THE IMPECCABLE LOGIC OF BERNIE OR BUST

                                                                       

                                  

                                                                           

Now that Clinton has virtually sewed up the Democratic nomination, it’s time for Sanders supporters to reassess their commitment to the political revolution he represents. There seems little doubt that those who have not yet voted will cast their ballots for him when they have the chance. The issue is what they will do in November. It is a sure thing that the revolution will not continue if Bernie’s backers line up behind with Clinton. Will they submit to the politics of fear, hold their noses and vote for the representative of all that they stand against, as Clinton and her smug supporters assume?  Or will they hold their ground, choosing to risk a Trump presidency to make the point that there is a line that progressives will not cross? That is the question at the heart of the Bernie or Bust strategy.

It has been argued that Bernie or Bust was a way to influence how Democrats voted in the primaries. The idea was that if voters leaning toward Clinton understood the depth of disgust toward the darling of Wall Street, they would realize that she could actually lose by Sanders supporters withholding their support. The hope was that many of those who preferred Sanders’ stands on the issues would quit rationalizing their support of Clinton on the false premise that she was more electable, which polls have consistently indicated is not the case.  That argument is now moot, however. So, is there still a place for the Bernie or Bust strategy, or was it always just about appealing to the fears of Democratic rank-and-file?  For anyone who understands just how desperately we need a political revolution, the only possible answer is a resounding “yes.”

It is positively mind-blowing to many Sanders supporters that a majority of Democrats nationwide have up until now cast their votes for a candidate backed by Wall Street who has  a record of unrivaled militarism, claims that universal health care is economically unsound despite all the proof to the contrary, who lies even about trivial things (and then about lying about them), backs free trade except when running for President, calls her Democratic opponent a liar and his supports naïve, then insists that he is destroying the Democrat’s chance to beat Trump. There are no rational grounds to argue that she is any kind of progressive, even in the absolutely broadest sense of the term.  Those serious about political “revolution” can hardly support her just when they have the chance to make clear the depth of their conviction that they can no longer accept the status quo.

What Clinton supporters do not seem to realize is that this election is not just about what we are going to accomplish in the next four years. It is about how to reverse the 25-year slide to the right the US has undergone since the last Clinton gave us the “third way,” which many refer to as “Republican lite.” Blind Democratic loyalists do not seem to realize that the party has not failed because “conservative” ideas have become more popular, but because those who profess progressive ideals are unwilling to demand that politicians fight for real political solutions, or even discuss them. The Democratic strategy for negotiations always starts with the assumption that nothing is “politically possible” if it challenges the interests of the economic elite who finance the campaigns of candidates of both Duopoly parties. This reflexive attitude is a direct result of Bill Clinton’s capitulation to the corrupting influence of money in politics, the fight against which is at the heart of the Sanders campaign.

It started when Bill Clinton supported NAFTA, welfare “reform,” banking deregulation, “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, three strikes, discriminatory drug crime sentencing and other policies favored by the conservatives and corporate donors he was courting. He has never been held responsible for doing what no Republican would have been able to. Like Hillary, he was granted immunity from all his reprehensible actions because he was unjustly accused of others. The time for excuses is over.

The American economy has been devastated by the actions of Clinton’s Wall Street patrons, who not only remain unpunished but continue to direct economic policy. Economic inequality rivals that of the Gilded Age. College debt is economically handicapping a generation. Health care costs remain out of control and tens of millions remain uninsured despite the added cost to taxpayers of Obamacare. We are engaged in what appears to be endless war, with Clinton promising to double down in Syria, Libya and anywhere else where the interests of her corporate backers in the military industrial complex are threatened. Most critically, we are entering a period when climate instability threatens the existence of human civilization and possibly the survival of mankind.

It seems unlikely that Clinton will have the courage to challenge the Wall Street-dominated fossil fuel industries when she has collected millions from bundlers and individuals working in the fossil fuel industry and from SuperPacs funded by large industry donations. While Sanders has received contributions from individuals in the industry, he has not only refused to take any money from fossil fuels corporations, but has sponsored in each of the last three Congresses constitutional amendments that would ban corporate campaign contributions. He has also explicitly come out against fracking, which Clinton has long supported. While Clinton called the phony “war on terror” her number one national security priority, Sanders correctly identified it as global climate change.

Climate change will determine how much time we have to deal with the consequences of corporate control of the US government. As Bill McKibbin and others have been warning with increasing urgency, time is running out to act. There is nothing in Clinton’s record to suggest that she will stand up to those who have put her in power. Even when she claims to oppose a corporate power grab like TPP or NAFTA, she only does so when she is in the spotlight of a presidential campaign and in doing so, lies about her record of past support. How can we trust her when the survival of the planet is at stake?

“Incrementalism” has proven itself over the years to be two steps backward for every one forward. Clintonism has been the path that has led to this point. We cannot wait four years or more to let the Democratic Party know that we are not going to tolerate the corruption of the system that has led nearly 40% of Americans to give up on voting. If we are ever going to force our government to act in our own interests, we must refuse to vote for candidates who make excuses for not even trying, calling it “pragmatism.” The only reason that single payer health care, ending a self-defeating “war” on terror, regulating the banking and finance industry and creating an economy that works for everyone are “not politically possible” is that average Americans and their elected officials accept the corruption of money in politics as normal, when it should be unacceptable.

Now is the time for the real revolution to begin.

TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE, QUIT FOCUSING ON GLOBAL WARMING

                                                                                        

Earth Day has passed, but the task of saving the Earth continues. Since the annual observance of the first large scale People’s conference on the environment has become in many cases a memorial to past victories and in others a celebration of greenwashing, it’s true purpose now may  be to inspire us to take the time to reassess our strategies for accomplishing our most important goals.

As world temperatures continue to hit record highs year after year since the turn of the century, an increasing number of climate change skeptics are admitting that global warming is real. The problem is that most resisted the idea in the first place because it was too frightening.
Now they look for reasons to argue it is not an emergency. The problem is not that they are too frightened to face the reality of the human consequences if they are wrong: they are clearly capable of believing what they want to believe. Despite the scientific consensus that the phenomenon most of them denied until recently is real and caused by human activity, they are still willing to bet their children’s future that they are right and the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. Therefore, it behooves those of us trying to get something done about climate change to start using some different arguments.

Naomi Klein pointed out in This Changes Everything that the real fear that is causing so many people to be in denial is the recognition that any real solution short of a miraculous scientific breakthrough would require violating the first commandment of free market theology:

“The government shalt not mess with the right of transnational corporations to extract the maximum profit out of their activities regardless of the environmental and other human costs.”

If we want to generate support for serious action to halt dependence on fossil fuels, we need to come up with arguments that do not depend on violating the dictates of the imaginary free market that most Americans believe real. Those who cash in on their gullibility have convinced them that regulation is root of all economic problems. In truth of course, it is the lack of rules to assure truly competitive markets that has undermined the stability of traditionally defined capitalism faster than its inherent flaw of requiring continuous growth would have alone. Perhaps they can be educated eventually, but getting people to question the almost religious belief that capitalism as they understand it is the ideal economic system cannot be done in time to save the planet from almost certain destruction. Here are a few arguments for getting off fossil fuels that do not require abandoning free market principles.

The costs of maintaining the world’s largest military should be added to fuel costs

My favorite argument is one that should appeal to the millions of Ron Paul fans who agree with his isolationism. Far from accepting the neocon use of the term as an insult, they recognize that refusal to engage in war for corporate Empire is consistent with real conservative principles. Making the case that US foreign interventions in recent history have been mostly about gaining control of fossil fuel resources is not difficult. This reduces the competition that is supposed to keep prices low in free markets. On top of that, around 50% of the US discretionary budget is spent on a military that acts as the muscle for the oil and gas oligarchs when the US has no real global rival. These wars have created a costly domestic surveillance system that is an affront to the rights of a free people. It is hard to see how any real conservative could object to ending the support of global conflicts for access to fossil fuels. In the process, it would also cut the tremendous amount of fuels used by a bloated US military.

Free market principles predict that prices will inexorably rise

This argument is simpler and easier to understand for those who don’t think deeply about politics or economics. It is obvious that as long as our dependence on fossil fuels continues, accessible supplies become more expensive. Prices will rise, especially when demand begins to exceed extractable supplies. This cycle of rising prices might have already happened if not for the slowdown in the global economy the banksters produced, even if it would have still been obscured by Saudi Arabia’s decision to overproduce as a weapon against an Iran desperate for oil revenue. Americans loathe any rise in gas prices. If they know that the increases would continue indefinitely and that the Wall Street types who have repeatedly wiped out their wealth before demanding to be bailed out by taxpayers were the chief beneficiaries, their loyalty to the system might be shaken.

Fossil fuels are protected from free market influences by the government it has corrupted

Everyone knows government has been corrupted by fossil fuels and other special interest money in politics. Making them bear the true costs of our dependence on fossil fuels can help turn the tide in favor of renewables in the market. Oil and gas are hardly subject to free market forces when they are subsidized by US taxpayers to the tune of $37.5 billion per year. Worldwide, that figure might be as much as $1 trillion. And these subsidies do not begin to cover the real costs of pollution and health care costs paid for by localities in affected areas. Despite these advantages, renewables are increasingly becoming competitive in a variety of markets, even without subsidies. One expert estimated that sometime this year, solar will become cheaper than fossil fuels in half the states. Renewables are already cheaper in Australia, most of the developing world and 42 of the largest 50 cities in the US. How much faster could we reach emissions goals if fossil fuels were not so heavily subsidized?

How can fossil fuels compete with free energy?

Some authors point out that individual rooftop solar does not produce energy as cheaply as either fossil fuel- or renewably generated power, but this does not change the fact that after upfront costs are paid, power is free to the homeowner or municipality that owns public buildings powered by solar. In addition, it can generate income from the sale of excess energy generated. It pays for itself, and with falling prices does so much faster than just a few years ago.  That should be a big inducement for those to whom the issue of addressing global warming is purely an economic one. In addition, the idea of freeing ourselves from the grip of an industry that isusually monopolistic should appeal to the free market true believer. If it destroys the centralized power industry, so what? That is what is supposed to happen in a free market when an industry becomes obsolete. In the process, the number of jobs produced will dwarf those lost. The only losers in this scheme are those who are so determined to see every penny of profit they can squeeze from a dying planet that they refuse to minimize their losses by getting out before it is too late.

The costs of converting are less than cleaning up the mess

There is an increasing willingness in the corporate media to admit that the costs of dealing with the global climate change that sane people now admit exists will be astronomical. It is getting more difficult to believe the lies about these costs with each passing year. Some of these costs will be born directly by the taxpayer, such as replacing vulnerable military bases on coastlines such as those in Virginia that are already experiencing significant impacts. In addition to the expense, this means that climate change is becominga real national security risk. Unlike those cited as the reasons for America’s obsession with getting involved in conflicts in the Mideast and North Africa. Those who aren’t swayed by the immorality of these wars may care about the cost.

This argument of course only belongs on this list if it does not challenge free market economics. Admittedly, for the government to spend money to try to save the planet would have an effect on the competitiveness of fossil fuels compared to renewables. Climate experts also believe this will require a massive government investment comparable to fighting WWII. If the effect is to devastate the fossil fuel industry and strand trillions of dollars in potential profits, it is a hard argument to sell. We can only hope that by making climate deniers think about these other issues, we can wake them up to the fact that if they are wrong, the consequences will be much worse than doing what scientists are telling us we need to do.

STOP BITCHING AND START THE REVOLUTION

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.
-Alice Walker

In his seminal work The Populist Moment, Lawrence Goodwyn outlines what it takes to build a genuine grassroots movement for democracy. The Populist movement began shortly after the Civil War, when farmers realized that they were doomed to enslavement by the corporate powers that arose in the aftermath of the war unless they united to use their collective power to defend their interests. After being rebuffed by the overlords of America and the merchants who defended the system for their own gain, they realized that the movement could only gain steam by creating a new political consciousness through educating Americans about how they had been systematically brainwashed into believing that the feudal system that had developed was democratic.

Lacking modern means of communication, Populist leaders began to organize at the local level, empowering lecturers to represent the movement at the local, state and national level. They created an alternative media of newspapers and periodicals to spread their message. Eventually they succeeded at awakening a vast swath of America to the fact that true democracy starts at the grassroots level. It cannot be entrusted to elected representatives beholden to corporate interests who choose who the People get to vote for. The vote only matters when people are willing to abandon the notion that either of the corporate parties represent them and work to elect their own champions. The system cannot be overthrown. It must be changed from within by a People who have learned to question a system that has no resemblance to what they have been taught to believe it is.

Despite stunning success in recruiting farmers tired of being abused for the benefit of the economic elite of their day, creating a cooperative economy proved a daunting task for Populists. Their first goal was to establish a cooperative to sell goods to farmers at a fair rate of interest and to help them sell their products at market rate without extortionate middle men were resisted by the moneyed class. They were stymied when those who controlled the limited money supply refused to accept their collateral for credit necessary to establish their venture. This was when the prevailing political consciousness began to awaken to the degree to which America was in the grip of the bankers and the industries they increasingly controlled. The banksters of the day wielded that power through their control of the supply of both money and credit, just as they do now. This power was more complete than today because under the gold standard, the amount of money available was limited by the amount of gold held by the economic elite.

Today, most spokesmen for change on both the left and right content themselves with complaining about the problems millions of people elsewhere around the world are fighting. There are many more effective ways they could help promote efforts to effectively organize to form a united movement for peace, environmental and economic justice. Fortunately, there are some who are putting more of their efforts into solutions than complaining.

Adam Klugman directed publicity for the Mad As Hell Doctors national tour for single payer in 2009. In 2010, he became the host of Mad as Hell in America. It was perhaps the most radical show on the now-defunct Portland radio station KPOJ, which fell victim to the conservative scheme to take control of the corporate media. The difference between Klugman’s approach and that of more well-known media figures was that when a caller complained about a problem, he demanded that they propose a solution. While most ideas this offered were unrealistic, they did help focus listeners on how to prioritize and strategize for a real democratic revolution.

Most liberal spokespersons lack the vision to offer the truly radical ideas that became part of the Populist manifesto in the late 1880s. Populists realized that they could not escape economic bondage until the government controlled both banks and railroads, the industries that at that time extorted most of what little cash was available to farmers. They proposed that the government nationalize the banks and the railroads and take back the power to create fiat money that would provide the means for a growing population to prosper as America grew.

In the modern era, one of the chief economic spokesmen for the left proposed just this in the wake of the collapse of the American and world economies by the banksters. In little-remembered articles in Rolling Stone and his New York Times column, Paul Krugman called for nationalizing banks. Of course, just as he stopped advocating for single payer when the Democrats made it clear they would not challenge the interests of the Wall Street-controlled medical insurance industry, he retreated to a position supporting Democratic half-measures. There is little doubt that he feared stepping too far from the corporate line might further marginalize his limited influence on economic policy discussions.

The root of the problems we face is corruption of the US government. The most powerful of those who control it are those who control the money supply today. Wall Street criminals have been given a pass by the Department of Justice. The Attorney General is a former partner in the infamous corporate defense firm Covington and Burling, which represented many of the Wall Street types he is in charge of holdling responsible to the law. His priority remains protecting bankster interests while making a show of enforcing the law, levying fines that are considered a cost of doing business and prosecuting corporations instead of their CEOs. Banks and other financial institutions control essentially all the only industries that generate profits and are busy trying to privatize government and the commons. To deal with the problems their depredations have caused, Americans must end the corruption. That should be the focus of the efforts of both conservatives and liberals.  For every problem they bitch about, they should point out the solution: ending the power of corporations and the wealthy to determine who Americans can choose from to represent them.

There are many ways to approach the problem of cleaning up corruption. There is a movement coalescing around these ideas. Americans need to understand that fighting corruption is not just another issue on a list of thousands. It needs to be highlighted on every talk show and “alternative” news outlet remaining. We need a constitutional amendment establishing that money spent to influence politics is not speech and that corporations do not have constitutional rights of people. Such an amendment is favored by roughly 80% of both liberals and conservatives. This is only one of two essential steps. We also need a slate of reform legislation like that proposed in the American Anti-Corruption Act. To get them, Americans must make support for fighting bankster control of government a campaign issue in 2014 and beyond until they elect a Congress that will pass both.

This is the core of the global democratic revolution that is the only hope for liberty and justice for our children and their posterity. Let’s quit bitching and start the revolution.

THE HORRORS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE NO ONE TALKS ABOUT

Millions of Americans are concerned about the government’s unwillingness to seriously address the consequences of global warming.  Many thousands are actively resisting Keystone XL, fracking, Big Coal and Big Oil and LNG exports that would only add fuel to the fire, but most people who accept the reality of global climate change have no idea just how horrific its effects will be. Even if we were to meet the most optimistic goals for emissions reduction tomorrow, some scientists believe we have already passed the extinction point. While no one can know that for sure, it is probably a conservative estimate that at least a billion people are fated to die from decisions we have already allowed our leaders to make, no matter what choices we make now.

The global population is already unsustainable. The World Watch Institute determined that if resource consumption rates relative to income were constant, the world could only achieve a steady-state economy (one capable of sustaining the planet’s population indefinitely) by drastic population reduction or even more drastic economic deprivation. It estimated that even if we eliminate inequality, the planet could only sustain a population of 2.1 billion people with an average income of $35,690.   If instead we continue to allow individuals to amass unlimited wealth, global poverty can only continue to worsen. Currently wealthy nations would not be spared. We cannot grow out of the problem by increasing world GDP due to the finite nature of many critical resources. We have to make difficult choices soon, because every year we delay will result in millions of unnecessary deaths. Global climate change sets an upper limit on how long we have to act before human civilization itself collapses.

There is no doubt that the power of denial is strong. Even when the survival of human civilization is at stake, a substantial number of people will grasp at any argument that allows them to believe they needn’t worry. The fact that the chances against doing anything to change the trajectory of global climate change seem astronomical is another reason to deny the reality of what is happening to the world we are going to leave our children. While a growing number of former skeptics are accepting the reality of global climate change, most stubbornly refuse to consider the likelihood that it is caused by human activity. They are unwilling to consider the likely consequences if they are wrong.  Perhaps if they could picture what will happen if we do not act now, some of them would be shaken from their complacency.  Just as importantly, people who merely fret about the problem now might get active.

I have yet to read a detailed description of what happens when the water level rises to the point where it swamps populated islands and sea coast cities. The refugee problem in the US would dwarf the Katrina disaster, but the consequences would be much worse for poorer nations around the world. Who would feed these refugees, and how would they be protected from exposure?  The world food supply would be devastated by drought, desertification, storms and disruptions of the food distribution chain. Prices would increase, especially given the role of speculators whose manipulation of commodities markets have already contributed to mass starvation. This is a problem that will only get worse as population pressures rise, agriculture suffers and the inevitable consequences of supply and demand kick in.

The availability of clean water is already a serious problem in much of the world. Increasing droughts in many areas would make this problem a crisis, especially in third world nations. Even under current conditions, water consumption is estimated to increase by 40% by 2025.  Africa would no doubt suffer the worst, even though African produces only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases generated by wealthy nations. Making matters still worse, water privatization is becoming the norm around the world, even in the US.  It is the poor who will suffer the most as water becomes an inaccessible commodity that is not even made available in rural areas, since rural infrastructure is so much less profitable than only supplying water to cities.

With overcrowding, malnutrition and lack of clean water, disease will become pandemic. With tens of millions of Americans lacking access to timely medical care, how much worse will it be for the world’s poor? Already, 1.5 million children under the age of five die every year of cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever. 7-8 million people die each year from a combination of starvation and lack of clean water, another 2-3 million from preventable disease and a half- million from the direct effects of war.

We cannot prevent the loss of untold millions of lives from decisions already made, but we can assure the survival of civilization if we start to work now on the difficult task of establishing democratic rule in the US and the world. That work has already begun, but millions of people whose children’s lives will be affected by the outcome have not yet become engaged. The only way to create a government of, by and for the People in the US or anywhere is to succeed in the nation that has the most military, economic and political power in the world. We must rid Washington of the tools of the corporate elite to create a government that will put human need over the greed of the corporate Puppetmasters of the Current Occupants of Congress and the White House.

The way to do that is to make a campaign issue of support for a constitutional amendment declaring that spending money to influence the outcome of elections is not speech and corporations do not have constitutional rights.   Learn more about the Pledge to Amend campaign here.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE?

Today's blog should give readers a reminder of why we need to finish the American Revolution. Unless we Take Back America for the People, we could be the next species to suffer extinction. The corporate media isn't talking about it, so we need to.

 
Listen carefully to the song. It gives some pretty sound advice on how to conduct a revolution and how not to.

This blog entry was originally posted under the title extinction event? on Mon, Feb 7, 2011 by Guy McPherson on the website of Nature Bats Last: http://guymcpherson.com/2011/02/extinction-event/

The Arctic is defrosting as warm Atlantic waters rush through the Fram Strait instead of skirting the southern coast of Greenland. This is an important event, regardless of the deafening silence exhibited by the mainstream media.

How important? First consider the background, from the perspective of long-time climate scientist James Hansen and colleague Makiko Sato, who report the disaster awaiting us at 2 C warmer is truly catastrophic (although they downplay the likelihood we’re already committed to this outcome): “We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods was less than 1°C warmer than in the Holocene and that goals of limiting human-made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster” (the paper is titled “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change: Draft paper for Milankovic volume”, as described on Hansen’s website). Currently, Earth’s atmosphere contains about 390 ppm carbon dioxide, and simply including methane (one of many greenhouse gases) brings the atmospheric equivalent of carbon dioxide up to about 460 ppm.

At the same time Arctic ice is melting, the planet is losing its lungs. Catastrophic drought in the Amazon has it emitting carbon dioxide more rapidly than the United States. Simultaneously, permafrost is thawing and methane stored in eastern Siberia is venting into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. Methane, by the way, is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Against this background, it is easy to foresee a rapidly and profoundly warming Arctic as a trigger for positive feedbacks such as release of methane hydrates and reduced albedo. These extremely dangerous feedbacks, which forecasters did not expect until the planet becomes 2 C warmer than the baseline (vs. the current level of ~0.75 C warmer), could trigger runaway greenhouse. In other words, any of these event — never mind all of them at once — could lead directly and quickly to the extinction of Homo sapiens.

Is that important enough for you?

If you’re among the mainstream media, the answer is no. If you’re any politician in the industrialized world, the answer is no. If you want to continue the process of human-population overshoot on an overshot planet, the answer is no. If you’re one of the kingpins of capitalism — or even a defender of capitalism — the answer is no. I’ll go further: If you’re a defender of western civilization, your answer is no. But if you’re among the few people working to terminate western civilization before it terminates our species, it seems we’ve lost this most important of battles.

Like economic collapse, extinction is a process that leads to an event. The last human on Earth will not die today, tomorrow, or even next week. But it clearly could happen within a generation. Indeed, the odds grow with every passing day while we continue to deny our role in our own demise.

What will it take for the people to act? For that matter, what will it take for the people to notice?

Nothing to see here. Move along. This time is different. It can’t happen here. I’m just another purveyor of negativity to be ignored by a world full of happy optimists hedonists.

I am routinely accused of being an insane terrorist because I want to terminate the industrial economy, thereby giving our species an opportunity to persist a few generations longer. At this point, with our knowledge of the adverse consequences of civilization for non-industrial cultures, non-human species, and even the persistence of our own species, how can any sane person want to keep the industrial age alive?

In the race between collapse of the industrial economy and climate chaos, it seems climate chaos won. Words are no match for the sadness I feel. I can only imagine the agony of parents as they comprehend the horrors we have created for them, and especially for their children. Or perhaps this childless atheist — as I am labeled by every writer who pens me into a story — cares about the future of humanity more than most parents. After all, nearly every parent with whom I speak — failing to notice the dependence of the industrial economy on the environment — is far more interested in growth of the former, for their child’s sake, than with protection of the latter (for their child’s sake).

We traded in future generations of human beings — all of them — for a few dollars more. We worshiped at the heavenly altar of economic growth, and triggered hell on Earth.

Chaos on this planet isn’t restricted to the climate, and it’s going global this year. We’re witnessing not merely a riot but a revolution, and it’s coming soon to a city near you.