This is What Democracy in Ohio Looks Like

From the local to the global, the ability of people to govern themselves is under assault. Some of the major sources of this attack are:

- Business corporations looking to make huge profits by converting what once had been “public” to “private” (“privatization, “ though a more descriptive term would be “corporatization”), including traditional public assets like water and sewer systems, roads, police and fire protection, and now even schools.

- Individuals looking to increase their power, status, and/or privileges by concentrating decision-making from many hands (We the People and government) to few (their own).

- A culture that reinforces notions that public policies are too complicated for ordinary people to understand (thus leaving policy making to experts); that distracts public attention away from self-determination toward the trivial and inane; that worships “the market” as the route to financial and economic salvation which is not to be regulated or controlled; that define certain arenas (economic in particular) as outside the scope of public input; that continues to erase memory of any/all historical examples of citizen control and definition of their lives; that equates anything that is “public” as being inefficient, wasteful, decrepit, and dangerous and anything “private” as efficient, modern and safe; and that keeps people separated to learn from one another and organize to (re)assert meaningful changes.

- Continual legal and constitutional definitions that further “enclose” and redefine “public” arenas as other “Ps”: “private,” “property,” “proprietary,” “privileged”—and thus beyond the reach of public planning, public shaping, and public evaluation.

- A national government that under the guise of “terrorism” has given itself permission to stifle dissent, intimidate dissenters and interrupt effort of self-determination.

But there is another side to this – a democratic/self-determination culture or “infrastructure.” In our communities and across the state exist alternatives to corporations, corporate governance and elite control.

Scores of documents, policies, institutions, structures and groups reflecting inclusiveness are in place – examples where those who are affected by decisions and policies have a legitimate role in the shaping and making of those decisions… or could if we made the effort. They are where We the People have a voice … or could have a real voice if we merely flexed our self-determination muscles.

Many of these documents, policies, institutions, structures and groups are built on the notion of the commons, broadly understood historically as any sets of resources (i.e. land, water, air) that a community recognizes as being accessible to any member of that community. Implied is that every member of the community with equal access to the commons has a voice in managing or maintaining them.

Not all of these are “governmental,” some are grassroots created and maintained alternative initiatives bypassing corporate and/or top down government versions of the same function. In the midst of dysfunctional, nonfunctional, undemocratic and/or corrupt state or corporate structures, these alternative grassroots initiatives represent “parallel” institutions that currently coexist with state or corporate power but could over time assume greater legitimacy, if not substitution, if they are more effective in fulfilling the needs of people and communities.

All together, this is what democracy in Ohio looks like!

Some of these are unique to Ohio, most are not. They are meant to inform and/or remind us what we may too often take for granted – that documents, policies, institutions structures and groups exist that are, once were, or for the very first time can become democratic/self-determining. When we fail to use them or be involved in them, they will wither and die. By our not being aware of them, they surely will be manipulated, eliminated or replaced by shells or shams controlled by corporations, top down government or the power elite.

The examples listed below are in no way equally “inclusive” or “democractic”—some, in fact, might quite rightly be argued to be at the moment not very inclusive or democratic at all. There are varying degrees of self-determination here, some more so on paper than in practice, some more so depending on the place, condition, and people involved. But all have democratic “openings” or possibilities. Where social change energies should be placed is a separate strategic question. They also reflect a basic human reality – institutions or structures, no matter how democratically constructed or configured, never alone ensure democratic outcomes. The commitment to and will of people in creating and nurturing authentic self-determination may be most important of all – the force needed to drive a wide and deep wedge into even the narrowest organizational democratic crack.

This directory is not meant to be useful primarily from a “consumer” perspective (i.e. in answering the questions, "Where's the nearest food coop?" or “Is there a public radio station in my town?”) but rather from a democracy/self-determination perspective. That is, it seeks to help readers value the democratic / self-determination openings which still exist or could exist with investment of activist energies. It also strives to reinforce the simultaneous need in working for social change to create or nurture alternatives while working to democratize existing laws, constitutions, policies, practices, and organizations. Finally, the goal of this directory is to stimulate awareness of and actions addressing the multiple threats to what are deemed “public” and available for common use by the constant and cancerous corporate and top-down governmental encroachment in the name of “privatization” or “corporatizaton.”

Democracy/self-determination is not just aims but processes, not just ends but also means. Listed are examples of both – documents, policies, institutions, structures or groups actually reflecting democratic/self-determining values and principles and/or calling for them, even if the callers are not themselves the perfect practitioners.

This directory in many ways reflects and speaks to the need for what is called a “Solidarity Economy” – the growing global movement of people and organizations seeking a new framework for social and economic development based on the principles of social solidarity, cooperation, egalitarianism, sustainability and economic democracy that puts people and the planet before private profits and power. A national organization working in this direction that we plan to support is the US Solidarity Economic Network, http://www.ussen.org

There is no presumption that this list is exhaustive. Huge gaps exist beyond our limited awareness. It’s an ongoing work in progress, meant and, in fact, expected to be amended by readers. Please send additions, feedback, challenges and critiques to GColeridge@afsc.org. Updates will occur regularly.

This is what democracy in Ohio looks like!

Directory at
http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/InfrastructureDecember08.pdf

Banks Bankrupt Democracy

The billions upon billions of dollars thrown at banks and insurance companies over the last few months has been beyond comprehension. Has there ever been a time when government has been so lavishly generous to assist, if not bailout, the most economically and politically powerful sector of business corporations?

Under the guise of “too big to fail,” our tax dollars have gone to bailout “Wall Street” with few conditions. Meanwhile, our “main streets,” ”side streets,” and “backstreets” suffer and crumble from neglect.

Those who came before us who struggled for political and economic freedom would be ashamed of our lack of outrage, not to mention resistance.

Public fear and anger toward commercial banks have been a historic reality -- for good reason. Those who control money control credit. Those who control the money supply shape governments and non-financial corporations.

Denial of loans by banks to finance wars brought Kings to their knees. Supplying money to industrial corporations enabled mass production and massive profits

The early founders of Ohio and this nation understood the inherent power of financial interests. Thomas Jefferson said, “We must crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

In an 1802 letter to his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, Jefferson also reflected:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Early Ohio governance was based on similar fears. The Ohio Legislature awarded charters, granting the privilege for corporations to exist and operate in the state, to corporations one at a time. The terms were

rigid, especially for banking corporations. In the 1808 law to incorporate the Bank of Marietta, the Ohio General Assembly established stringent defining rules, including:

- The charter was granted for only 10 years
- The maximum interest on loans was set at 6%
- All directors had to reside in the same country as
the bank
- Bank debts could not exceed 3 times the sum
value of capital stock
- Bank directors were personally liable for excessive
debt

The public through the state legislature possessed and used their authority repeatedly to establish defining rules under which banks had to operate.

Business corporations violating the terms of their charters were severely punished by having their charters repealed, effectively dissolving their enterprises with assets distributed to the community and/or among those directly harmed. Banks were frequent violators and targets.

In an act to repeal the charter of the German Bank of Wooster in Wayne County and close its doors, the Ohio legislature stated:

It shall be the duty of the court of common pleas... or any judge of the supreme court...to restrain said bank, its officers, agents and servants or assignees, from exercising any corporate rights, privileges, and franchises whatever, or from paying out, selling, transferring, or in any way disposing of, the lands, tenements, goods, chattels, rights, credits, moneys, or effects whatsoever, of said bank... and force the bank commissioners to close the bank and deliver full possession of the banking house, keys, books, papers, lands, tenements, goods, chattels, moneys, property and effects of said bank, of every kind and description whatever...

The legislature authorized that the bank commissioners,

...shall possess the powers common to sheriffs... and may break open any house, or other building, in which any property, money, books, papers, or effects of said bank may be, having first made demand of entrance into such building; and if the said bank has made any assignment or transfer of its effects, books, property, papers, etc. for the settlement or with a view to its insolence, or for the purpose of avoiding the operations of this law, the same shall be deemed and treated as absolutely void.

Violators of the terms shall be deemed guilty of a crime, and, upon conviction, thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary and kept at hard labor, not less than one, nor more than 10 years.

Ohioans through their elected state legislature took this controlling bank business seriously. The state legislature in 1816 passed the “bonus law” which extended the charters of existing banks and tax exemption in exchange for a percentage of direct public ownership.

When the federally-chartered Second National Bank called in their debts as a result of the 1819 US economic collapse, Ohio banks were unable to come up with enough gold or silver to meet their $100,000 obligation. Ohioans would suffer as most could not pay off loans at that time. In response, the state legislature passed the “crowbar law” which taxed both state branches of Second National $50,000 each and authorized the state auditor to collect. Ohio auditor, Ralph Osborn, responded by entering one of the branches, showed officials a warrant he had signed, entered the vault, scooped up notes and currency estimated at $100,000 and left.

It was not only the state legislature but the state courts who felt compelled to ensure that citizen sovereignty was protected from rising banking power. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded in four rulings in 1853, all concerning commercial banks, that a corporate charter was not a contract – a direct challenge to an 1819 US Supreme Court decision Dartmouth v Woodward. The Ohio court ruled that bank charters were at root not about individual property rights but public self-governing rights and could be fundamentally controlled.

One of the four cases was Knoup v the Piqua Bank. In its ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court stated:

…[A] banking institution is a public institution, appointed for public purposes – never legitimately created for private purposes… its operations are subject to the control of that public, who may, from time to time, as the public good may require, enlarge, restrain, limit, modify its powers and duties, and, at pleasure, dispense with its benefits.

Our government if founded upon that sublime truth, acknowledged in both our present and old constitutions, as well as in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created free and equal, and that every exemption, immunity or privilege, is an invasion of the primordial estate, and natural rights of other citizens. Whenever, therefore, a franchise is conferred, upon a corporation, or an individual, nothing but the public good is to be considered: the private advantage which may result to the corporation or individual, is but incidental to the chief object and cannot ripen into a right of property.

…[W]hen the legislature authorizes… a bank to make currency, it grants what belongs to the public. The resumption of which privilege by the public affects no property, impairs no contract, infringes no right, but merely restores to its proper place, so much of popular sovereignty as was claimed by a grant of questionable authority, in clear derogation of common right.

Fears and anger toward economic and political power of banks were not just felt by Ohioans, but by citizens across the land. The Populist movement from the 1870’s to 1890’s focused their educational and organizational resistance to railroads and banks – believing that these corporations were impoverishing farmers and workers and destroying democracy. Their political party treatise, the Omaha Platform, stated:

We demand a national currency, safe, sound, and flexible, issued by the general government only, a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and that without the use of banking corporations, a just, equitable, and efficient means of distribution direct to the people…

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 only fueled the fear and anger toward banks and banking power in the minds of millions of citizens. The creation of the private grossly misnamed Federal Reserve Bank centralized currency creation and money supply in the hands of private bankers largely beyond the reach of the public. The Act established basic financial rules defined largely by the largest US banks. It created a financial cartel with all the concentration of economic wealth and political power that goes with it. Money could be created literally out of thin air on bank ledgers as loans issued to individuals, businesses, even governments.

Money is no longer backed by gold, silver or anything of real, intrinsic value or worth. In an economic crisis, whether recession or depression, more money is just added to the economy. This is inflationary.

Over the last several decades, financial institutions have rushed to the government to be bailed out. Risky investments in the 1980’s resulted in the collapse of hundreds of Savings and Loans and cost taxpayers $150 billion (some say twice this amount).

The current financial bailout of $700 billion to rescue the largest US banks in simply the latest installment of the privatizing profits and socializing losses scheme. This doesn’t include the $144 billion to bailout insurance giant AIG.

The financial sector has invested in politicians for years to ensure favorable treatment in the event of conditions like this. The financial sector was the single largest investor to George Bush’s 2004 campaign ($33.8 million) according to Open Secrets. The financial sector in 2008 was the second largest sector investor to Barack Obama’s campaign ($33.1 million) and the largest sector investor to John McCain’s campaign ($26.2 million) just to make sure all their political bases were covered.

This is probably enough to make sure no bank or financial corporation CEO is “imprisoned in the penitentiary and kept at hard labor, not less than one, nor more than 10 years” as was the case in the past to bank officials in Ohio. A little hard labor in a penitentiary, however, certainly seems more appropriate for some of these CEOs than a golden parachute.

When the government bailed out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two critically wounded government-sponsored mortgage behemoths, to the amount of $200 billion; the Treasury Department effectively took them over….again. Originally these financial entities were public.

That may be the direction to take now – not simply public investment but public control. If banks want public dollars, the public should use their financial leverage to gain public control.

A second option is creating rules that reduce bank size. If banks are too big to fail (and have too much political influence), then they’re too big to exist. Break them up. Instead, recent federal rules coupled with funds from the $700 bailout package have resulted in further bank consolidation, including the acquisition of Cleveland-based National City bank by PNC bank of Pittsburgh.

Third, consideration should be given to revoking the charter of banks that have acted recklessly through risky investments, in particular those of buying and repackaging high risk mortgages for resale as quickly as possible. A charter revocation does not automatically mean a corporation has to be abolished and jobs lost – just remade under different terms. This could include holding managers and directors personally liable for reckless actions.

A fourth option is employee control. The top-down, private corporation is not the only business model known to the human species. If we feel greater democracy is required in our political spheres, what’s wrong with it in our economic spheres?

Economic Cooperatives are enterprises where workers and/or users are also owners. Decisions are democratically made by members (defined in different ways depending on the firm). There are still managers but they are beholden not to stockholders (who have power based on a “one dollar or share, one vote” system) but to members (based on a one person, one vote system). It’s an economic system mirroring our political system.

Banking corporations that may for good reason deserve to have their charters revoked would be prime candidates to have new terms defined encouraging a cooperative business model. If you think such a notion is complete pie-in-the-sky, just consider credit unions – financial institutions that are member owned and directed.

Finally, somewhere along the way the so-called and misnamed Federal Reserve Bank must be either significantly changed or abolished. Private banking corporations should not have the power to issue national currency.

Greater public awareness, action and resistance leading to greater sovereignty of our personal and national finances and financial institutions in not only sound economics but also essential to prevent the further bankruptcy of whatever amount of democracy we have left.

Examining State Ballot Issues: Issue 3

‘I’ve received numerous emails over the last two weeks asking my views on a number of statewide issues on the November 4 ballot — Issues 1, 3 and 5. For what it’s worth, below is the second of my humble assessments of these three ballot measures seen through the lens of corporate power/democracy. The questions that are important to me in examining each Issue are:
Will passage of the Issue provide business corporations more or less rights, rules and/or powers to do what they want, when they want, where they want?
Relatedly, will passage of the Issue make it more or less difficult for citizens to govern themselves?
With these two questions in mind, below is my assessment of state Issue 3. A critique of Issue 1 can be found at
http://RealDemocracy.bravejournal.com

Issue 3

No state issue over the last several years has yielded so many questions that Issue 3. I’ve received nearly 20 inquiries. Those who’ve expressed their leanings are almost evenly split.

The Ohio Water Compact Constitutional Amendment was placed on the ballot by the state legislature as a compromise for their support of the Great Lakes Water Compact. The amendment, sponsored by State Senator Tim Grendell (R, Cleveland area) seeks to protect the “reasonable use” rights of landowners to water under or running through their property.

Supporters content the Great Lakes Water Compact will threaten existing property rights of Ohioans by defining ground water as publicly owned — trumping the rights of Ohio property owners to the water on and under their land. The measure would make explicit in the Ohio constitution the property right of a private property owner in the reasonable use of the ground water underlying the property owner’s land. However, property rights described under the proposed amendment are subject to the public welfare.

Opponents assert Issue 3 is not needed. The rights of property owners to water under current Ohio laws already exist and are clear. Some also fear that the amendment would create a section of the Ohio Constitution in which property rights are held above most other sections of Ohio's governing document.

Issue 3 has flown under the radar of many, if not most, Ohioans. This is unfortunate.

At first glance it would seem like a pretty innocuous Issue. Even if it’s overkill, what harm can their be in imbedding “reasonable use” of water in the state constitution?

But there are two troubling aspects to Issue 3 in my humble opinion.

First, the measure stipulates “reasonable use” of water by property owners — which includes corporate owners of property. “Reasonable use” of a corporation, especially if that corporation happens to be, say, a water corporation, may be a wee bit larger than reasonable use by you or me.

Many contend a major loophole of the Great Lakes Water Compact allow corporations to sell bottled Great Lakes water. The little skeptical voice in me says the rush to pass Issue 3 coinciding with passage of the Compact sets the table for a major export of Great Lakes water in bottled form. Maybe this is extreme paranoia.

On the other hand, the vagueness of the exact wording of Issue 3 coupled with the fact that it is a constitutional amendment result in both wide interpretation (in the favor of corporate use and abuse) and difficulty in altering it down the road (constitutions are not easy to change). The exact same conditions spelled out as a law, by contrast, can be amended by simple vote of a majority of the state legislature with support of the governor.

The second troubling notion about Issue 3 goes beyond “reasonable use” -- be it by the public (i.e. state), residents, or corporations. It has to do with the direction Issue 3 is headed.

Water is not simply a “resource” for human consumption. It’s not a commodity to be bought, sold or owned. Nor is it ultimately about “management,” be it good or bad.

The fundamental question is not what rights people have to water as much as does water itself have rights? Before you fall out of your chair, consider that Ecuador recently chose a different path when thinking about water and constitutions.

Citizens in that South American nation in September overwhelmingly approved a new national constitution that is the first in the world to recognize legally enforceable Rights of Nature, or ecosystem rights. The new Ecuadorian constitution proclaims nature the "right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution." The constitution forces the government to take, "precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles." This includes water.

Issue 3 with its increased constitutional protection of private property rights over water is headed in exactly the opposite direction that the prophetic people of Equator have steered.

The question ultimately may not be what rights people have to water as what rights water and all of nature has to its very existence, persistence, and regeneration.

I voted no on Issue 3.

Examining State Ballot Issues: Issue 1

‘’I’ve received numerous emails over the last two weeks asking my views on a number of statewide issues on the November 4 ballot — Issues 1, 3 and 5. For what it’s worth, below is the first of my humble assessments of these three ballot measures seen through the lens of corporate power/democracy. The questions that are important to me in examining each Issue are:
Will passage of the Issue provide business corporations more or less rights, rules and/or powers to do what they want, when they want, where they want?
Relatedly, will passage of the Issue make it more or less difficult for citizens to govern themselves?
With these two questions in mind, below is my assessment of state Issue 1. Similar assessments on Issues 3 and 5 will be shared over the next few days.

------

State Issue 1

The main provision of Issue 1 calls for an earlier filing deadline for citizen-initiated statewide ballot issues from 90 days before an election to 125 days. It also establishes deadlines for county board of elections to validate citizen petitions. Its last provision calls for streamlining citizen-initiative petition legal challenges by bypassing lower courts in favor of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Citizens concerned about their power to directly create laws (i.e. called a “citizen initiative”) should be extremely skeptical whenever any proposals are offered to amend the citizen initiative process.

It was the 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention, which created 3 direct democratic tools — the initiative, referendum and recall. These tools permitted citizens to create and undue laws considered to be unjust, as well as to replace public officials between elections acting against the interests of the people. These democratic tools were added to the state constitution as a way to counter the corporate influence to mold, shape, and create public policies...and politicians. These tools are still needed today more than ever.

Anyone who has ever been involved in any citizen initiative campaign knows the extreme difficulty in collecting valid signatures. The more grassroots the initiative, the fewer the resources and petition circulators. Every single day is needed to collect names with the goal of gathering at least 50% more than the number of valid signatures required to account for those that will be tossed for any number of reasons.

Under current state law, completed citizen initiative petitions need to be submitted 90 days before the November election to qualify for that election. For those keeping track, that means early August. Issue one would move back the deadline 35 days — to the middle of June.

This stifles democracy.

It’s much more difficult to collect signatures in the winter and spring than during the summer here in Ohio. A mid-June deadline for signature submissions would effectively reduce the ability to organize a successful petition drive.

One might argue that petition circulators should just move indoors. Unfortunately, inside spaces are increasingly corporate spaces. One is generally not permitted to circulate petitions in workplaces or in corporate establishments — including malls. The first amendment right to petition doesn’t exist on corporate property. The corporate enclosure of what formerly had been public town squares significantly reduces the ability to speak, organize...and petition.

Issue 1 is being promoted as a means to increase efficiency and effectiveness of boards of elections to count and verify citizen petitions. Such is the perspective from the top looking down.

For citizens dedicated to making creating rules and laws that bypass legislative and executive bodies (people at the bottom looking up), making it more difficult to organize a successful citizen initiative petition is a step in the wrong direction.

No Blank Check Bailout of Wall St. Financial Corporations

Call, write, vigil, demonstrate this week

- Feel free to use AFSC national toll-free # to contact your congressperson and Senators Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich: 1-800-473-6711.
Call today!
- TrueMajority will have a new website up later today permitting citizens to self-organize local actions at congressional offices, Federal Reserve banks, or other key locations. Organize an event in your own community or join one already planned.

Congress as soon as Friday will likely vote on a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. The Bush administration wants “clean” legislation with few if any strings or conditions — just a $700 BILLION blank check...at least...and a massive transfer of power and authority from the legislative to executive branch. This is a historic moment to ACT!

SAY NO TO A BLANK CHECK CORPORATE BAILOUT!

Groups across the country are demanding that any package to help Wall Street must:
Help Main Street
Help those who have had their homes foreclosed
Provide a stimulus package to taxpayers who will be paying off this massive additional debt for decades
Ensure that bankers and banking institutions are held accountable for their past financial decisions
Stipulate that no CEO of Wall Street corporations to be bailed out receives “Golden Parachutes,” pay raises or bonuses. CEO pay should be capped, if not reduced.
Guarantee that power and authority not be transferred from the legislative to executive branch. Given Wall Street’s financial meltdown and lack of recent Congressional oversight, needed now is greater public control of financial affairs.
Establish that any firm to be bailed out can’t lobby politicians or make political campaign contributions/investments
Include that future profits gained from bailed out companies be returned to the government.
Audit the Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation, which hasn’t had its books examined.

Below is an excellent letter written by Marian Lupo from Columbus.

NOTE: For those in the Akron area:
Vigil: No Blank Check Corporate Bailout of Wall Street
Thursday, September 25, Noon
1655 W. Market St., Akron
(UFCW building which contains office of US Rep. Betty Sutton)

--------------

To: Representative Kucinich, Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, By Fax: 202-225-5745; 216-228-6465

Please exercise your power and influence to address the below.

To: Senators Dodd, Schumer, Shelby and Representatives Frank and Boehner.
By fax: 202-224-1083; 202-228-3027; 202-224-3416; 202-225-0182; 202-225-0704
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008

I am writing today to you as a United States citizen regarding a matter of urgent concern. Although I do not reside in your district, I believe my letter captures the sentiments of millions of Americans who cannot write to you.

I strongly oppose bailing out the speculative, greedy, and irresponsible investment banking firms. My neighbors have lost their homes, and no one bailed them out.

I want you to audit the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private corporation, and which has never produced their financials for audit by Congress.

I also want you to revoke the legislation, passed under President Wilson, which created the Federal Reserve Bank. Congress needs to resume their Constitutional responsibilities for the U.S. currency.

Further, I want Paulson investigated – as well as the investment bankers who, in my opinion, are at a minimum criminally negligent.

My neighborhood averages 3 to 7 foreclosures a week. These are working people. Homes are vacant and not cared for now, because the banks are negligent. The banks do not even bother to mow the lawns, and they are bankrupting the city budget for code enforcement. My whole neighborhood has declined, and now children are getting into trouble because these houses present attractive nuisances.

It is a disgrace what the banks have done to the U.S. people. There is a sign down the street from me that advertises a very nice home for $13,500.

As a taxpayer, I am willing to pay to help everyone stay in their home – but not to salvage institutions that have destroyed my neighborhood and are destroying my country, or in any way whatsoever to compensate the people whose greed led to this debacle: they should be in prison.

Thank You,

Marian Lupo

Constitution Day

Today, September 17, is Constitution Day. It was on this day in 1787 that the United States Constitution was signed.

The Constitution has been celebrate throughout our nation’s history in our schools, civil associations, religious institutions, and media as a profoundly democratic document. Afterall, it’s about We the People. What could be more democratic than that? Right?

Elements of the Constitution are inclusive. Many are not.

Several articles previously posted here have delved into this issue. In commemoration of this day, several are linked below.

A critical understanding of the Constitution is essential in any quest for true self-governance, justice, and peace. Social change movements in other countries in other places and/or in other times have not only worked for a change of faces (via elections) and a change of laws, but also a change of defining rules (i.e. removing undemocratic impediments in national Constitutions).

This last point is often overlooked here since it is assumed and culturally reinforced that the US Constitution promotes equality, justice and fairness — and contains provisions to easily alter it in places needing revision.
Analyzing the US Constitution is an essential step to understanding and eliminating impediments to real self-governance.

Below are three articles examining the undemocratic provisions of the US Constitution and suggestions for change. It’s followed by an article describing Ecuador’s proposed constitution granting inalienable rights to nature.

A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND
Second of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Spring, 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy [POCLAD]
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/DemocracyInMind.pdf

The U.S. Constitution: Pull the Curtain
First of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Winter 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD)
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/PullTheCurtain.pdf

The Case Against Judicial Review
by David Cobb
From “By What Authority,” a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law and
Democracy (POCLAD), Vol. 9, No. 2 • Fall, 2007.
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/JudicialReview.pdf

Published on Thursday, September 4, 2008 by The Christian Science Monitor
Ecuador Constitution Would Grant Inalienable Rights To Nature
by Eoin O'Carroll
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/04-7

Starting to get it

Read today’s New York Times editorial entited Wall Street Casualties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

The last paragraph states:
“Making and enforcing new rules is necessary, but that will not be enough. The nation needs a new perspective on the markets, one that acknowledges the self-destructive bent of unfettered capitalism and its ability, unchecked, to wreak havoc far beyond Wall Street.”

The Times is starting to get it.

A new perspective on “the markets” is a good start, one containing these (and no doubt other) components:
capital being rooted much more to communities
people having a fundamental say in basic political AND economic decisions affecting their lives
financial structures accountable to elected officials and the public
recognition that economics, politics, society, and environment cannot and should not be treated as separate compartments to be thought about and acted upon independently from each other
acknowledgment that “the market” is not some invisible, untouchable, superior God-like force but a human-designed system which can be redesigned, refit, reshaped, remolded and recast to fit the needs of people, local communities, and the planet.

This new perspective must, of course, be followed up with new policies and practices reflecting these new perspectives. A new political movement is essential to make it happen — one focused on political and economic democracy.

Is there room in such a system for transnational, undemocratic, top-down business corporations (including financial corporations) which have been bestowed with constitutional rights to govern? The financial corpses through their First Amendment free speech “rights” made political campaign investments (some call them political “contributions” ) and lobbied public officials to gut financial controls and limits. Privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae years ago proved disastrous. The current financial system is unsustainable.

The Times is right. A new perspective is sorely needed. So are new policies and practices. Leading it all, however, must be people united in a political movement independent of political parties.

Challenging Measure T is an Opportunity

In most cases a challenge to a law promoting and protecting democracy is a challenge to democracy itself. That’s not totally the case with the legal challenge to Measure T, the 2006 citizen initiative enacted by voters in Humboldt County, California prohibiting out-of-county corporate political contributions/investments. The law is unique in the United States — asserting that local communities can protect their communities by enacting laws that run counter to the Supreme Court’s determination that corporations are “people” and possess First Amendment free speech rights.

The legal challenge by the pro-corporate Pacific Legal Foundation does, in one sense, threaten Humboldt County’s right to decide to prohibit out-of-county corporations from engaging in one form of political activity —namely giving money to political candidates and issue campaigns.

In another sense, the legal challenge presents an enormous opportunity. It’s an opportunity to shed light on questions that the corporate crowd would rather keep shrouded in darkness: “Should business corporations be treated under the law as people?” “Should business corporations possess greater power (since they have unlimited money and an unlimited life-span) than individuals in elections at all levels of government?” “Is democracy furthered by permitting business corporations to donate/invest in elections?” “Wasn’t the Bill of Rights meant to protect the weak individual from the government rather than the powerful business corporation from the people?”

Thus, the legal challenge by Pacific Legal Foundation against Measure T is, in a sense, a tremendous grassroots and legal opportunity:
to educate our fellow breathing persons on the innate power business corporations possess thanks to, in large part, Constitutional bestowed rights.
to organize the legal community to defend Measure T and by doing so help them legally challenge what is currently considered legal — just as in the past prohibition against women voting, slavery, and separate but equal were all considered legal.

Stay tuned.

---------------------------------------------------------

News and Announcements from
Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County

~ National Press Release - Please Forward Widely! ~

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, August 29, 2008
CONTACT: Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, (707) 362-0626

Right Wing Legal Firm Takes on Humboldt County, California Over Local Democracy Law

EUREKA, CA - A groundbreaking law forbidding out-of-county controlled corporations from making political contributions in Humboldt County, CA elections was challenged in federal court this week. The Pacific Legal Foundation, an anti-government legal organization, filed suit on behalf of O & M Industries and Mercer Fraser Corporation over a local corporate reform and election integrity law. The Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Fair Elections and Local Democracy was passed by citizens' initiative in June 2006 with 55% of the vote.

Known locally as "Measure T," the initiative was run by a broad coalition of community organizations, individuals and local businesses concerned by the growing influence of corporate power in elections. Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, a local grassroots organization, spearheaded the effort by writing the initial legislation and the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights campaigned for the law.

Upon passage, Measure T received national attention because it includes a direct challenge to "corporate personhood," which is the legal doctrine that allows a corporation to claim constitutional rights such as the First Amendment. Corporations have argued that the First Amendment protects their right to give political contributions.

"Money does not equal speech, and corporations should not be allowed to claim First Amendment rights - 'We the People' have an obligation to challenge unjust doctrines," said Democracy Unlimited Director Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap. "Measure T follows in the footsteps of the suffragists, the abolitionists and the Civil Rights activists who fought against segregation by challenging Supreme Court precedents that held unjust laws to be Constitutional."

“The County’s donation restriction runs the First Amendment through a shredder,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Damien Schiff in a press release. “The County’s ordinance is an outrageous assault on these free speech rights, because it targets aclass of employers to be shut out of the political process.”

"Not true," said Sopoci-Belknap, "Measure T specifically protects an individual's right to participate in elections. It ensures that owners of corporations will operate as individuals in the political process, just like every other citizen, rather than gaining undue influence through their corporations."

The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 to support pro-corporate causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies. It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded to support big business and oppose environmental and health protection policies and government regulation.

Measure T opponents repeatedly threatened to sue to overturn the law if it passed. Billionaire financier Robin Arkley Jr., who is one of California Governor Schwarzenegger's largest contributors, sent a memo to the County Board of Supervisors during the campaign warning them of a lawsuit after the measure qualified, and demanding they remove the measure from the ballot. Arkley's late father Robin Arkley, Sr., served on the Board of Trustees of the Pacific Legal Foundation.

"We are not surprised by this action, but we are certainly disappointed that the Pacific Legal Foundation has so little regard for the will of the people of Humboldt County," said Sopoci-Belknap. "Communities have the right and duty to protect our democracy. Voters enacted Measure T based on a legitimate concern that corporate influence in elections undermines the integrity of the process. Humboldt County has taken a stand for the rights of people and communities over the so-called 'rights' of corporations, and we ask other communities to stand with us."

For more information: http://DUHC.org

Corporatized Conventions

The “historic” Democratic National Convention (DNC) will be just like all recent ones in one critical respect — business corporations will bankroll it. Corporate investments/donations are buying, at the very least, access to candidates and officeholders. It’s the same with the Republicans.

The DNC “Host Committee Partners” on their website http://www.denverconvention2008.com/index.cfm?page=sponsorlist reads like a list of the major US-based corporations.

Campaign Finance Institute issued an in-depth study http://www.cfinst.org/president/conventions/pdf/CFI_Conventions08_Report2_Donors.pdf of 2008 convention investments/donations. It showed that the more than 100 organizational (largely corporate) donors to the host committees of both party conventions have been deeply involved in political influence peddling -- $100 million in political action committee (PAC) contributions/investments and $700 million in lobbying since 2005. These same entities are providing $55 in financing to the DNC and $57 to the upcoming Republican Convention — just to show that they don’t play favorites.

Leading up to the DNC was an aggressive campaign courting corporations to invest in a “Once in a lifetime opportunity” to reach 35,000 visitors at the convention, including “232 Members of Congress, 51 Senators, 28 Governors [and] more than 6,000 delegates and Super delegates” with sponsorship levels ranging from 25 grand to $1 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/click%20here%201%20-%20one%20in%20a%20lifetime%20dnc.pdf

Among the 1200 parties thrown at the DNC will be a very touching one by the AT&T corporation for Democrats who voted to grant the company immunity for illegal wiretapping of Americans http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support

But aren’t there limits to corporate campaign cash? Ah, not really. A loophole in recent campaign finance “reforms” allows literally unlimited contributions/investments http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5185766&page=1

All this adds up to a “golden rule” political system -- (s)he who has the gold rules. If you don’t have money to invest in politics, you’re/we’re left trying to organize massive social movements. Social movements have in the past been effective in winning basic rights for whole classes of people — including, women, slaves, children, and gays/lesbians. Grassroots social movements, however, on whatever issue you care most about would be considerably easier to mobilize if business corporations no longer possessed Constitutional “rights” to be involved in politics. Such “rights” give these entities access, influence and direct power. Conversely, they limit our access to influence, if not create, public policies.

Maybe we need a national convention on self-governance...and not bankrolled by major transnational business corporations.

In the meantime, when DNC goers return home (and RNC goers next week), ask them what their respective party platforms say about corporate constitutional rights. Ask them if corporate constitutional rights is a problem in their eyes. Finally, ask them, if they’re candidates running for congress this year, to fill out and return this survey.

Thank you!

Municipalizing Democracy

Selling or leasing public assets to business corporations (privatization or corporatization) is on the rise at state and municipal levels. The reasons driving this trend:
worsening budget deficits by state and local governments,
imminent need to upgrade long-deteriorated infrastructure; and
increasing pressure by investors who’ve seen huge losses from housing and other risky investments seeking safe and stable returns

Privatizing/corporatizing roads, airports, water and sewer systems, and other public assets by national or transnational corporations has many negative consequences:
loss of public jobs,
rising rates,
declining service, and
exporting of income from local communities to shareholders and CEOs of foreign corporations.

Another negative consequence is the loss of control, of self-governance, of democracy. Keeping public utilities public gives citizens power:
the power to inspect the books of public utilities or departments,
the power to hold accountable the director of a public utility or service department,
the power to pressure city officials to control rates, retain jobs, improve service,
the power to directly create laws via citizen initiatives to control rates, retain jobs, improve service.

Attempts to privatize/corporatize public assets is happening in Ohio. The latest example is a proposal by the Mayor of Akron to lease the city sewer system (see reference in article below). Akron’s financial advisor is the investment firm of Morgan Stanley corporation (also referenced in article below) -- which stands to gain millions from the scheme. Morgan Stanley corporation is one of one of several investment firms (including Goldman Sachs) who see privatization/corporatization as a financial safe haven in these economic turbulent times. It’s where money can be made — that is, off the backs of ratepayers and users.

The record of privatization/corporatization of public utilities from a local perspective has been poor. According to Food and Water Watch:
- Atlanta canceled its contract with United Water corporation after 4 years of terrible service,
- Ft. Wayne, IN decided to take over its water and sewer system from a corporation after it hiked its rates 75%,
- Stockton, CA has just won back its water/sewer system after a judge determined privatization would have serious environmental impacts,
- New Orleans dropped its privatization plan after studying the idea for 5 years and spending $5.7 million (by contrast, Akron spent less than 3 months studying the issue with no public hearings),
- In Newark, NJ, the city council voted down privatization,
- Felton, CA has taken back its water system after a corporation took it over and wanted a 74% rate hike,
- Foreign corporations ship profits out of communities to investors and wealthy CEOs.

The above indicates not only the problems of privatization/corporation but how democratic citizen resistance can stop or reverse the trend. Akron citizens have launched an initiative to “let the people decide” and “keep public utilities public” in response to the Mayor’s plan. Citizens to Save Our Sewers and Water (Citizens SOS), which AFSC helped organize, has gathered sufficient signatures from registered voters to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative which would change the city charter or constitution calls for any sale, lease or transfer of any public utility to be without force until and unless the proposal is approved by Akron voters (the current system allows a transfer with only city council approval). Citizens SOS is also gearing up to oppose a separate ballot measure by the Mayor that specifically calls for privatizing the city sewer system. More information about the initiative and Mayor’s plan is at www.AkronOhio.net.

The citizens of Akron are responding both reactively and proactively to privatization/corporatization:
by organizing against the specific immediate threat to handing over a public asset to a foreign corporation, and
by organizing to change the city charter to prevent any transfer of a public utility without direct public approval.

This is what “municipalizing” democracy is all about!

------------

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9736

Wall Street to privatize US infrastructure
Global Research, August 3, 2008
Reuters

Roads, airports on the block as budgets tighten
Fri Aug 1, 2008 12:37pm EDT
By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cash-strapped U.S. state and city governments are
likely to sell or lease more highways, bridges, airports and other assets
to investors desperate for stable returns after being frazzled by the
credit crisis.

The trend is set to pick up speed given worsening budget deficits in state
capitals and city halls nationwide.

It will also be welcomed by Wall Street bankers hoping to help create and
market so-called "infrastructure" transactions at a time many debt markets
remain paralyzed, and after major U.S. stock indexes fell into bear market
territory.

"When you are nervous about everything else, you put your money in a toll
road," said John Schmidt, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown LLP in
Chicago. "That's the logic of infrastructure. Returns are stable and
predictable. You won't get fabulously rich, but you'll get stable cash flow."

The latest enthusiasm for at least partially privatizing infrastructure
assets came on July 30 from New York Gov. David Paterson, who is trying to
plug a budget deficit caused in part by lower tax revenue as Wall Street
retrenches.

"We're just looking at ways to be more efficient and that's why I used the
term public-private partnerships -- trying to find some creative
solutions," Paterson said. "The reason I'm avoiding taxes is because I
think taxes are addictive."

Bankers and others in the industry say there is pent-up demand from
dedicated infrastructure funds and public pension funds to invest in hard
assets -- perhaps $75 billion to $150 billion of equity capital -- but not
enough supply.

"Economic conditions are tough, and are going to be very harsh on the
performance of state budgets in 2008 and 2009," said Greg Carey, co-head of
infrastructure banking at Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz). "States are looking
for long-term solutions in running businesses. A public-private partnership
is a tool in their toolboxes."

A high-water mark came in May, when a group led by Spain's Abertis
Infraestructuras SA (ABE.MC:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and Citigroup Inc
(C.N: Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) agreed to pay $12.8
billion to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years. The total could
reach $18.3 billion, including promised improvements. Legislators must
approve the lease.

Other transactions have included the $1.8 billion lease of the Chicago
Skyway toll road bridge in 2005, and a $3.8 billion lease of the Indiana
Toll Road the next year. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is preparing to lease
Midway Airport this year.

For Wall Street, infrastructure can be a bright spot at a time of deep job
cuts and expected declines in bonuses.

"We've seen an unprecedented number of headhunters recruiting for positions
on the buy and sell sides," said Rob Collins, head of Americas
infrastructure banking at Morgan Stanley (MS.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz). "Infrastructure
investing can be counter-cyclical to economic trends."

John Ma, the other Goldman infrastructure chief, added: "We're very
committed to this space. Our business activity has increased dramatically,
even this year."

ALTERNATIVE TO TAX HIKES

According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29 U.S.
states plus the District of Columbia may face a combined $48 billion of
budget deficits in fiscal 2009.

But politicians might be loathe to cut spending or raise taxes at a time
mortgage debt, $4-a-gallon gas and rising food prices leave consumers -- of
whom many vote -- dispirited. Tapping public debt markets might also be too
costly.

Meanwhile the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates $1.6 trillion
is needed over five years to raise the often aged U.S. infrastructure to
"good" condition.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell in July called for the United States to
establish a capital budget to pay for such repairs. It was a year ago
August 1 that the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis plunged into the
Mississippi River, killing 13.

Critics say some infrastructure transactions are short-term budget fixes
that deprive governments of steady cash streams from taxpayer-funded
assets. There is also the risk that private operators won't do their jobs well.

Advocates of privatization say entities might do better managing assets
than a government answering to voters.

Politicians could also get a boost if they can take credit for reinvesting
sale or lease proceeds in needed projects.

"The argument for a public-private partnership is the private sector is a
lot smarter about paying attention to costs, and because it has skin in the
game will be more attentive to maintaining an asset over its life," said
Joseph Giglio, a privatization expert and professor at Northeastern
University's College of Business Administration in Boston.

"Elected officials often shortchange funding of maintenance because they
don't want to increase user fees or taxes to pay for it," Giglio added.
"Their election cycle is four years. They can pass it on to someone else's
watch."

Collins, who also advised Pennsylvania on the turnpike, said infrastructure
can also go beyond roads and airports. He said Morgan Stanley is advising
Akron, Ohio, on exploring the leasing of its wastewater system, and Indiana
on the possibility of private management for its state lottery.

"Lotteries have infrastructure characteristics in that they have stable
cash flows and high barriers to entry," he said. "They could even attract
private equity investment because they are self-financeable and require
minimal capital expenses."

BIG NAMES

At Goldman, Carey and Ma replaced Mark Florian, who is moving to First
Reserve Corp, a private equity firm specializing in energy, a person close
to the matter said.

Goldman itself raised a $6.5 billion infrastructure fund in 2006, and is
reportedly trying to raise a $7.5 billion fund.

Morgan Stanley raised a $4 billion fund in May. Global Infrastructure
Partners, a joint venture between Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.VX:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and General
Electric Co (GE.N: Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz), raised a $5.6
billion fund the same month. Private equity firm Carlyle Group CYL.UL last
year raised a $1.15 billion fund.

And Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co KKR.UL, which is preparing to go public,
in May lured George Bilicic from Lazard Ltd (LAZ.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz), where he led
power, energy and infrastructure efforts worldwide, to run its own
infrastructure investments.

Two of the largest specialists in the area are Australian: Macquarie Group
Ltd (MQG.AX: Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and Babcock & Brown
Ltd (BNB.AX: Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz).

Schmidt, the Mayer Brown partner, said if the Midway transaction succeeds,
other airports could also go private, perhaps leading to "lower and more
predictable landing fees and terminal rentals for airlines, which certainly
aren't flush."

That, he said, could bring the value of roads, bridges and airports that
could be privatized to half a trillion dollars.

(Additional reporting by Joan Gralla in New York and Elizabeth Flood Morrow
in Albany, New York, editing by Dave Zimmerman)

The Spirit of Change

Barack Obama was awakened during the night following his latest Democratic Party Presidential debate. Two ghosts stood before him. "We are the spirits of Samuel Adams and William Lamb."

"Who?" Obama asked in a daze, unsure if he was hallucinating from lack of sleep.

"We’re the ghosts of real change."

"I am the spirit of Samuel Adams, a revolutionary for American liberty and promoter of the Declaration of Independence."

"And I am the spirit of William Lamb, a founder of the U.S. Populist movement in the 1880s-1890s, supporter of the Omaha Platform, and organizer of the People’s Party."

Obama was puzzled. "You’re both dressed funny, but more to the point, why are you here?"

"We’ve come to talk. You, Clinton, even McCain, speak constantly about ‘change.’ We’ve watched your debates, read news on your light screens, and…"

"Light screens? Do you mean televisions and computers?"

"Ah yes, that’s what you call them. Anyway, all you candidates talk about is who will bring change to this country: real change, fundamental change, policy change to address unmet needs and give citizens more power."

"Sounds especially like me," Obama said assuredly.

"We’re not so sure," said the ghosts in unison. "We believe political change in our times was more profound than anything being proposed now."

And so Sam, Lamb and "Bam," advocates from three turbulent periods in U.S. history, huddled to discuss political change.

*************************

SAM: I agitated for the greatest change in the history of our nation, political independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence, passed on July 4, 1776, presented a lengthy list of "repeated injuries and usurpations" by the British government and asserted that the 13 colonies were "Free and Independent States."

LAMB: Weren’t you a signer?

SAM: Yes, one of 56 signers of the Second Continental Congress, a revolutionary, illegal body.

BAM: Did the British consider you and your ilk "terrorists"?

SAM: A renegade if not worse, in part for supporting the Declaration. I said in 1776, "Is not America already independent? …Why not then declare it."1 The power and inspiration of the Declaration were these unequivocal assertions: "All Men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights… That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from Consent of the Governed… [and] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government… [in fact] it is their Duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

The essence of the document, revolutionary then and now, was the conviction that people can and should be governing–not kings, popes or generals.

British rule could not be "reformed." The King’s army and crown corporations could not be made accountable to the public. They all had to be replaced, so I worked for revolutionary change, for a system of self-rule.

LAMB: The Declaration was an inspiration to us Populists. But be honest, Sam, sixty-nine percent of the Declaration’s signers held colonial office under England. Many who supported both it and the revolution were colonial lawyers, landowners and merchants, including you, who only wanted independence from Great Britain to impose their own brand of political and economic control. Following the revolution, did you not say, "In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"?2

SAM: I did?

LAMB: Yup.

SAM: Still, I opposed the British Stamp Act, helped organize the Boston Tea Party and the Committees of Correspondence, colonists who organized into small groups to share information and mobilize the public.

LAMB: You were a great communicator, organizer and agitator Sam, but it was selective. Your instigation of mob protests was directed only at British rule and wealth, not the consolidation of power by colonial elites. This omission carried over to the Declaration, which ignored inequalities of property, and I ask, "How could people have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?"3 The Declaration was a form of manipulation to focus anger and attention only on British rule.

BAM: While the Declaration is as inspirational as many of my speeches, there are several glaring omissions, notably independence for black slaves, women and native people. The draft of the Declaration included a grievance against the King for transporting slaves but was removed before adoption. Native people were called "the merciless Indian Savages..." and there was no room for women in "All men are created equal."

LAMB: Change during your period, Sam, was not as dramatic as during my lifetime. I helped organize the largest and most elaborate democratic mass movement in US history: Populism. It was a mass democratic insurgency among "plain people"–farmers and urban workers–to respond to the impoverishment of millions of farmers and workers by banks, railroads, and the consequences of economic and political centralization.

BAM: I haven’t heard much about the Populists.

LAMB: Most people of your day haven’t. We’ve been largely erased from history books. 0nly our "spirits" remain.

The Populists sought to create a democratic movement to counter the hierarchical culture of the day. It was "a new way of looking at society, a way of thought representing a shaking off of individual forms of deference… individual self-respect and collective self-confidence… class consciousness… growing political sensibility… the mass expression of a new political vision."4

BAM: Now I see why there’s not much known in our culture about you people.

LAMB: The creation of this democratic movement for revolutionary change was achieved in sequential steps: forming organizations, recruitment, education, and political action. State farmers Alliances were the original organizing base. I organized over 100 sub-alliances in Texas alone and eventually the National Farmers Alliance. We recruited through large-scale Populist-sponsored farmers cooperatives and I was the Texas Alliance’s first purchasing and traveling agent. Hundreds of newsletters and 40,000 "lecturers" were disseminated throughout Texas. We educated members continually, our version of the Committees of Correspondence, Sam. Collective political action bridging farmers and laborers was achieved through the Populist Party, which I helped launch.

SAM: This still doesn’t sound very revolutionary, pal. You weren’t talking about overthrowing the government.

BAM: Promoting major change through a political party is my goal, too.

LAMB: It was revolutionary, Sam, and there is a difference, Bam, between Populist goals and yours.

Populists constantly talked about "the coming revolution" through ballots not bullets. Revolution meant creating a "third party of the industrial millions" and overthrowing the two party system. We saw many elections as rigged and the electoral college as undemocratic. We tried to bring the corporate state under popular control through democratic politics.5

As fellow Populist Tom Watson said, "It’s useless to ask Congress to help us, just as it was folly for our forefathers to ask for relief from the tea tax; they revolted and so should we."6

The unifying platform for Populist revolution, the "Second Declaration of Independence," was the Omaha Platform. The 4000 delegates to the first People’s Party Convention in Omaha, Nebraska, adopted it on July 4, 1892–116 years after the first Declaration.7

SAM: Where’s Nebraska?

LAMB: Later Sam. The Omaha Platform, like the Declaration, spoke to the grievances and demands for major change within the context of its time.

BAM: What did it say? Perhaps I should include elements of it in the Democratic Party platform if I’m the Presidential candidate.

LAMB: The Omaha Platform’s Preamble states:
"The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized; most of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation and bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists."8

BAM: Sounds like something Dennis Kucinich would say!

LAMB: The Omaha Platform was a culmination of ideas and strategies from farmers and workers over a six-year period. Like the Declaration, it listed both grievances and fundamental prescriptions.

The platform called for abolishing the national banking system giving private banks control over money and credit; public ownership or control of the railroads, telegraph and telephone in the interests of the people; a federal graduated income tax; prohibition of alien land ownership; direct election of US Senators; the citizen initiative, referendum and recall; the secret ballot; and maybe most creatively, adoption of a "sub-treasury" system to expand currency based not on gold or silver but on agricultural products.

SAM: Still, many of these changes were "reformist." What’s so radical about direct election of Senators if the Senate is part of a political system favoring a small number of elites?

LAMB: Some of our planks were less radical than others. The Progressives, those who followed the Populists, pushed for the more modest measures. Some eventually became law. Other proposals were more substantial, such as public control of banks, railroads and telephones. The goal of its financial sections, the key portions of the Platform, were radical: to transfer control of the monetary system from the nation’s corporate banks and return it "in the name of the whole people," to the U.S. Treasury.9

All our demands, however, sought to shift the balance of power, economic and political, toward "plain people." These changes were as revolutionary in our time as forcing the British out of the colonies in yours.

Changes advocated by the Populists, however, transcended its political platform and cooperative buying and selling programs. The crux of Populism was creating a democratic culture. Populists attempted to build a cooperative community or commonwealth within the framework of American capitalism, one that put people at the center of the political and economic decisions affecting their lives. It became a movement culture that was understood, accepted and lived by millions of citizens.10

Progressives didn’t go that far. After the Populists were defeated in 1896, those who sought change accepted the corporate state and tried merely to temper its worst abuses through the creation of "regulatory" laws and agencies. This is the political and economic model you, Bam, and others working for "change" are stuck with today.

SAM: The Populists failed in the end. It was hardly revolutionary if it didn’t yield much change.

LAMB: True, we didn’t win. Elements of the Omaha Platform are now law, but there is no cooperative, democratic culture. Isn’t the same true of the Declaration and those who worked for true self-governance in 1776? Its essence of a government operating with the "consent of the governed" has not been realized. Today, those claiming that We the People have not only a right but a duty to revolt if unalienable rights are not secured would be called "extremists," even "terrorists" and treated accordingly.

BAM: A fundamental shortcoming of the Populists was their excluding blacks. Populist structures and members were often racist. In fact, many who call themselves "Populists" in recent times hold racist beliefs.

LAMB: That’s a sad truth. The radical dream of early Alliance founders in Texas was to create an interracial farmer-labor coalition. Alliance lecturers organized many black Alliances which led to the Colored Farmers’ National Alliance. Nevertheless, internal and external racism impeded social unity, economic cooperation, and electoral victory.

*************************

BAM: The change I speak of today is tied to offering real hope. I believe we can make government better, more responsive to people. We can control special interests and restore faith and trust in public officials. Hillary Clinton believes much the same. Even McCain supported campaign finance reform.

I believe we can make health care universal, increase labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA and other trade agreements, temporarily suspend home foreclosures, begin immediately to bring some troops home from Iraq, and strengthen ethics in government. This is a small part of my progressive change agenda that I can create with the support of voters. Clinton supports many of the same programs.

Other former Democratic Party candidates were even more radical. John Edwards spoke out against corporate power. Dennis Kucinich promoted a single-payer health care system, eliminating the role of insurance corporations all together, and called for undoing NAFTA.

My vision of change will be fueled if economic conditions worsen for Americans.

LAMB: Nothing you or any other Presidential candidate suggests will reduce corporate constitutional rights and powers or promote people’s self-governance.

With due respect, Bam, deep change was never brought about by those in positions of power. It occurs when people act together in insurgent movements. And insurgent movements are not a function of hard times, but of insurgent cultures. Difficult times crush people. Insurgent cultures provide real hope and make possible those processes of organizing, recruiting, educating and politicizing that create and sustain change.11

BAM: How can you say this? My messages of change and hope are drawing record numbers to my campaign. People are inspired, energized, empowered.

LAMB: True. But don’t mistake attraction to your campaign with behaviors necessary for a healthy democracy. As Populism declined, little stood in the way of growing political and economic concentration. Democratic aspirations were replaced by mass resignation and plenty of escape into consumerism, entertainment and drugs.

You and your message fill a void only because people of your time do not know and have never experienced an authentic insurgency movement for self-governance. Not just to end a war, expand civil rights or create environmental protections, but a movement affirming individual and collective self-confidence in seeking real political and economic democracy.

SAM: Bam, missing in your and other presidential candidates’ analysis is the larger issue of how the power and authority of "We the People," as promoted in the Declaration and Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, has been usurped.

LAMB: By the wealthy class and business corporations, I might add. We need changed rules not only changed faces.

SAM: That’s what I thought the Declaration tried to do in 1776.

LAMB: And the Omaha Platform 116 years later, in 1892.

BAM: Do you two realize that 116 years after 1892 is this year, 2008?

LAMB: Rather than working for the adoption of a single national declaration or platform at this time, The Program on Corporation, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) urges decentralized, participatory gatherings to study the Declaration of Independence and Omaha Platform, along with democracy campaigns and cooperative programs from current grassroots organizations. They’ve collected it all in a Democracy Insurgency Movement packet. This will add another seed to those already sown across the country, one that may lead to a "Third Declaration of Independence" and genuine governance by "consent of the governed."

BAM: It sounds like a dream, like my experience tonight.

LAMB: A dream? It all depends on the people and their determination to create real change.

*************************

Greg Coleridge is a POCLAD principal and works for the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee.

To order a Democracy Insurgency Movement packet, contact POCLAD at people@poclad.org or call 508-398-1145.

Endnotes:
1. Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, History of the United States, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949, p. 140.
2. Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980, p. 94.
3. Zinn, p. 73.
4. Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 33.
5. Ibid, p. 124.
6. Ibid, p. 88.
7. Ibid, p. 277.
8. The Omaha Platform.
9. Goodwyn, op. cit., p. 93.
10. Ibid., p. 164-5.
11. Ibid., p. 61.

From By What Authority, a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD) Vol. 10, No. 1 Spring, 2008 www.poclad.org
http://www.poclad.org/bwa/Spring08.htm

Lessons from Feminism

The Iraq war and occupation.
Lack of health care for all.
Rising energy prices.

Different problems. Same source.

The power and rights of business corporations.

The drive for war and occupation in Iraq derived in large part from the quest by US-based oil corporations to gain private (i.e. corporate) control over their vast oil reserves. Establishing permanent (what the US government calls “enduring”) military bases was fueled by the need to have protection of “our” oil once oil corporations move in. Never-ending war/occupation funding (supported by both the Republicans and so-called “anti-war” Democrats) was triggered by military contractors eager to re-supply the Pentagon with all the planes, guns, tanks and bullets they want…paid for with our tax dollars. Iraq reconstruction (in terms of projects and budget) sprung from Bechtel, Halliburton and other corporations waiting to jack up prices on no-bid contracts.

The number of persons without health care or inadequate health care continues to rise. More than 47 million US citizens are uninsured, 50 million more are one major health care crisis away from losing everything. The US spends twice as much per capita on health care than any other nation on the planet. Every other industrialized nation has a nationalized health care system except our nation. Private insurance corporations profit tremendously as the middle man increasingly denying coverage and by doing so, increase their botton line. They love the system as is and do all they can to ensure politicians don’t cut them out of the equation though a single-payer, patient- and doctor-run health care system.

Gas prices are at their historic high. Some of it, to be sure, has come from pure financial speculation – big money speculators have increasingly moved their assets from dollars to hard assets (oil and food at the moment). Some of the rise, however, seems sheer corporate greed. Yet, where has been the media exposes or Congressional hearings? Or significant federal funding for alternative energy? Thank the oil corporations.

The Iraq war and occupation.
Lack of health care for all.
Rising energy prices.

Different problems (and there are many others that could be highlighted). Same source.

The power and rights of business corporations.

Oil corporations.
Military contracting corporations.
Reconstruction corporations.
Insurance corporations.
Media corporations.

See a pattern?

The Strategic Corporate Initiative(1) asserts that anti-corporate/democracy activists around the world need more of a shared ideology, a common belief system. They claim what we need is what feminists possessed in the 1970’s.

This insightful report quotes Marjorie Kelley, who in The Divine Right of Capital, said:

It would not have been enough to see poor funding for girls’ athletics as one problem, unequal wages for women as a separate problem, and harassment in the workplace as still a different problem. These battles became one when their common source in sex discrimination was recognized. Yet today we chase after corporate pollution as one problem, low wages as another problem, and corporate welfare as still a third problem.

The authors of the Strategic Corporate Initiative claim that when we’re able to see the common source beneath many of our current problems (from the local to the global), we will become one movement.

That common problem is corporate power and rights.

Notes,
1. The Strategic Corporate Initiative
http://corporateethics.org/downloads/SCI_Report_September_2007.pdf

This is What Democracy in Ohio Looks Like

From the local to the global, the ability of people to govern themselves is under assault. Some of the major sources of this attack are:

- Business corporations looking to make huge profits by converting what once had been “public” to “private” (“privatization, “ though a more descriptive term would be “corporatization”), including traditional public assets like water and sewer systems, roads, police and fire protection, and now even schools.

- Individuals looking to increase their power, status, and/or privileges by concentrating decision-making from many hands (We the People and government) to few (their own).

- A culture that reinforces notions that public policies are too complicated for ordinary people to understand (thus leaving policy making to experts); that distracts public attention away from self-determination toward the trivial and inane; that worships “the market” as the route to financial and economic salvation which is not to be regulated or controlled; that define certain arenas (economic in particular) as outside the scope of public input; that continues to erase memory of any/all historical examples of citizen control and definition of their lives; that equates anything that is “public” as being inefficient, wasteful, decrepit, and dangerous and anything “private” as efficient, modern and safe; and that keeps people separated to learn from one another and organize to (re)assert meaningful changes.

- Continual legal and constitutional definitions that further “enclose” and redefine “public” arenas as other “Ps”: “private,” “property,” “proprietary,” “privileged”—and thus beyond the reach of public planning, public shaping, and public evaluation.

- A national government that under the guise of “terrorism” has given itself permission to stifle dissent, intimidate dissenters and interrupt effort of self-determination.

But there is another side to this – a democratic/self-determination culture or “infrastructure.” In our communities and across the state exist alternatives to corporations, corporate governance and elite control.

Scores of documents, policies, institutions, structures and groups reflecting inclusiveness are in place – examples where those who are affected by decisions and policies have a legitimate role in the shaping and making of those decisions… or could if we made the effort. They are where We the People have a voice … or could have a real voice if we merely flexed our self-determination muscles.

Many of these documents, policies, institutions, structures and groups are built on the notion of the commons, broadly understood historically as any sets of resources (i.e. land, water, air) that a community recognizes as being accessible to any member of that community. Implied is that every member of the community with equal access to the commons has a voice in managing or maintaining them.

Not all of these are “governmental,” some are grassroots created and maintained alternative initiatives bypassing corporate and/or top down government versions of the same function. In the midst of dysfunctional, nonfunctional, undemocratic and/or corrupt state or corporate structures, these alternative grassroots initiatives represent “parallel” institutions that currently coexist with state or corporate power but could over time assume greater legitimacy, if not substitution, if they are more effective in fulfilling the needs of people and communities.

All together, this is what democracy in Ohio looks like!

Some of these are unique to Ohio, most are not. They are meant to inform and/or remind us what we may too often take for granted – that documents, policies, institutions structures and groups exist that are, once were, or for the very first time can become democratic/self-determining. When we fail to use them or be involved in them, they will wither and die. By our not being aware of them, they surely will be manipulated, eliminated or replaced by shells or shams controlled by corporations, top down government or the power elite.

The examples listed below are in no way equally “inclusive” or “democractic”—some, in fact, might quite rightly be argued to be at the moment not very inclusive or democratic at all. There are varying degrees of self-determination here, some more so on paper than in practice, some more so depending on the place, condition, and people involved. But all have democratic “openings” or possibilities. Where social change energies should be placed is a separate strategic question. They also reflect a basic human reality – institutions or structures, no matter how democratically constructed or configured, never alone ensure democratic outcomes. The commitment to and will of people in creating and nurturing authentic self-determination may be most important of all – the force needed to drive a wide and deep wedge into even the narrowest organizational democratic crack.

This directory is not meant to be useful primarily from a “consumer” perspective (i.e. in answering the questions, "Where's the nearest food coop?" or “Is there a public radio station in my town?”) but rather from a democracy/self-determination perspective. That is, it seeks to help readers value the democratic / self-determination openings which still exist or could exist with investment of activist energies. It also strives to reinforce the simultaneous need in working for social change to create or nurture alternatives while working to democratize existing laws, constitutions, policies, practices, and organizations. Finally, the goal of this directory is to stimulate awareness of and actions addressing the multiple threats to what are deemed “public” and available for common use by the constant and cancerous corporate and top-down governmental encroachment in the name of “privatization” or “corporatizaton.”

Democracy/self-determination is not just aims but processes, not just ends but also means. Listed are examples of both – documents, policies, institutions, structures or groups actually reflecting democratic/self-determining values and principles and/or calling for them, even if the callers are not themselves the perfect practitioners.

This directory in many ways reflects and speaks to the need for what is called a “Solidarity Economy” – the growing global movement of people and organizations seeking a new framework for social and economic development based on the principles of social solidarity, cooperation, egalitarianism, sustainability and economic democracy that puts people and the planet before private profits and power. A national organization working in this direction that we plan to support is the US Solidarity Economic Network, http://www.ussen.org

There is no presumption that this list is exhaustive. Huge gaps exist beyond our limited awareness. It’s an ongoing work in progress, meant and, in fact, expected to be amended by readers. Please send additions, feedback, challenges and critiques to GColeridge@afsc.org. Updates will occur regularly.

This is what democracy in Ohio looks like!

Directory at
http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/InfrastructureMarch08.pdf

10 Question Survey on Democracy and Corporate Rights

Directed to Candidates for US Representative from Ohio

1. Do you believe that business corporations should be allowed directly or through corporate-sponsored Political Action Committees (PACs) to donate to or invest money in political candidates or issue campaigns? (Note: at one time in Ohio, they couldn't.) If not, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

2. Do you believe that public officials should have the right to examine the financial books of business corporations (i.e. to prevent future Enrons and mortgage company collapses and/or to access the true profits of oil companies)? (Note: at one time in Ohio, they could.) If so, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

3. Do you believe that business corporations should have the right to move toxic trash into communities from another state if people in those communities don't want it? If not, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

4. Do you believe that people should have greater legal and constitutional rights than business corporations? (Note: at one time in Ohio, they did). If so, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

5. Do you believe that the health care system in the United States should be patient-run / doctor-run or run by insurance corporations? If the former, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

6. Do you believe that the public has ultimate control over the public airwaves rather than media corporations? If so, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

7. Do you believe that the public or business corporations should be in charge of electronic voting machines that are used in public elections? If the former, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

8. Do you believe the Iraqi people have a right to control their own oil reserves (and by extension the right to control their own nation), or that oil production and profit decisions should be placed in the hands of US and other western oil corporations? If the former, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

9. Do you believe workers should have the right to free speech and free assembly (contained in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution) on corporate property? If so, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

10. Do you believe the public has the right to know the ingredients of food they eat or that business corporations have “Free Speech” rights to not publicly release the ingredients of the food they produce? If the former, what do you specifically plan to do about this if elected?

Please mail completed survey by February 29 to Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), 2101 Front St., #111, Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221 or fax to 330-928-2628 or email to GColeridge@afsc.org. Thanks!

Occupying Bush's State of the Union

Here’s what should “occupy” most of the time of George Bush’s State of the Union address tonight.

- - - - - -

My fellow Americans. Cabinet members. Congresspersons. Supreme Court Justices. Guests in the gallery who’ll I’ll reference in an attempt to score a political point.

I come before you tonight, my last State of the Union address, to share with you my reflections on a single topic – occupation.

The reality is that “occupation” much better describes US military actions in Iraq than “war.” Of course there remains brutal violence occurring in Iraq. The US military has killed, injured, and is responsible for the deaths of Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands. Nearly 4000 US troops have also been killed, tens of thousands injured. More than $720 million is spent every single day on the Iraq war according to my friends with the American Friends Service Committee — funds that could go to meeting the economic and social security needs in our communities. In addition, the US military is responsible for the destruction of Iraqi cities and villages, not to mention the natural environment as a result of US bombs, bullets, planes, tanks, guns and grenades. Killing, injuring and destroying are basic acts of war. The US is responsible for inflicting all these acts.

Yet, to call what is going on in Iraq simply as “war” is incomplete. The United States of America, with the backing of a vast majority of members of both political parties, has occupied a sovereign nation for nearly 5 years. We moved in and tried to take over the country in every way, beginning with the initial invasion, followed by the Coalition Provision Authority (CPA) led by my good buddy, Paul Bremer. The CPA issued orders and edicts seeking overall control of the economy, natural resources, public policies, politicians and basic governing rules. My administration has done all it can -- sometimes outwardly, other times behind the scenes -- to influence the Iraqi constitution, elections and candidates.. We currently are doing all we can to lock in the presence of US military bases for a generation or more and arm-twist the Iraqi Parliament to pass an Oil Law that will open up Iraqi oil reserves to US and other foreign based oil corporations. Invasion and control are among the basic acts of occupation. The US is responsible for all these acts.

Obviously, framing the US military presence in Iraq primarily as a “war” rather than an “occupation” has been pretty smart on my part … and those who invest in my administration.

Connected to “war” by our country are feelings of patriotism, loyalty and obedience to leaders like myself who come across as tough and strong. Implied in war is a threat to the homeland, providing ample opportunity to call for slashing domestic civil liberties, shifting federal spending to the military, and further consolidating my power. Snooping into your mail and email, listening in on your phone calls and arresting and holding people indefinitely is harder to sell under the guise of “occupying” a nation on the other side of the planet. It’s also much easier under the banner of war to create enemies – people to hate, and thus, an excuse to kill and destroy.

In contrast, an “occupation” of another people's country begs all sorts of discomforting questions, such as: “Why are we actually there?” “Why can’t people take care of themselves?” “Will we leave if a majority of people being occupied, as in Iraq, want us out?”

I’d rather not have to answer these questions. In plain and simple English, this is why we’re in a “war” and not an “occupation” in Iraq.

There’s a second type of “occupation” I want to share with you tonight, my fellow Americans.

It’s an occupation right here at home. It’s not a physical or military one of our cities, suburbs or rural communities by any foreign power. That kind of occupation is easy to see, obvious to everyone and, relatively speaking, easier to resist.

The occupation I’m talking about is much more insidious, one that involves invasion and control and ultimately, like a military occupation, threatens sovereignty, self-determination, and democracy.

Your public spaces, public arenas, public policies, and public trust have been invaded and have become controlled by a few people of wealth against the majority for a very long time. It precedes my administration. It includes Democratic administrations as well as Republican ones. The weapons of this form of occupation are not bombers, tanks or soldiers but the legal structure called the business corporation, aided by several sections of the United States Constitution.

Business corporations have over the past century amassed “rights” to invade and control (that is, occupy) vital parts of your lives, communities and society. Corporations occupy your health care space once reserved exclusively for patients and their doctors. They increasingly occupy your educational spaces once reserved exclusively for students and their teachers. Corporations increasingly occupy the nutrition spaces once reserved exclusively for farmers.

Corporations have invaded elections and political campaigns. They control the airwaves (television and radio) and major print media. They, not you, determine the majority of trade and investment, where plants and factories will move, who will be employed and who will not, what communities will thrive, which ones will suffer. They are threatening the heart and soul of life itself by claiming that human, animal and plant genes can be patented.

The list of arenas, my fellow Americans, within society where business corporations dominate would put any oppressive military occupation force with soldiers on every street corner to shame.

The wealthy few who run business corporations have expanded their occupying force thanks to the supply line of the US Constitution. Anti-democratic provisions in the Constitution (i.e. the Contracts and Commerce Clauses, no direct election of President, life-time appointments of Supreme Court Justices, and holding citizens indefinitely without charge in a national emergency) collectively place the rights of property above people. Corporate friendly Supreme Court justices anointed corporations with Bill of Rights (1st, 4th, 5th) protections over the past century – expanding the invasion and control of corporations into our politics, economy and culture.

Why am I telling you this? Freely admitting to it all? Simple. I’ve blown it on Iraq (no pun intended). As recently documented, my administration lied at least 935 times leading up to the Iraq war. My poll numbers are abysmally low. I want to salvage my legacy in some way.

This nation was founded by colonists who kicked out the occupation army of the most powerful nation on earth. Their task was simple compared to the one at hand. Yet, people are increasingly waking up, opposing my policies, but also increasingly questioning why they don’t have a real voice in what’s going on in their lives, communities and nation. Citizens are flexing their democratic muscles.

Herein lies hope for the future.

- - - - - -

While such thoughts are likely to occupy the attention of George Bush during his address tonight, may they occupy ours.