Showing posts with label Save. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Save. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Health care sign-ups surge _ will they save Dems?

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Health care sign-ups surge _ will they save Dems?

Monday, March 31, 2014

4 Arguments That Scream "Save Public Education!"



A vibrant society makes great individuals, not the other way around.








 


The education privatizers are trying to convince us that parental "choice" will solve all the problems in our schools. But the choice they have in mind is to dismantle a once-proud system of education that was nurtured and funded by a society of Americans willing to work together.


The wealthiest among us seem to have forgotten how important it is to cooperate, as most Americans did in the post-WW2 years, in order to forge new paths of productivity and inventiveness. A vibrant society makes great individuals, not the other way around. Education must be at the forefront of such cooperative thinking. Here are four good arguments for it.


1. Equal Opportunity is an American Mandate


In the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown vs. the Board of Education, Chief Justice Earl Warren said that education “is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Equally eminent future Justice Thurgood Marshall insisted on “the right of every American to an equal start in life.”


But now, as The Economist points out, “Whereas most OECD countries spend more on the education of poor children than rich ones, in America the opposite is true.” Poverty, of course, is of all colors, but it"s disproportionately black. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA shows that “segregated schools are systematically linked to unequal educational opportunities,” while theEconomic Policy Institute tells us that “African American students are more isolated than they were 40 years ago.” New York City is the best example of that.


Charters and vouchers are the "choice" of the free market. But the National Education Policy Center notes that “Charter schools…can shape their student enrollment in surprising ways,” through practices that often exclude “students with special needs, those with low test scores, English learners, or students in poverty.” Stanford"s updated CREDO study found that fewer special education students and fewer English language learners are served in charters than in traditional public schools.


2. Charter Advocate Michelle Rhee Is Wrong


She said, “I think that we are doing the wrong thing in our society when we are congratulating mediocrity and participation.” But among American children, whether "mediocre" or "exceptional," the ability to participate in a cooperative manner should be congratulated. Children have to learn to work with others before trying to outdo each other.


For parents, too, the public school system is a cooperative system of democracy in which everyone can participate. Business-minded people have tried to twist cooperation into anti-Americanism. A CNN report referred to our “Soviet-style” educational system. Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast and Ohio Republican State Representative Andrew Brenner both dismissed our system of public education as “socialist.” Netflix founder Reed Hastings made the remarkable assertion that schools “are prisoners” of democratic governance, and that there is “chaos” in freely elected school boards.


The National School Boards Association reminds us that “The school board represents the public’s voice in public education, providing citizen governance for what the public schools need and what the community wants.” Charter schools take away this valuable right. As Diane Ravitch explains, “Because they are loosely regulated, charter schools are often neither accountable nor transparent…Charter schools are "public" when it is time to claim public funding, but they have claimed…to be private corporations when their employees seek the protection of state labor laws.” Or when parents need to know what their school administrators are doing.


3. The Classroom is Not a Warehouse


Education is the next great opportunity for the big names in business, such as Rupert Murdoch, who called K-12 “a $ 500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed.” A McKinsey report estimates that education can be a $ 1.1 trillion business in the United States. Forbes notes: “The charter school movement [is] quickly becoming a backdoor for corporate profit.”


Charter administrators make a lot more money than their public school counterparts, as in New York City, where the top 16 charter school executives all earn more than public school Chancellor Dennis Walcott. The salaries of eight executives of the K12 chain, which gets over 86 percent of its profits from the taxpayers, went from $ 10 million to over $ 21 million in one year.


Their buzzwords are “education reform” and “standardized testing.” The Silicon Valley Business Journal reports that “Next year, K-12 schools across the United States will begin implementing Common Core State Standards, an education initiative that will drive schools to adopt technology in the classroom as never before…Apple, Google, Cisco and a swarm of startups are elbowing in to secure market share.” School districts are being hit with unexpected new costs, partly for curriculum changes, but also for technology upgrades, testing, and assessment. Los Angeles, for example, recently agreed to spend $ 1 billion for iPads for all the students, even as infrastructure deteriorates and art teachers are laid off.


To ensure that the public money keeps rolling in, companies are establishing PACs and lobbyist groups to influence school board elections. Teach for America worked behind the scenes with Chicago officials to plan the opening of charter schools to replace shuttered public schools. In the event of any funding improprieties, charters have their backs covered, insisting that they"re exempt from criminal laws because they are private. They"re public for funding purposes, private for nontransparency purposes.


4. Starve the Beast, Starve Society


The U.S. Department of Education reported that $ 197 billion is needed to repair the nation"s K-12 public school buildings. But the public system is going broke, starved by a lack of tax dollars. State budgets are providing less per-pupil funding for kindergarten through 12th grade than they did six years ago – in many cases far less.


It was estimated that total K-12 education cuts for fiscal 2012 were about $ 12.7 billion. In that same year, 155 of the largest U.S. corporations avoided about $ 14 billion in state taxes. Much of the remaining 50-state education fund is being transferred to charter schools.


Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD). As Diane Ravitch points out, the education privatizers are using FUD to undermine public confidence in public education. The myth of the failing public school is the newest version of weapons of mass destruction andrunaway entitlement spending and domino theory. It"s a masterful form of propaganda, inciting self-destructive sentiments among the public, and benefiting the business people who have a growing financial interest in our children.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



4 Arguments That Scream "Save Public Education!"

Saturday, March 29, 2014

This 14-year-old Figured Out How to Save the US Millions

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



This 14-year-old Figured Out How to Save the US Millions

Monday, March 24, 2014

IBM India Battles Fraud Amid Scramble To Save Its $2.5B Airtel Contract

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



IBM India Battles Fraud Amid Scramble To Save Its $2.5B Airtel Contract

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Amazing video - Hippo save Gnu from Crocodile

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Amazing video - Hippo save Gnu from Crocodile

Friday, March 7, 2014

Who"ll Save Ukraine

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Who"ll Save Ukraine

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Astronaut Calls Kid, 6, Who"s Fighting to Save NASA


(Newser) – A 6-year-old Denver boy is such a big fan of outer space that he created an online petition on the White House’s We the People website when he heard that Congress might slash NASA funding. Connor Johnson still has a long way to go—about 85,000 signatures—to warrant an official White House response, but a phone call yesterday is delivering a jolt of publicity. It came from none other than Gene Cernan, who was the last astronaut to walk on the moon 41 years ago, reports 9News.


“You’ve got to dream about things that a lot of other people think you can’t do,” Cernan told Connor. The youth started the petition when his family pointed out that his gesture of donating $ 10.41 from his piggy bank to NASA probably wouldn’t make much of a difference, reports the Independent. The pitch from Connor himself: “A lot of people want NASA to come back, even grown-ups,” he says. “It’s just really important so please sign it.”




Newser



Astronaut Calls Kid, 6, Who"s Fighting to Save NASA

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Beavis & Butthead Save The World: Documentary



Mike Judge invited Alex Jones to his Austin Tx home for a one on one interview. Mike covered the current IRS scandal, Alex’s epic interview on Piers Morgan, …
Video Rating: 4 / 5



Beavis & Butthead Save The World: Documentary

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Indian sage dreams of gold to save economy, government starts digging




NEW DELHI | Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:22am EDT




NEW DELHI (Reuters) – The Indian government is digging for treasure after a civic-minded Hindu village sage dreamt that 1,000 tons of gold was buried under a ruined palace, and wrote to tell the central bank about it.



The state Archaeological Survey of India has sent a team of archaeologists to the village of Daundia Khera in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. They are due to start digging on Friday, Praveen Kumar Mishra, the head archaeologist in the state, told Reuters.


Yogi Swami Shobhan Sarkar says the gold he dreamt of belonged to a nineteenth-century ruler, Rao Ram Bux Singh. He says he wants it in government hands to help India recover from an economic crisis.


“I cried the day I realized that India is going to collapse economically,” the seer told the Mail Today newspaper. The dead ruler’s spirit has been roaming the palace and asking for the gold to be dug up, he added.


“It is a hidden treasure for the country.”


Not all Hindu leaders are so keen to put bullion into the Reserve Bank of India’s vaults. Temples sitting on about half as much gold as in Fort Knox are resisting efforts by the central bank to audit their holdings.


Indians buy as much as 2.3 tons of gold, on average, every day – the weight of a small elephant – and what they don’t give to the gods is mostly hoarded.


That is costing the economy dear, since India has few gold mines. Gold imports totaled $ 54 billion in the year ending on March 31, 2013, a major factor in swelling the current account deficit and undermining the rupee.


Swami Sarkar’s dream haul of 1,000 tons would be enough to replace all of India’s imports for a year and would be worth at least $ 40 billion.


The archaeologists plan to dig two 100-square-metre blocks beside the palace. Mishra, however, warned that there was as yet no proof that any treasure lay beneath the soil of Daundia Khera village.


“We are still searching for the exact location and whether there is any treasure. It is all in the future,” he said. “We often just find pottery and metal antiquities, like agricultural tools or kitchen tools.”


(Reporting by Shyamantha Asokan; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel and Robert Birsel)



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | RFID | Amazon Affiliate

Reuters: Oddly Enough

Indian sage dreams of gold to save economy, government starts digging

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Can Robert Griffin III Save the NFL?


Quarterback Robert Griffin III #10 of the Washington Redskins warms up before playing the Buffalo Bills.

Washignton’s Robert Griffin III warms up before playing the Buffalo Bills during a preseason game at FedEx Field on Aug. 24, 2013 in Landover, Md.


Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images





It’s a widely held and probably comforting view that sports are driven by “transformative” athletes, a procession of unprecedented individual talents—Pelé, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods—that heroically drag their games to ever-escalating heights. Occasionally these players prompt physical transformations and rule changes, but usually their impact is more nebulous. Jordan never made anyone seriously consider raising the height of the hoop. He just played basketball better and more shrewdly than anyone else, and in doing so, he altered basketball’s cultural footprint, clearing the way for Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, maybe even Andrew Wiggins.




Robert Griffin III, 23 years old with a twice-reconstructed right knee, is, we’re told, one of these transformative athletes. This offseason, Griffin has been the subject of two full-length books, Dave Sheinin’s RG3: The Promise and Ted Kluck’s Robert Griffin III: Athlete, Leader, Believer, and both frame Griffin as an epochal, superhuman talent. “Someday historians may look back at the Redskins’ second play from scrimmage in their win over the Saints and pinpoint it as the moment offensive football changed forever in the NFL,” writes Sheinin. Kluck’s explicitly faith-based book goes even further, offering up RG3 as a sort of Cartesian theological proof: “RG3 and football should remind us of who it is that we really worship. … There’s something in Robert’s game that suggests that God made him to do exactly this, exactly now.” Take that, Tim Tebow.




Griffin was also the focus of a recent hourlong ESPN special that documented his rehabilitation process, his family life, and his insatiable thirst for Gatorade. And in May, Washington fans unearthed Griffin’s wedding registry and showered him and his fiancée with gifts, the sort of desperate affection normally lavished on a coveted free agent or a star player feared to be on the verge of departure. If Sunday football is America’s secular religion, all of this hagiography and breathless devotion has made Griffin seem like some blessed apparition: precious, magical, fleeting. We love him, and because we love him, we can’t stop worrying about him.




On Monday night, Griffin will embark on what’s likely to be the most scrutinized, parsed and reparsed, second-, third-, and fourth-guessed season in the history of American professional sports. Some of this has to do with his position as arguably the most popular player in the country’s most popular game. Mostly it is because of that right knee, a body part that’s become a microcosm for America’s mixed-up love affair with football.




As an athlete, marketing conduit, and general ambassador for the human race, Robert Griffin III leaves awfully little to be desired. A Texas high school football legend who was also a basketball star and an Olympic-caliber hurdler, Griffin passed on Stanford and Harvard to stay close to home at Baylor University, where he graduated with a 3.67 GPA, a degree in political science, and the 2011 Heisman Trophy. The following spring, Washington swung a blockbuster trade to draft Griffin second overall, after Andrew Luck. Before taking his first snap, the young quarterback had signed lucrative endorsement deals with Gatorade, Adidas, Subway, Nissan, and other corporate interests.  




Griffin did not disappoint any of his new employers. In his first season, he was named the NFL’s offensive rookie of the year, leading the league in yards per passing attempt and yards per rushing attempt while setting a rookie record for quarterback rating. This was one of the most electrifying debut seasons in football history, one in which RG3 appeared to usher the sport into a new era athletically, aesthetically, and culturally.




MySlate is a new tool that lets you track your favorite parts of Slate. You can follow authors and sections, track comment threads you’re interested in, and more.




Slate Articles



Can Robert Griffin III Save the NFL?

Friday, August 30, 2013

The poor and the middle class will save America yet


A few days ago I had breakfast with a man who had been one of my mentors in college, who participated in the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s and has devoted much of the rest of his life in pursuit of equal opportunity for minorities, the poor, women, gays, immigrants — and also for average hardworking people who have been beaten down by the economy. Now in his mid-80s, he’s still active.


I asked him if he thought America would ever achieve true equality of opportunity.


“Not without a fight,” he said. “Those who have wealth and power and privilege don’t want equal opportunity. It’s too threatening to them.They’ll pretend equal opportunity already exists, and that anyone who doesn’t make it in America must be lazy or stupid or otherwise undeserving.”


“You’ve been fighting for social justice for over half a century. Are you discouraged?”


“Not at all!” he said. “Don’t confuse the difficulty of attaining a goal with the urgency of fighting for it.”


“But have we really made progress? Inequality is widening. The middle class and the poor are in many ways worse off than they were decades ago.”


“Yes, and they’re starting to understand that,” he said. “And beginning to see that the distinction between the middle class and poor is disappearing. Many who were in the middle have fallen into poverty; many more will do so.”


“And, so?”





He smiled. “For decades, those at the top have tried to convince the middle class that their economic enemies are minorities and the poor. But that old divide-and-conquer strategy is starting to fail. And as it fails, it will be possible to create a political coalition of the poor and the middle class. It will be a powerful coalition! Remember, demographics are shifting. Soon America will be a majority of minorities. And women are gaining more and more economic power.”


“But the 400 richest Americans are now wealthier than the bottom 150 million Americans put together — and have more political influence than ever.”


“Just you wait,” he laughed. “I wish I had another 50 years in me.”





Salon.com



The poor and the middle class will save America yet

Is the War to Save Face or Save Lives?



Most of the arguments pro and con for an intervention in Syria have already been made.


I think the consensus is that while stopping Assad in 2011 might have been wise (before the use of the WMD and 100,000 dead), doing so now is, well, problematic.


He has shown far more resilience than the administration thought when it ordered him to leave (dictators rarely leave when ordered to by an American president). The opposition seems far more dominated by al-Qaeda affiliates than originally thought (not all that many Westernized intellectuals, persecuted minorities, and Arab Spring bloggers are still left on the barricades).


In addition, both critics and supporters of the president point out that had Obama just kept quiet, he could have kept the option of intervening on his own timetable, rather than being forced to when his rhetorical red lines were not merely crossed but erased in humiliating fashion. Since his bluff has been called, he now has to act to save face rather than to save lives — 100,000 of them too late.


Yet the rub is not just that it is unlikely that we can find all the WMD depots and destroy them safely from the air (keeping them out of both Assad’s and our allies’ hands).


Nor is the problem just that it is unlikely that a limited punitive blow against Assad will topple him (and then what?) and restore American rhetorical credibility.


Instead, we are not sure that the opposition is likely to be any better than the monster Assad. Did we learn nothing from Libya and Egypt? The paradox in the Middle East is that Americans can control the postwar landscape and promote consensual government only by inserting large numbers of ground troops — an unacceptable political reality. A Putinesque shelling and bombing solution (more rubble, less trouble) is ethically unacceptable to most Americans.


Then there are the domestic politics. During the Iraq War, authorization from Congress was essential; now it is not? The excruciating and ultimately failed effort in 2002 at the UN took weeks; now it is not even attempted by a Peace Prize laureate? Bombing a monstrous regime guilty of past WMD use was amoral; now it is ethical?


In 2006-8, Assad was a reformer, worth visiting and cajoling, declared unjustly alienated by a jingoistic Bush administration, and worthy of restoring relations with. And now he is satanic (what did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry think those army units they saw during their visits were for — parades and pomp? Did they recall his father Hama?). In short, here at home, the outs are in, and the ins are out, and the arguments make the necessary adjustments.


The president cited Iraq yesterday. Let us revisit it for a second. Many of us supported the Iraq War — not in 1998 or before 9/11 when some of the most fiery adherents of regime change were lobbying both Bill Clinton and George Bush for “regime change” — but on the general premise that in a post-9/11 climate, the no-fly-zones and oil embargoes were waning and a genocidal monster would always resume being a genocidal monster at the heart of regional unrest.


But we remember how after each week of escalating violence, supporters jumped ship. The congressional bipartisan vote to approve action had outlined well the reasons why Saddam should go, some 23 writs, the vast majority of them having nothing to do with WMD. That is not to say that WMD was not hyped by the administration to galvanize support, but only to remind us that Saddam’s genocidal record transcended WMD and by 2003 he had probably killed 10 times more than has Assad so far in his war.


After stockpiles of WMD were not found, did the other 20-something writs (genocide, bounties for suicide bombers, assassination attempts against a former U.S. president, harboring murderous terrorists, etc.?) not apply?


As the occupation went badly, the public’s 75% support for the war dipped below 40%. The stalwarts of the Democratic Party flipped (e.g., John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc.) and saw an anti-war stance as critical to the party’s 2006 recovery. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore became ephemeral media darlings. Someone named Obama emerged, decrying the war, drone bombing, renditions, preventative detentions, and Guantanamo Bay.


Indeed, many conservatives who very early on had wanted the war now claimed that their brilliant three-week war was now someone else’s fouled up years-long occupation, forgetting Matthew Ridgway’s dictum that the only thing worse than fighting a bad war was losing one.


I cite all this to remind the current proponents of action that should we begin hitting the wrong targets, find that Islamists are using our air cover to commit atrocities, discover that the militias are turning postwar Syria into postwar Libya, or find that we are forced to settle up with Hezbollah, Iran, or some other third-party, those now advocating for action most likely will cite administration incompetence as sufficient reasons for why they are withdrawing their support. I doubt they will sink or swim to the last bomb with Commander-in-Chief Obama.


In short, from what we’ve seen from this administration with its withdrawal dates in Afghanistan, its boasts about getting every single soldier out of Iraq, its deadlines to Iran, its red lines to Syria, its reset with Vladimir Putin, and its euphemistic war on terror, it is simply not up to a sustained air war over Syria, or anything much other than a day or two of lobbying cruise missiles. To think that it is will sorely disappoint present supporters of bombing Assad.


Both the American people and the U.S. Congress already sense that. We should too. 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



Is the War to Save Face or Save Lives?

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Grotesque Plan for Detroit: Fleece Working People to Save the Banks



Municipal workers could be robbed of pension funds to pay big banks for payments due on interest rate swaps.








The Detroit bankruptcy is looking suspiciously like the bail-in template originated by the G20’s Financial Stability Board in 2011, which exploded on the scene in Cyprus in 2013 and is now becoming the model globally. In Cyprus, the depositors were “bailed in” (stripped of a major portion of their deposits) to re-capitalize the banks. In Detroit, it is the municipal workers who are being bailed in, stripped of a major portion of their pensions to save the banks.


Bank of America Corp. and UBS AG have been given priority over other bankruptcy claimants, meaning chiefly the pensioners, for payments due on interest rate swaps they entered into with the city. Interest rate swaps – the exchange of interest rate payments between counterparties – are sold by Wall Street banks as a form of insurance, something municipal governments “should” do to protect their loans from an unanticipated increase in rates. Unlike ordinary insurance, however, swaps are actually just bets; and if the municipality loses the bet, it can owe the house, and owe big. The swap casino is almost entirely unregulated, and it is a rigged game that the house virtually always wins. Interest rate swaps are based on the LIBOR rate, which has now been proven to be manipulated by the rate-setting banks; and they were a major contributor to Detroit’s bankruptcy.


Derivative claims are considered “secured” because the players must post collateral to play. They get not just priority but “super-priority” in bankruptcy, meaning they go first before all others, a deal pushed through by Wall Street in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. Meanwhile, the municipal workers, whose pensions are theoretically protected under the Michigan Constitution, are classified as “unsecured” claimants who will get the scraps after the secured creditors put in their claims. The banking casino, it seems, trumps even the state constitution. The banks win and the workers lose once again.


Systemically Dangerous Institutions Are Moved to the Head of the Line


The argument for the super-priority of derivative claims is that nonpayment on these bets represents a “systemic risk” to the financial scheme. Derivative bets are cross-collateralized and are so inextricably entwined in a $ 600-plus trillion house of cards that the whole financial scheme could go down if the betting scheme were to collapse. Instead of banning or regulating this very risky casino, Congress has been persuaded by the masterminds of Wall Street that it needs to be preserved at all costs.


The same tortured logic has been used to justify the fact that the federal government deigned to bail out Wall Street but not Detroit. Supposedly, the mega-banks pose a systemic risk and Detroit doesn’t. On July 29th, former Obama administration economist Jared Bernstein pursued this line of reasoning on his blog, writing:


[T]he correct motivation for federal bailouts — meaning some combination of managing a bankruptcy, paying off creditors (though often with a haircut), or providing liquidity in cases where that’s the issue as opposed to insolvency – is systemic risk. The failure of large, major banks, two out of the big three auto companies, the secondary market for housing – all of these pose unacceptably large risks to global financial markets, and thus the global economy, to a major industry, including its upstream and downstream suppliers, and to the national housing sector.


Because a) there’s not much of a case that Detroit is systemically connected in those ways, and b) Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code appears to provide an adequate way for it to deal with its insolvency, I don’t think anything like a large scale bailout is forthcoming.



Holding Main Street Hostage


Detroit’s bankruptcy poses no systemic risk to Wall Street and global financial markets. Fine. But it does pose a systemic risk to Main Street, local governments, and the contractual rights of pensioners. Credit rating agency Moody’s stated in a recent report that if Detroit manages to cut its pension obligations, other struggling cities could follow suit. The Detroit bankruptcy is establishing a template for wiping out government pensions everywhere. Chicago or New York could be next.


There is also the systemic risk posed to the municipal bond system. Bryce Hoffman, writing in The Detroit News on July 30th, warned:


Detroit’s bankruptcy threatens to change the rules of the municipal bond game and already is making it more expensive for the state’s other struggling towns and school districts to borrow money and fund big infrastructure projects.


In fact, one bond analyst told The Detroit News that he has spoken to major institutional investors who have already decided to stop, for now, buying any Michigan bonds.



The real concern of bond investors, says Hoffman, is not the default of Detroit but the precedent the city is setting. General obligation municipal bonds have always been viewed as a virtually risk-free investment. They are unsecured, but bondholders have considered themselves protected because the bonds are backed by the “unlimited taxing authority” of the government that issued them. Detroit, however, has shown that the city’s taxing authority is far from unlimited.  It already has the highest property taxes of any major city in the country, and it is bumping up against a ceiling imposed by the state constitution. If Detroit is able to cut its bond debt in half or more by defaulting, other distressed cities are liable to look very closely at following suit. Hoffman writes:


The bond market is warning that this will make Michigan a pariah state and raise borrowing costs — not just for Detroit and other troubled municipalities, but also for paragons of fiscal virtue such as Oakland and Livingston counties.



However, writes Hoffman:


Gov. Rick Snyder dismisses that threat and says the bond market is just trying to turn Detroit away from a radical solution that could become a model for other struggling cities across America.



A Safer, Saner, More Equitable Model


Interestingly, Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, Snyder’s Democratic opponent in the last gubernatorial race, proposed a solution that could have avoided either robbing the pensioners or scaring off the bondholders: a state-owned bank. If the state or the city had its own bank, it would not need to borrow from Wall Street, worry about interest rate swaps, or be beholden to the bond vigilantes. It could borrow from its own bank, which would leverage the local government’s capital into credit, back that credit with the deposits created by the government’s own revenues, and return the interest to the government as a dividend, following the ground-breaking model of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota.


There are other steps that need to be taken, and soon, to prevent a cascade of municipal bankruptcies.  The super-priority of derivatives in bankruptcy needs to be repealed, and the protections of Glass Steagall need to be restored. While we are waiting on a very dilatory Congress, however, state and local governments might consider protecting themselves and their revenues by setting up their own banks.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Grotesque Plan for Detroit: Fleece Working People to Save the Banks

Friday, July 12, 2013

Pelosi On Immigration Reform: We"ll Save Hardball For Later


Whether there’s an immigration reform bill or not depends to a large degree on how House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) chooses to run the House. But if there is going to be an immigration reform bill, it won’t be Boehner’s show alone.


As Boehner effectively acknowledged Thursday, passing legislation that could conceivably become consensus comprehensive immigration reform will require both Democratic and Republican votes. And that means Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will have tremendous sway over what the House produces.


But for now Pelosi’s being cautious with that power. Though she’s urged Republicans to pass a single, bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, and to move with deliberate haste, she’s stopped short of nixing the process the GOP has chosen to move immigration legislation and is even tolerant of the rhetorical games Republicans are playing as they try to cobble together a majority for provisions dealing with the 11 million immigrants currently in the country illegally.


And she won’t go anywhere close — yet — to introducing what’s known as a “discharge petition” — which, with 218 signatures, would force a House vote on the Senate’s comprehensive bill.


“I fully subscribe to the idea that we should have a House bill … we shouldn’t have to just accept the Senate bill,” Pelosi told TPM in a wide-ranging interview Wednesday. “However, there is a Senate bill. And that gives leverage to those who say ‘now pass something in the House. Pass something and go to conference.’ If you don’t, there will be strong public sentiment, to take up, give us a vote, on the Senate bill.”


If we reach that point in the weeks and months ahead, Pelosi will probably step up the pressure and take procedural steps to secure — or attempt to secure — a vote on the Senate bill. But we’re not there yet. There’s political value in allowing the GOP to try to sort this out among themselves. Furthermore, skipping steps and going straight to hardball probably diminishes the chances her actions would be successful. And so Pelosi won’t even entertain hypothetical scenarios about the consequences if the House GOP can’t ultimately pass anything.


“I’m more optimistic than you are about this,” she added. “I really do believe that we shouldn’t be saying if you don’t do this we’re going to be doing that.”


But she does acknowledge that Boehner will run into problems moving piecemeal immigration bills if he adheres to the criterion that immigration reform legislation must have the support of more than half of his conference.


“I don’t even know if they can pass those on the floor though,” Pelosi added. “I don’t even know if they can pass those bills though. So at some point they’re going to have to have a bipartisan vote on whatever they send forward.”


Pelosi is similarly sanguine about a different congressional imperative — replacing Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court struck down last month.


“We had meetings immediately after the Supreme Court decision,” she said. “People have been tasked to do different things in a bipartisan way. The Judiciary Committee will have a hearing next week. … It’s about timing. We really have to do it this year. We can have hearings. We can do this, we can do that. But it should be done in a way that accomplishes all of it this year, because you see states are already using this interim period to make mischief.”


You’d think that urgency might prompt her to tout the procedural and messaging power of a discharge petition. But as with immigration reform, there are political reasons to let the GOP try to get its act together on its own first.


“[Voting Rights Act reauthorization] was very strongly bipartisan,” Pelosi said. “So it wasn’t as if it eked its way through and now they’re going to get even. It was very bipartisan. We believe it will continue to be.”



Brian Beutler

Brian Beutler is TPM’s senior congressional reporter. Since 2009, he’s led coverage of health care reform, Wall Street reform, taxes, the GOP budget, the government shutdown fight, and the debt limit fight. He can be reached at brian@talkingpointsmemo.com.





submit to reddit




TPM News



Pelosi On Immigration Reform: We"ll Save Hardball For Later

Thursday, June 20, 2013

App Swaps Children"s Book Text With News To Save Bored Parents" Sanity


Magic Story Maker sneakily replaces the text in children’s book illustrations so you can read the news to your unassuming toddler. (Mwahaha…)



Magic Story Maker Your child will…never know the difference? FWIW, via iTunes Store


Like puppies, kids are wildly energetic and easy to fool. My siblings once recited a “hilarious joke” to my toddler cousin: an arduous, incomprehensible story, ending with the punchline: “Soap! It was the soap!” They then burst into laughter, on cue, and my amusingly gullible cousin followed suit, laughing uproariously.


Such is the idea with the new app, Magic Story Maker. The app comes equipped with three storybook themes, and all you have to do is choose your favorite news stories to plug in. Sure, parents can tolerate reading Sylvester and the Magic Pebble to their kids once or twice, but wouldn’t pretty pictures suffice? All the while you can be keeping yourself up-to-date on your daily news, child none the wiser–heck, hearing about four-quark particles might even fool me if accompanied by pretty, fantastical illustrations.


“Plus you’ll be doing your child a favor. Research indicates that reading articles such as these helps build vocabulary, which leads to higher IQs later in life,” claims the app’s description. “It makes sense—the child who is read science news every day is going to be much smarter than the one who learns that a cow goes moo 8,000 times in a year.”


The app is available for just $ 1.99 here—just imagine how much more you’ll know about current events! And plus, this feels way less unethical than that other tongue-in-cheek bedtime book….




Popular Science – New Technology, Science News, The Future Now



App Swaps Children"s Book Text With News To Save Bored Parents" Sanity

Monday, May 27, 2013

Going to Jail to Save the Wild from Oil and Gas Drilling



Tim DeChristopher bid at auction for drilling rights to protect 150,000 acres of Utah"s wilderness — and paid the price.








So if we now have representative government in name only, and are governed instead by corporations and their lobbyists, what’s to be done? Tim DeChristopher wrestled with that reality and decided what he would do.


As a result, he spent almost two years in prison. He’s out now, and you can learn the whole story in the new documentary, Bidder 70.


In December 2008, as the Bush administration was coming to an end, this environmental activist, then 27 years old, went to an auction of gas and oil drilling rights on more than 150,000 acres of Utah wilderness, all of it public land. It was a sale DeChristopher believed to be illegal.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: Instead of getting dragged out they said “Hi. Are you here for the auction?”


And I said, “Yes, I am.” And they said, “Are you here to be a bidder?” And I said, “Well, yes, I am”.


AUCTIONEER in BIDDER 70: I have two and a quarter in the back and now to two and a half…


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: I saw right away with that bid card they’d given me, I could really disrupt this process. I had all these visions of my future and all the catastrophic effects of climate change, but if I start to bid on this there’s a decent chance I could go to prison. Could I live with that? And I thought, well, yeah. It’d suck, but I could live with it.


AUCTIONEER in BIDDER 70: Three fifths and four and five…


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: And I finally took that step, and jumped all the way in and started winning parcels. I started winning all the parcels.


AUCTIONEER in BIDDER 70: And five, are you all in? Are you all done? At fifty dollars, sold fifty dollars to Bidder number 70, Bidder 70[…]


REPORTER 1 in BIDDER 70: An environmentalist threw a controversial oil and gas lease auction into turmoil today.


REPORTER 2 in BIDDER 70: Well Tim DeChristopher says he’s willing to go to jail, and it’s possible that’s where he’ll wind up.


REPORTER 3 in BIDDER 70: A college student may face federal criminal charges for disrupting that auction with bogus bids.


BILL MOYERS: The federal government indicted Tim DeChristopher on two felony counts, even though the oil and gas auction had been quickly declared null and void by the new Obama administration and its Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.


KEN SALAZAR in BIDDER 70: Because of the need to review these parcels, and because of their proximity to landscapes of national significance, I have directed the Bureau of Land Management not to accept the bids on the 77 parcels.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: To see this land and this view, there’s no way that I could ever regret what I did. To see that the land looks like this, that it’s this beautiful, and to know it’s going to keep looking like this, it’s still going to look this way, and there’s not going to be an oil rig in the way. There’s not going to be a road cut right through the middle of it. That’s really reaffirming, and I think really justifies my actions.


BILL MOYERS: The legal process dragged on. Tim DeChristopher held out for a trial by jury, despite government attempts to make a deal.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: I’ve been offered a couple informal plea bargains. The one formal one was for as little as thirty days in jail. My lawyers said they do really want you to serve some time to set an example that discourages other people from doing this and I said that’s exactly why I’m not going to take this deal, because I have the opposite motivation, and it’s really rubbed me the wrong way about any kind of solution that doesn’t involve a jury.


BILL MOYERS: The jury was instructed by the judge to rule only on the strict letter of the law and not to make any moral judgments. They found Tim DeChristopher guilty and he was sentenced to two years in federal prison.


Outside the courtroom, activists from Peaceful Uprising, the grassroots environmental group DeChristopher co-founded, protested the verdict. Twenty-six were arrested.


Now Tim DeChristopher is free and contemplating both his own future and that of the climate change movement in the name of which he said he picked up that bidder card with the number 70.


Welcome Tim.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Thanks for having me.


BILL MOYERS: You are free. Five years have passed, two of them in prison. Was it worth that much of your time?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah, absolutely. I mean I think more so than I anticipated. You know, when I went into this, I was pretty focused on the direct impacts of my actions, keeping that oil in the ground under those parcels and stopping this particular auction. And that was mostly effective. That goal was met. And I think the impacts on myself and on the climate movement over the past few years and on the community of people that has grown up around that action, the group Peaceful Uprising that I helped start I think those impacts turned out to be much more important than just keeping that oil in the ground.


BILL MOYERS: So when did you know for sure that you were going to be convicted?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: During the jury selection of the trial. That was what really did it. There was a moment during the jury selection we had this huge jury pool because it was a high profile case. And there was a moment where the prosecution and the judge found out that most of that jury pool had gotten a pamphlet before they came in on the first day from the Fully Informed Jurors Association. And it was a pamphlet that didn"t say anything about my case, but it talked about jury"s rights. It talked about why we have juries. And it, you know, quoted the founders of the country on juries being the conscience of the community. And the prosecution flipped out over this. It was the only time I saw the prosecutor completely lose his cool during the whole process. And we went into the judge"s chambers and the prosecutor was screaming and saying, “We should have a mistrial here.” And wanted to just throw the whole thing out.


BILL MOYERS: Because of this pamphlet that were—


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Right. Right. I mean, the prosecutor was almost spitting when he was reading from this and saying, “This notion of voting your conscience it’s out in space.” And he was terrified. He was, he was really scared of what was on that pamphlet. And then rather than get rid of the whole jury pool, the judge called the jurors in one at a time to his chambers. And I was—


BILL MOYERS: Each one individually?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah.


BILL MOYERS: Privately?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. And my legal team and I were on one side of the table. The prosecution was on the other side. The judge was at the head of the table and there was one juror at a time at the other end. And the judge would say, “You understand it"s not your job to decide what"s right or wrong here. Your job is to listen to what I say the law says, and you have to enforce it, even if you think it"s morally wrong. Can you do that? Can you follow my instructions, even if you think they"re morally wrong?”


And unless they said yes, they weren"t on the jury. And I was sitting in the seat closest to the juror. And I watched one person after another say, “Yes, your Honor, I"ll do whatever you tell me to do, even if I think it"s morally wrong.” And they meant it. And that"s when I knew that I was going to be convicted.


BILL MOYERS: Because they were going to decide if the law had been broken, not if it was a good law?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. Yeah. And the judge would define for them what the boundaries of that law was. And, you know, so basically it was if he committed this action, then he"s guilty and you have to convict him.


BILL MOYERS: Had you thought about whether it"s the duty of a jury to decide that an act is morally right or wrong, or to decide in fact if in the law has been broken?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Not before I started the legal process. You know, leading up to my trial I was reading up about jury rights and jury nullification and the history of juries. And why the founding fathers thought it was so important to have jury trials.


Because, you know, they saw this system where if the government was passing law that were out of line with the conscience of most of our society, people would refuse to follow that law. Take their case before a jury of their peers, who would decide whether or not that law was you know, in accordance with their shared values and the conscience of our community.


BILL MOYERS: You talked a good bit about that in your in the statement you made at your sentencing hearing. You quoted the Founding Fathers. So I did a little research before I came here and came across John Adams.


Quote, “It is not only the juror"s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” But that was over 200 years ago.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: And that"s been part of the evolution of our legal system over the past 200 years, as we"ve evolved from a people who set up a government afraid of the power of government, afraid of the concentration of power and wanting to keep power in the hands of people. And now we have a government that wants to concentrate as much power as they can and is afraid of the people.


You know, that"s been the huge shift that we"ve had over that over the course of those centuries. And we"ve seen an extreme minimization of the role of the jury and a restriction on the right to a jury. You know, we have hardly any jury trials anymore. Hardly any of the people that I was locked up with in prison had gone through jury trials, because they"re pressured into plea bargains. And it"s just taken for granted by everyone in our legal system that defense attorneys, judges, prosecutors, that defendants will be punished if they exercise their right to a jury trial.


You know, the first thing a public defender will tell one of their defendants is, “You know, if you try to take this to trial, you"ll get 30 years. You"ll get 40. You know, you need to make a plea bargain so you just get ten or 15.” And that"s, you know, considered a good deal. And if you"re punished for exercising a right, then it"s not a right. So essentially the right to a jury trial no longer exists.


BILL MOYERS: So you"re saying that the jury that convicted you and sent you to prison failed to act as “The conscience of the community”?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Well, and there was a tremendous amount of pressure on them to do that. You know, I mean, these are people who have no experience who have, you know, probably never been on jury duty before because it"s a rare thing. Even though we"re locking up unprecedented numbers of people, we have very few jury trials. So they don"t have that kind of experience.


And they come into this huge courthouse, go through two different metal detectors and security screenings, come into this, you know, majestic courtroom, with the judge sitting up above them, speaking to them in this very patriarchal kind of way. And with all this authority behind them and saying, “It"s not your job to do what"s right or wrong.” And people believed that. And, you know, watching that happen, it, I"d say it was the first time I really understood how some of the great atrocities in history could happen, where you"d have an entire population that, you know, plays out the plans of a tyrannical dictator, how things like genocide could happen when people are willing to let go of their own moral agency and say, “Well, it"s not my job to decide what"s right or wrong.”


BILL MOYERS: But in a country as large and diverse as this, how can we know that 12 people, much less one person, represent the conscience of the community.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Well—


BILL MOYERS: A big community, a lot of different opinions, beliefs, moral values, religious convictions.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: And you"re certainly not going to get the same kind of answer every time. And that"s why, you know, civil disobedience is always a risky thing. It does always involve that risk of taking your case before a jury of 12 random people. And it should. You know, to break an existing law, you should have to feel that strongly about it.


You should have to be that confident that this law"s out of line with the values of our community. And be that willing to make that sacrifice. You know, I don"t think it should be an easy or convenient thing. There should be that kind of risk involved in civil disobedience. But by the same token, those citizens, those 12 citizens on the jury, should be empowered and fully informed to make whatever kind of ruling they see is appropriate.


BILL MOYERS: Do you see any irony in the sentence you received, up to two years in prison, compared to what happened to BP when that oil spill killed 11 workers, injured 17 and wreaked havoc with the environment along the Gulf Coast. Yet no one from the company went to jail. They paid a big fine, but no one went to jail.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah, I mean, there"s certainly irony there, but I also think that the law is the tool of those in power. And you know, it"s corporations like BP that are in power right now. I mean Glenn Greenwald wrote a great book called “With Liberty and Justice for Some” about how we have a two-tiered justice system in this country.


We don"t really have a rule of law, we have two justice systems. And the division is not necessarily strictly between rich people and poor people. The division is between those that promote the concentration of power in the hands of the elite versus those that threaten to distribute that power or take away some of that power. And I think part of the mistake that a lot of people make is thinking that the law or words like legal are synonymous with moral or just. And that"s not the case, I mean most of our great examples of morality throughout history are people who broke the law.


BILL MOYERS: That remind me of a scene from the film. Take a look.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: There’s been a lot of historical influences from civil disobedience that have influenced me, and you know, most of them were preaching non-violence and this idea of non-violence not meaning being soft. Kind of a strong peaceful resistance, and that power that comes through love.


JOHN SCHUCHARDT in BIDDER 70: It doesn’t start so much as with a movement of thinking as a movement of the heart. The young people who saw segregated lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960, those four students ignited a movement that ultimately involved hundreds and thousands of people, because that movement of the heart, touched the hearts of others.


DAVID HARRIS in BIDDER 70: The initial preface of that revolution has to be a simple one.


The civil rights movement kind of introduced the whole notion of the possibility of making social change happen.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: I think that’s part of what my generation lacks, is that we haven’t had these tangible examples of what it looks like when people take power and are committed to changing the system.


JOHN SCHUCHART in BIDDER 70: Dr. King said if I can get five percent, I can change the situation. I only need five percent. It’s never a matter of the majority. It’s always a matter of conscience, and conscience only operates through an individual.


BILL MOYERS: I was impressed with the statement you made in your hearing, your sentencing hearing. You said, “I say this,” what you just talked about, the conscience of the community and why you were doing what you were doing. “I say this not because I want your mercy, but because I want you to join me.” Is there evidence that people are signing up in sufficient numbers for similar acts of civil disobedience to reach some kind of critical mass?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. I think the numbers that it takes for civil disobedience, if people are actually committed to it, are not overwhelming majority numbers. I mean, you know, for years there have been all these polls that say, you know, only half of Americans are, you know, believe climate change is happening or, you know, only a third of them actually understand what climate change really is. Those sort of polls happen all the time.


And, you know, they"re generally presented in a kind of discouraging way. And I look at that and I say, “Well, that"s plenty. You know, that"s more than enough.” That you know, a third of Americans who might understand this issue. That"s 100 million people. That"s more than enough to create change in this country if those people are willing to actually act like they believe it. If you know these are the people that understand that our children"s future is on the line right now.


If they"re willing to act like that, then we can create the change that we need to.


BILL MOYERS: Did you see that cover of The Nation magazine recently? “It"s Not Warming, It"s Dying,” referring to the earth. Do you agree with that, that it"s more than global warming? It"s actually an existential threat to the planet?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Not really. I mean, I think it"s an existential threat to our industrial civilization. It"s a threat to the kind of planet that we have evolved on, the kind of planet that we"ve always lived on. But I think both the planet and human beings are resilient. And I think there will be some kind of survival. The thing that scares me is what we will have to do in order to survive.


BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Whether we"ll turn against each other. You know, I mean, I don"t think seven billion people can survive in a climate constricted world. And it"s that process of contraction where things can get really ugly. And, you know, I don"t think it"s even to the direct impacts of it that is the scariest. I think the scariest is, you know, who"s making the decisions during that time of chaos. And what kind of drastic measures are we going to be willing to resort to. And again, that"s where, you know, a lot of our historic atrocities happen. You know, if we look at places like Darfur, it"s not the direct impacts of the water crisis and the water shortage that they that, you know, is why Darfur is such a humanitarian crisis. It"s because of what people were willing to do in the face of that crisis and the way that they turned against each other. That"s where things got really ugly.


And I think those are those are the challenges that we now face as a climate movement as it"s in all likelihood too late for any amount of emissions reductions to stop runaway climate change which means that we are on this path of rapid change. We know we"re going down this path of unprecedented change. And so it"s really important who is calling the shots during that time. The collapse of industrial civilization with an ignorant, apathetic citizenry that"s afraid of their own government and feels like they have to accept what corporations want to do, that"s really scary. That really ugly. And that"s, I think, the big challenge that we face now.


BILL MOYERS: You were quoted somewhere saying, quote, “The climate justice movement is not looking for Walmart to be a friendlier corporate master. They want to overthrow Walmart.” Can you help us understand what this means?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: We don"t want Walmart to be a greener, corporate citizen. We want Walmart to be subservient to human interests. We don"t think corporations should be masters of men. And you know, that"s really, that"s the difference between the climate justice movement and the environmental movement, in my opinion.


Or the big green side of the environmental movement. That we"re not looking for a cleaner, greener version of the world that we have now. We"re looking for a genuinely healthy and just world.


BILL MOYERS: I mean, people are driving hybrids and they are urging businesses to go green. And they"re trying to save energy here and there. But yet, there"s a recent poll that shows people do not think about the environment in the terms they did the day after Earth Day back in 1971. They"re not as concerned about it.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. And, you know, I think one of the weaknesses of the environmental movement and parts of the climate movement is that it"s always encouraged people to think as consumers, to think about what they can do in their consumer purchases to drive in a hybrid of, you know, buy the right light bulbs and that sort of thing.


And I think that"s understandable because we have so many reminders of our role as a consumer. You know, we see, like, 3,000 advertisements a day that all remind us you"re a consumer. That"s who you are. And we don"t have nearly as many reminders that we"re also citizens of what was once the greatest democracy in the world.


We"re also human beings and community members who can connect with one another and inspire one another. And these are also ways that we can be powerful. You know and these are also the ways that we need to engage. And I think I think there"s more of that now. I think in the past few years, especially for the younger generation, there"s been more of the reminders that we are citizens. That we can shape our society. And there"s been this resurgence of people power which I think will have big reverberations.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70: The way the environmental movement has been for the past thirty years, it’s like a football game. And there are some players on the field that are fighting it out, but most of the people in the stadium are up in the stands. Most of them just paid their money at the door, and now they’re just yelling and screaming, and it’s not working. Our team is getting slaughtered. The refs have been paid off, and the other side is playing with dirty tricks. And so it’s no longer acceptable for us to stay in the stands. It’s time to rush the field, and it’s time to stop the game


ASHLEY ANDERSON in BIDDER 70: When you’re occupying the Department of the Interior saying, “You’re perpetuating climate change, destroying lives around the world. We’re not going to take that anymore, and we’re going to risk arrest.”


CORI REDSTONE in BIDDER 70: Much of what prepared me to be arrested in D.C. was the background and training I received through Peaceful Uprising, and I was ready. I was ready to get arrested.


JOAN GREGORY in BIDDER 70: In all my fifty-eight years I have never taken that bold a stand. Tim has helped me to find my own strengths.


BILL MOYERS: I have a hunch that most people listening to us now, watching us now agree that our government has been captured by big money, big business, corporate America. But they don"t know how, what to do about it. And unlike you, many of them married, have children, have obligations, own homes. Two years in prison would totally disrupt their life and their commitments to others, their obligation to others. What do you say to those people?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Well, not everyone has to do what I did. Not everyone can, not everyone should. I think we need a diverse movement. You know, if we look at social movement history, the ones that have been most successful and most powerful are the ones that have used a variety of tactics and a variety of strategies.


And I think, you know, not everyone has to go to prison. But I think everyone has to feel empowered to take strong actions. And, you know, no one can say, “This is the kind of action that we need right now “because nobody knows. Nobody has the answers. You know, nobody has ever stopped a climate crisis before.


You know, so nobody can say, “This is what"s definitely going to work.” And, you know, that"s what"s limited us in the past in the movement, is when we"ve had one element that said, “You know, listen, we know how change happens in Washington. We know how to do things. You know, this is what"s politically feasible and you have to do it our way.” You know, up until 2009 with the Waxman-Markey Bill, that really held back the movement.


BILL MOYERS: And that bill did what?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: That was the cap and trade bill that, you know, was a big corporate handout bill written in collusion between the biggest green groups and some of our biggest corporate polluters, like Shell and DuPont.


BILL MOYERS: You say it was a dividing line in the story?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. Yeah. I think that that bill was really the turning point for the climate movement because up until that point, the groups with so much money and access in Washington, you know, held everybody unchecked basically. Their rhetoric about, “This is what"s politically feasible,” that held sway with so many other folks in the movement who said, “Okay, well, I guess we"ll do it your way even though this bill doesn"t really make sense and doesn"t seem to do anything worthwhile. We"ll do it your way.”


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: But they failed even to pass that bill. It turns out they didn"t even know what was politically feasible. And so then, you know, the rest of the movement afterwards said, “Well, we tried it your way and it didn"t work. And now rather than start from what"s politically feasible, we"re going to start from what we know is necessary.


“And rather than working from, you know, what corporations tell us they"ll accept, we"re going to work for what we actually want, something that"s actually in line with our vision for society.” And so there"s been this huge resurgence of the climate justice side of the movement and the real grassroots side of the climate movement over the past few years. And that"s both moved past the mainstream of the big green groups and also swayed some of those big green groups.


BILL MOYERS: Well I think you know that the president of the Sierra Club Michael Brune got himself arrested recently in a protest outside the White House over the Keystone pipeline.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: The change in the Sierra Club has been a tremendous shift over the past few years. You know, when we look at the challenge that we have right now of creating that drastic shift from where we are right now where, you know, we have one party that doesn"t believe in climate change and one party that provides empty rhetoric and no action, that"s a dramatic shift that we need to get to actual appropriate response to the climate crisis. You know, to get us to that point it"s going to take really confrontational actions.


I don"t look at the political spectrum as this straight line between left and right. And I think it"s more like a really steep pyramid. And I found that a lot of people on the bottom have far more in common with each other regardless of whether they"re on the left and the right than they do with anybody at the top of that pyramid.


BILL MOYERS: Let me double back to something you said a moment ago I let slip by because it scares people to hear you and anybody else talk this way. You said we have to overthrow the corporations. What do you mean when you say overthrow corporate power?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: I mean get corporations into an economical rather than a political role. You know, corporations do have a role to play in our economy, but they don"t have a role to play in our government that…


BILL MOYERS: They have a stake in policy.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: But they, corporations don"t have a conscience. And so they"re not appropriate for being part of our political system.


And when I say overthrow I mean ending corporate personhood, I mean kicking them out of our government. And that will take a constitutional amendment to get that to happen. And I think that"ll be a dramatic shift. And I think it"ll it"s a huge battle. They"re not going to easily give that up.


BILL MOYERS: So you"re not talking about using force to overthrow anybody?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: No.


BILL MOYERS: But you are calling for a radical overhaul of how our society functions?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah, yeah. But I think that"s an overhaul to bring us in alignment with our values, you know, which is why I think that this is a challenge that we can actually rise up to. I don"t think it"s an impossible challenge because it"s not primarily about changing people"s values.


I think most people regardless of where they are politically, if you get them in an honest moment to really talk about what they value they"re not going to talk about that they value their SUV or they value, you know, the extra few thousand square footage on their home.


They"re going to talk about human relationships. Almost everyone is going to be talking about their friends and their family and their communities as the things that they truly value. And you know, when we"re talking about that radical shift it"s about aligning our world with those values, not so much about changing them which is why I think this is possible.


BILL MOYERS: So now that you"re a free man, are you a danger to society? There are people who say you are.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: I, you know, I"m a danger to a certain part of society. I"m–


BILL MOYERS: Which part?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: I"m a danger to the, to that part of the power structure that wants to concentrate power in the hands of the few. You know, I don"t think I"m a danger to the rest of society.


BILL MOYERS: Don"t you think the power structure in every age, in every time, in every place always sees civil disobedience as a threat?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah. I mean, civil disobedience is always a criticism of the existing power structure. And it"s always been that way. That"s the role of civil disobedience. That"s the role of dissent.


BILL MOYERS: What"s next for you?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: In the fall I"ll be going to Harvard Divinity School to study to become a Unitarian minister.


BILL MOYERS: Not law school with your concern about juries and the founding fathers and civil disobedience.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: No, because I think a lot of what we"re facing is really spiritual struggles. I mean, you know, as I was saying I think we have enough people onboard, but not enough people who really have faith in their own power to make a difference. And that to me is an internal struggle, something that"s more on a spiritual level. And…


BILL MOYERS: Take me a little further.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: –and the point, well, the–


BILL MOYERS: What do you mean a spiritual?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: You know, the point where I full decided it"s something that I"ve been considering for a while, but the point that I fully decided that I was going to become a minister or go to divinity school was the same point that I mentioned earlier was when I knew that I was going to be convicted. That point when I watched one juror after another say yes, I"ll do whatever you tell me to do even if I think it"s morally wrong that to me was a huge turning point. Because I saw two things in that situation where the was telling people they had to let go of their own moral authority. I saw how willing people were to let go of their moral authority. But at the same time I saw the vulnerability of the prosecutor.


And you know, he was a US attorney, he was the United States attorney, he represents the United States of America, he"s got the whole power of the United States government behind him and he was terrified. He felt vulnerable to the notion of citizens using their conscience in exercising their civic duties.


BILL MOYERS: In fairness to him I read his statement. He said, he said respect for the law is the bedrock of the civilized society.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Yeah, but the bedrock of the rule of law is the conscience of the community and the values of our citizenry. And I think that that"s where he missed it, you know. Because at the same time he said the rule of law"s the bedrock of our society, not acts of civil disobedience. He failed to understand that acts of civil disobedience are what have shaped the rule of law in this country and how it"s been acts of civil disobedience that have made the rule of law line up with the values of our people.


BILL MOYERS: So what are the spiritual needs you think you would like to attempt to address?


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Well, I think part of it is the empowerment that comes through connecting with the community. And I think that"s part of why churches and religious institutions have played such an important role in so many social movements throughout our history because there"s so much alienation, especially right now in our society and so much that encourages people to view themselves as an isolated individual.


And as an isolated individual people are weak and they look at the problems that we face, and even if they understand these issues they look at it and say, “You know, I"m just one person. What can I do against these corporations or this government? They"re so big and so powerful.” And that"s true. And you know, honestly as an, an isolated individual can"t make a difference in any of these issues. But people are not isolated individuals, they"re connected to something much bigger than themselves.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER in BIDDER 70:They tried to convince me that I was like a little finger out there on my own that could easily be broken. And all of you out here were the reminder for all of us that I wasn’t just a finger all alone in there, but that I was connected to a hand with many fingers that could unite as one fist, and that that fist could not be broken by the power that they have in there. That fist is not a symbol of violence. That fist is a symbol that we will not be misled into thinking we are alone. We will not be lied to and told we are weak. We will not be divided and we will not back down. That fist is a symbol that we are connected and that we are powerful. It’s a symbol that we hold true to our vision of a healthy and just world, and we are building the self-empowering movement to make it happen.


BILL MOYERS: Tim DeChristopher, I"ve truly enjoyed this conversation and I wish you well.


TIM DECHRISTOPHER: Thank you.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Going to Jail to Save the Wild from Oil and Gas Drilling