could successfully ignore the uprising. That's why they have rubber-stamp organisations such as the DNC --so that there's the appearance of democracy.
If 80% came out for reform, what would the ruling class do? Say "sorry, you people have no power. The appearance of democracy is a sham, so get back on your knees"?
Yes. Bingo... Have a Cigar.
This is a National Security State with vestigal remnants of democratic ritual.
You're painting yourself into a corner. You're essentially saying that there is no path to reform. Is that your intention? "We're fscked and there's nothing to be done, so we might as well give up now"?
No, I'm pointing out the problem and remarking that the only hope for change is recognizing the facts, and organizing outside of the current system.
“There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”
― Mario Savio
Okay, that's fine, and now we return full circle: please explain in simple terms, as to a child, the mechanism whereby "organising outside the current system" results in a changed/replaced system.
No, Thank you, I've wasted enough of my Sunday.
Since you're insisting that those who fail to live up to your work-within-the-system demands come up with immediate solutions to changing things, why don't you tell us how your method is expected to work so brilliantly, given it NEVER HAS THUS FAR. You'll simply say we must keep to your get-nowhere imperatives, because One Day all will fall into place, you'll have successfully infiltrated the Democratic Party and turned it around into a progressive powerhouse. Only by working with the Dems and clandestinely undermining their corporatist affinities and predilections can we ever hope to change the system.
Zero G has more than adequately rebutted your nonsense, but it falls on willfully deaf ears. So go right ahead, change that party from within. Do what no one has ever been able to do before, not even the sainted Huey. Show us all how magnificently your version of realism gets the job done.
Don't get angry with me -- it's not my problem that you can't articulate the connection between holding up signs and getting new laws.
Not only don't you know how to connect your own dots, you're more than a little vague about history, since you apparently don't believe that Huey took over Louisiana or that Alinsky brokered the creation of a semi-independent local government at Back Of The Yards.
You want me to tell you how they did it? They went around asking for votes and telling people what they'd get in return. When they had enough votes, they had power. It's amazingly simple: votes equals power. Get the votes, you get the power. The process of getting them is called "organising". There are books written on the subject.
Valid points, but I'm pretty sure fpie doesn't think we should all be trying to take over the Dem party without also voting for every Dem on every ballot. And while Huey Long started out with the right intentions, he became dictatorial and corrupt himself, just like Lenin did. Seems to happen every time, as concentration of power in one person never leads anywhere but same dead end for the people.
-----------------------------------
You really can't support either of those contentions.
I quoted Fpie's actual words. Can you impeach them? It's hardly fair to pretend he said something different or that his words should be construed in some sense opposite to their plain meaning.
And there is no evidence that Huey "became dictatorial and corrupt" except in the propaganda of the dictatorial and corrupt planter class that he displaced from power. He was strongly supported by the working class of Louisiana, both Black and White, because he was doing exactly what they elected him to do. He's the only southern politician of his time so highly respected that even Black couples named a son after him (e.g., Huey P. Newton, the Panther).
"A man is not a dictator when he is given a commission from the people and carries it out", he protested. ... "I believe in democracy, and the people of Louisiana ain't never going to have anything but a democracy," he told one correspondent. "You know and I know that if people want to throw me out they're going to do it. They like what I'm giving them and what they're getting." (NYTimes 10 Feb 1935) "They do not merely vote for him, they worship the ground he walks on", a puzzled correspondent wrote. "He is a part of their religion." (St Louis Post-Dispatch, 3 March 1935)
Besides, the party isn't about to allow another Huey to arise within its ranks. Look what they've done to Kucinich, gerrymanderd him right out of the picture. If they can't do that, they'll just sit back and allow the Repugs to buy seats in office with their billionaire backers. It's what happened to Feingold in WI and Grayson in FL.
--------------------------------------------
None of the three you name tried to emulate Huey, so naturally they didn't succeed. Dennis has good politics, but substantial personal limits, most notably his loyalty to the Dems and what seem to me to be poor management skills. Feingold has substantial political limits -- he's not especially progressive. Grayson hasn't been around long enough for his nature to become clear (at least not to me).
None of those three is ever going to channel Huey, but *we* could channel Huey.
-------------------------------
All potentially progressive voices are silenced and driven out by both parties, and no "inflitration" by all the fpies running around will make any difference. They'll either learn to toe the party line or be shown the door. This "change the party from within" slogan is a convenient excuse for staying with the ruling duopoly's stranglehold on the whole system forever. That's what fpie really means by "political reality."
--------------------------------
Let's see, if single-seat-FPTP elections prevent third parties from succeeding (and they do), and there's no way to infiltrate and take one of them over, where does that leave us? Anywhere?
That leaves us out in the Streets, Organizing for May 1, General Strike, as well as the efforts to Occupy Chicago for the NATO summit... Who knows, some folks might even get close to the G8 in Maryland's Camp David Presidential retreat.
And being out in the streets elects people how?
Being out in the streets, as the Occupy movement has been, is a statement that electing people from either wing of this disgustingly corrupt duopoly is a fucking waste of time. If you and fpie prefer to pursue that idiotic course, good luck. You have plenty of company. But that doesn't mean you'll get anywhere in your Huey fantasies of taking over the party and turning it into a socialist powerhouse. Not gonna happen. No, but you'll have the comfort of believing how very realistic and pragmatic you are. The Occupy movement has seen thru your shallow "realism," and it will get along just fine without your and fpie's oh so sensible advice.
And stating that it's "a fucking waste of time" will change things for the better how? Please explain the mechanism to me. Use simple words, as to a child.
OK... Simple as to a child. Let's pretend we're driving in a car. It's a very pretty day and the sun is shining. Look there is a pretty bird. Now let's add the simple fact that the car is broken. The steering wheel doesn't connect to the tires. Now, how do I explain that you can turn the wheel to the left all you want, but the car will not go around the corner?
No, I'm interested in hearing the explanation of how stating that the system is broken is going to repair/replace the system. How will saying "it's broken" result in good changes? That's what I'd like explained in simple words. What's the connection between the street action and reform? How does holding up signs translate into better laws?
Holding up signs alone will not change things. The only thing that can possibly change things is if we start getting massive civil disobedience, soldiers refusing to deploy in foreign illegal wars and people participating in general strike action.
It certainly won't be easy, but no struggle in history has ever been so, and humanity has never yet been so confronted as with this vast technological array of means of intimidation.
And what would that do? I'm still looking for an explanation of the mechanism, including how we get from here to "massive civil disobedience...strike action" and what happens then, and why.
Well, let's see... There is the case of Tim De Christopher, who single-handedly voided an oil-lease auction. What if massive groups treated folks looking to attend the auctions of foreclosed homes in the same way scabs were treated when labor was actually forcing management to agree to pay raises, vacation times, and pensions? What if neighbors organized committes to meet sheriffs coming to evict families? And helped put the funiture back in the house afterwards and occupied the house, similar to what happened in the 30s. Use your imagination.
And see the film, "Sir, No Sir." for an idea as to what a soldiers' resistence movement might be capable of.
As to what happens then, I can't predict the future.
You're still not making the connection. There's this vast, interlocking system. It exists. That's the basic reality: it exists, it's pervasive, and it's in power. There are lots of psychopaths who are very, very wealthy and powerful because they run the current system for their profit. And they have no qualms at all about getting rid of those who get in their way.
So you can do all the things you list, and they'll either ignore you or put you in jail. And the system will go on operating without you because it doesn't require that you be part of it, or I be part of it, or any other individual be part of it.
That's why Egypt is still being run by the same people (modulo a few individuals, such as Mubarak et fils), and why Occupy have been turfed out, and why Boloney only got fined 10 days pay. It's a system. You cannot change it from the outside by peaceful means because, by definition, what people do outside the system is not important.
It's like local currency, Berkshire "Berkshares" or Ithaca "Hours", for example: they work, but only to the extent that the local system is closed. The moment people have to go outside the local system for something, the local money stops working. It's not part of the larger system and is therefore irrelevant.
So you can try to undermine the system from within by using its rules against it, which is what Huey and Alinsky did with success; or you can try to build a new system alongside the old one and hope the old one will lose legitimacy (that's what the Colonials did in the 1700s, the "dropouts" in the '60s tried, and what Bucky Fuller recommended); or you can try destroying the current system all in one go by killing those running it, which would be one gigantic, soul-destroying job and you'd likely spend the rest of your life in a locked ward somewhere from the sheer horror if the cops didn't shoot you dead within the first half-hour.
But one way or another, you have to vote. Whether you do it instead of shooting people, or after shooting people, you have to vote or accept that you don't control your political life.
btw, I haven't failed to vote since I got the franchise in back in the 70s but I won't vote for the party that just redefned "due process" out of the judiciary and not for the GOPhers either.
Happy Sunday!
Thank you Mairead. I couldn't have clarified it better.
Further: The first past the post electoral system punishes third party voters and the party most closely aligned with their interests. If you have a conservative, a liberal and a left of liberal running, the lib and leftie split the progressive vote so the con wins. We can say it shouldn't be so but it is the way the system we have shakes out. Instant run off voting could remedy this and is unlikely to be instituted for that reason.
I did not mean to denigrate people who genuinly disagree with me but it is certainly plausable for GOP trolls to write posts on this progressive blog in an effort to persuade progressives to dilute their power by voting for third party candidates.
I believe the rightward drift of american political debate while the majority of americans support progressive policies is atributable to the left letting it's power get diluted by a lack of willingness to be realistically pragmatic. Voting is not a moral statement but a managerial selection with moral implications. We are in charge of the offices and we need to hire the guy we can get even if he isn't the employee we would wish we could hire.
Thom Hartmann has pointed out that the Tea Party took over the GOP in 2010 by some very simple methods done at the local level. They put out an instruction video on line and if someone wishes to do the same with the Democratic Party they can use the same tecniques. Check out Hartmann's web page to find a link. More power to you!
"Voting is not a moral statement but a managerial selection with moral implications"
The moral statement and the managerial selection are one in the same. We on the far left are supporting the people in our mass awakening to the truths that are setting us free. It's an exciting time for the people.
The moral statement and the managerial selection are connected, absolutely, because we, the people, have DEFINED them to be connected. Our definition holds, because our definition suits us, we the big 99%. I guess you can see the big hole now where konventional doctrine is going.
"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it."
-Eugene Debs
"High ideals can drive people to great works but poitical reality is reality."
-- Hey fpie,
Haven't you noticed that the "political reality" in this country is based upon lie after lie after lie, and insanity chasing insanity? Thomas Harrington's article wrote about it in today's column. So shame on you for denigrating those who have woken up and choose not to support the lies and insanity anymore.
I agree with fpie on this. Some people thought getting the vote for women would be impossible. Some people thought ending slavery would be impossible. Such major changes do require looking clearly at the immense obstacles. That's the only way to figure out how to deal with them. The internet is a powerful new tool for spreading the facts and organizing people. My bet - Citizens United is going down.
fpie says: "The USA's republic as designed by it's constitution sure is a mess but pie in the sky tilting at windmills only makes things worse"
Fed like fatted pigs on petro-opiates, the people might believe that or anything else - it's all academic, so long as the petro-opiates keep flowing.
You can say "pie in the sky tilting at windmills only make things worst" or say "repeating the same failed approach over and over will eventually work". They are just echos in the elite echo chamber, which the people used to take for fact, as echo chambers tend to do that to the people.
But the big news of the day is the people are getting their own echo chamber, and realizing that because of it, "pie in the sky" and "tilting at windmills" suddenly have great value. Because with their own echo chamber, the people can have exactly what the people want. There is nothing the elites can do. The people can define reality to suit themselves. They can for example define good as a collection of similarly good things. And bad as a collection of similarly bad things, And put them in two separate bags, so the bad crap doesn't contaminate the good stuff. And this is what the people are doing, today - what's different from yesterday.
So when elites try to sell the people a rotten apple, the people will not buy it. Because they don't mix up fresh and rotten produce any more. Because they stopped listening to elites saying they should.
If we keep the rotten apples separate, then we don't have to eat them. You dig? So in the people's bag of good stuff we find that healthy minds go with healthy bodies, go with healthy communities, go with healthy economies, go with healthy biosphere. Is this a clear enough picture of "pie in the sky"? You get that these things synergize? You get that we know now what a rotten apple in this bag will do? You get why we are rejecting your rotten apples, now?
The people listen to themselves now, to their own common sense. The people don't need to compromise, they don't need the rotten apple in the mix of good apples. They don't need to be "pragmatic", "realistic", because they are re-defining reality now, to suit themselves. Pie in the sky, yes, within reach. There's nothing the elites can do.
Under the amendment supported by Vermonters, would government have the right to seize property from corporations without due process of law or censor communications from corporations to stockholders or the general public?
Does all this apply to labor unions also?
Labor unions are not corporations.
That's why they have different names and everything.
So you can tell them apart. ;)
Unions are just like Corporations in that they are made up of large numbers of people who are organised for a common purpose.
Let's elect the Mitt, the only Democrat in the race. At least we know he's faking the GOP out. That's good. Life can be good. Sometimes it's best to vote Republican to get a Democrat just like in 1952 with Dwight D Eisenhower.
I am no fan of John Nichols, but he reveals (inadvertently?) the most important truth about the vastness of the corruption of the Senate (and the whole government) in this article.
This quote,
"And they have a partner in the Senate" says it all.
"A" partner. 1 out of 100.
The "partner" is not a democrat, republican or libertarian.
Isn't there also a secessionist movement in Vermont? Wouldn't it be easier to establish z new nation than to reform one as corrupt as this one is. What a mistake it was to fight a civil war which did not create a new birth of democracy as promised but rather has dragged us down to the level of the reactionary South. It is the citizens of Vermont that will have to leave in order to create something better. Reform of the US constitution however well meaning is impossible.
A reminder to all of those here who say, "So what. what VT does isn't going to make any difference."
One voice can reach many people.
One person CAN make a difference.
One state can inspire forty-nine other states.
One step begins every journey, from one mile to millions.