Quo Vadis?

Electoral politics have become the playground of billionaires and corporations bent on ruling, not governing. Identifying and getting out voters in elections for political offices against these interests is noble but, under our current corrupt system ordinary citizens don't and won't have the money resources now or ever which the billionaires and corporate interests have. One way out is to adopt an immediate strategy of the pursuit of structural changes formed from the grass roots which may, in the long run, blunt the impact of the apparent rise of corporate fascism in America and perhaps turn the tide. States have the most critical role to be played in delivering aid to those hardest hit by our current economic crisis. States are where the tires hit the road, and states can act much more efficiently and quickly to meet the specific demands of their citizens. Even after the states have taken action, Congress can support these actions with direct funding and augment the strained budgets the states face with declining tax revenues in our recessionary economy. I’ll use an example of my home state of Missouri. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingQuo Vadis?

Democracy loses the election

At Truthdig, Amy Goodman mourned the biggest loser during the election day this week: democracy.

As the 2010 elections come to a close, the biggest winner of all remains undeclared: the broadcasters. The biggest loser: democracy. These were the most expensive midterm elections in U.S. history, costing close to $4 billion, $3 billion of which went to advertising. What if ad time were free? We hear no debate about this, because the media corporations are making such a killing by selling campaign ads. Yet the broadcasters are using public airwaves. I am reminded of the 1999 book by media scholar Robert McChesney, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy.” In it, he writes, “Broadcasters have little incentive to cover candidates, because it is in their interest to force them to publicize their campaigns.” . . .
Goodman points out that the airwaves belong to the public, yet they are being used for reaping huge profits that create a financial bar to candidates who merely have good ideas.
The place where we should debate this is in the major media, where most Americans get their news. But the television and radio broadcasters have a profound conflict of interest. Their profits take precedence over our democratic process. You very likely won’t hear this discussed on the Sunday-morning talk shows.

Continue ReadingDemocracy loses the election

Aftermath

I should probably wait a few days or weeks before writing my reaction to last night's national insanity exhibition. But I doubt I'll "level out" on what has happened. First off, what part of Mr. Obama's "fixing this will take a long time" did people not understand? Did anyone seriously expect all this mess to be cleaned up in two years? Or is it really just that people are only concerned about their own situation and everyone else can just---well, worry about their own situation? Let me say this slowly, so there can be no misunderstanding: we have been digging this hole for 30 years. It will take a bit longer than two years to climb out of it. Thirty years, that's right. Since Reagan. Dear Ronnie, so classically American in so many ways. Carter began the deregulation frenzy with oil, hoping the oil companies would plow their new profits into development of American resources in the aftermath of the first major OPEC embargo. Reagan was surrounded by the rest of the business community, who whispered into his ear, sweetly, oh so sweetly, "Take the restraints off, Ronnie, and we will build you that shining city on the hill all those Moral Majority types are going on about." So he did. And that started it. (Unlike others, I am inclined to believe that Reagan was naive about this. I think he was from that generation that actually trusted people of a certain stature, relied on native patriotism, and so was completely blindsided by the corporate vampires who talked him into deregulating damn near everything. I think he expected them to reinvest in America, not start the whole ugly off-shore account boom and the outsourcing of American jobs. Inclined, I say, but not willing to give him a complete pass. Because along with that, Reagan oversaw the foreign take over of hundreds of American businesses, many of which were involved in basic research and development and manufactured things vital to our national interest. Throughout the 80s, one company after another was bought by Japanese, British, German, French, and occasionally Korean interests and the result was a serious hemorrhage of expertise, know-how, and manufacturing capacity, not to mention the loss of good-paying, high-tech jobs as those businesses were all moved out of the United States and to their new host countries. Why did he do this? Because Reagan was a traditional conservative who believed government should have nothing to do with private sector business, either pro or con, and he refused to establish an "industrial policy" that would have protected these businesses. At the time there was a tremendous wave of sentiment opposed to protectionism, which smacked of a "liberal" or at least Democratic program, but in hind sight clearly was all about keeping international boundaries as open as possible for the multinationals that have presided over the disemboweling of our economy.) Deregulation has been the culture in Washington ever since. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingAftermath

An alternative to capitalism working its way into every corner of society – the story of the commons

Media Education Foundation recently released a new documentary titled "This Land is Our Land." The video is critical of fair market fundamentalism, arguing that the idea of "the public commons" is fundamental to America's past successes. "We forget what the commons is and why it matters." Air, water, government research, community garden, public forests, public libraries, the G.I. Bill, material protected by only limited copyright and the public airwaves. Some states named themselves "commonwealths." The idea of the commons has been with us forever. Even Babylon had nature preserves. "This Land is Our Land," narrated by David Bollier, offers dozens of examples of the importance of the commons. The idea of public property is critically important: "We have a moral personal connection with it." Yet those who dare to honor this age-old idea of the commons now face blistering allegations that they are communists, or at least socialists.  Bollier runs a website titled "On the Commons."   At that site you can read a well written article titled, "Why the Commons Matters Right Now." What is hard to miss is that recognizing the importance of the commons is often not convenient to corporate interests. Especially amazing is the section of the documentary discussing the fact that, according to a law from the mid-1800s, companies have, with out any payment reaped great profits from public lands. What we have today is the "enclosure of the commons," the process by which the commons is clawed back from The People. A prime example is the fact that huge telecoms are currently working hard to gain control over the Internet, incrementally winning the battle over those who are fighting for net neutrality (And see this speech by Senator Al Franken). Perhaps the most salient part of the documentary is the opening story about Jonas Salk, who refused to apply for a patent on his polio vaccine. When Edward Murrow asked him, "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "No one. Could you patent the sun?." Those with possible interest in purchasing,"The Land is Our Land," can view a low-res version of the entire documentary here.

Continue ReadingAn alternative to capitalism working its way into every corner of society – the story of the commons