John Hancock will forever be remembered in this nation for his ostentatious signature appearing on the Declaration of Independence. He isn't hailed for being a revolutionary, a 'founding father' or celebrated for his role as President of the Continental Congress. He is known for penning his name, first and largest, to the document which told of our treason against the English crown. It is apocryphally noted that he then cajoled the rest of the Continental Congress to sign the document, lest he hang alone. The 'John Hancock' has and will remain the symbol for agreement with a cause, a belief or a contract.
Montana needs your 'John Hancock' right now. In fact, it's needed 3 times. D. Gregory Smith presents us an opportunity to help those in need, if only we will sign a petition to sway the will of those who can help the ones who need drugs to stay alive. AIDS cannot be cured (yet) but it can be controlled by medication ... if one can afford it. Many need help to do so. Signing your name might just continue that help, so do it. Sign the petition here.
Montanans overwhelmingly voted to support the use of medical marijuana to aid those in pain and in need. Our legislature of 2011 apparently thought we were joking about that. So they passed a "reform" bill which is nothing of the sort. It allows people to grow marijuana at their own expense and risk, to give it to those who need it, but not too many. That's not reform; it's stupidity. It is repeal of the voters's will. If you need more clarity on the issue, then visit Montanafesto. We have a chance to let the Montana legislature know that we are in charge of our beliefs, not them. You can do that by signing your John Hancock to the petition for IR-124, as offered by Patients for Reform, not Repeal. Time is short, and all they need is a signature. Look for a petitioner near you!
Finally, the Montana legislature decided that it was a good idea to give Canadian power interests control over our private property. IR-125 places the proposition on the ballot, as opposed to leaving it to our 'betters'. Corporations shouldn't have the right of eminent domain over the private lands of Montanans. So, find a signature gatherer, or print the petition off and gather 10 signatures yourself. All that is really needed is your John Hancock, and you won't committing treason by signing.
I don't disagree with Pogie on very much at all. Yet, today I find myself in that very unenviable position.
Jenna Cederberg of the Missoulian penned an article about the newest darling of the Montana online right, Treasure State Politics. (Sorry, Andy.) Pogie posted on the Twitter that he was uncomfortable with the fact that Jenna did not also mention, promote or show the opposition to TSP being the liberal Montana Missoula blogs, most notably 4 & 20.
Pogie tweets:
Just wondering if the @missoulian has ever written a feature about its good local blog?
The "good" is questionable, but obviously the Missoulian did write a feature about a local blog.
Pogie continues:
@jennacederberg Confused about your story today about TSP. Seems odd not to mention a single liberal Missoula blog in the piece.
Why? The opposition to TSP is not in Missoula. It's made very clear in the article that TSP stands in opposition to the Montana Cowgirl Blog. Only in the FOX-newsian sense would it make any difference to set a false opposition between TSP and 4 & 20 Blackbirds, or other Missoula blog.
When Jenna asked if Pogie was confused or disappointed, Pogie's response was:
@jennacederberg Maybe I'll settle on surprised. :) 4and20 blackbirds, which is also local to MSO, has so much more traffic and influence.
The traffic part remains open to question, and completely beside the point. That reminds me of all the arguments had in the Montana online about how most comments means most traffic and import, all of which is really kind of crap. The influence part is actually significant, but it was dealt with in the article itself:
"In Montana it's very difficult (to keep a conservative blog) because we have blogs like Montana Cowgirl," James said. That anonymously written blog has previously been traced to the Capitol complex computer system, but the governor's office has denied any knowledge of the blogger's identity.
"I mean, how do you compete with insider information by the people that are making the information?" James said. "I think that the true answer to that was that (conservative information on blogs) just wasn't articulated in a manner people wanted to read. I didn't think the arguments had enough beef behind it."
Notice a couple of things. Jenna supports a narrative that has yet to be proven, and still points to the actual opposition that James is concerned about. Any call for 'fair and balanced' coverage of blogging that mentions 4 & 20 Black birds' is kind of silly in the venue of which this column is written in.
Let's be clear about a couple of things. It's not "web log". It's weblog. An article about a wingnut blog does not require discussion of every other blog in the same local. Pointing out that the Montana Cowgirl blog is run anonymously does not favor mention of 4 & 20 Blackbirds when most of those folk also blog anonymously. They just haven't had the press crawl up their ass quite as much. "Influence" among bloggers is always open to question, until someone comes up with a metric by which it can be measured.
I must be on the worst of email lists. I received one today describing how the Kenyon socialist hidden-Muslim Oreo President will use his Chicago thugs to kill Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He will do so, according to this authoritative source, so that the one term negro President can appoint a "communist activist judge" to replace him. (That is an actual quote). Such a judge will lead the fight to overturn landmark rulings like DC v. Heller and Citizens United v. FEC. ~sigh~
JC has a terrific post up about a ground-up (double entendre totally meant) movement to amend the Constitution, overturning the ridiculous idea of 'corporate personhood'. In truth, that was never part of the Constitution at all. It is hard to know which is more saddening. The idea that corporations are persons, or the notion that we need an amendment to spell the obvious outright, that corporations do not have a voice which speaks as one person.
Strangely, I agree with Dave Budge. This probably isn't an issue that should be tackled at the city level. Tackling it at the Missoula city level is a certain way to garner opposition from most of the rest of the state. I disagree with Dave this much: a city resolution might inspire a state representative to introduce the call for amendment to the Montana Legislature, a much more appropriate venue. Of course, given our current state legislature, that would be as useful as farting in the wind. Still, the call should go forward.
Not that it will matter when the Kenyon's mob kills Justice Kennedy ...
(I disagree that Perry is a lock for the nomination. Still, good points made. - promoted by Rob Kailey)
Ah! Fresh meat!
That's what's on the mind of political pundits this week as they come down off the high of the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames. With nothing to report until--well--something unpredictable happens, or until the Iowa caucuses in January, the media and blogosphere will gush with pedantics about this outsider to the GOP fratricide-fest that has been the 2012 presidential nominating process thus far.
Unless something extraordinary happens, Texas Governor Rick Perry will be the GOP and Tea Party presidential nominee in 2012. He's the darling of the extreme right and can be stomached by party moderates who know Mitt Romney has no chance of winning the top spot on the ticket without flip-flopping on nearly all of his social positions. So, no big deal, we're looking at Rick Perry.
Here is some friendly advice that an opposing campaign should follow--Republican, Democrat or Independent:
In an era of of extreme cynicism about government, maybe it's time for everyone to engage rather than retreat. The overriding reason for the GOP capture of the Montana legislature in 2010 was that Democrats and left-leaning independents didn't vote. On both the national, state and local levels Republicans had better organization and more participation so they won. It's pretty simple.
I propose that more of us need to engage and participate if we really want to fight for our beliefs. Participation is the mother's milk of democracy. Participation stems from basic civics i.e. from simply voting to volunteering, contributing or even running, as I have chosen to do. The recent debate in WDC over the budget cap gave Americans a cynical choice between bad policy by Republicans and bad leadership by Democrats. Here's to trying to boost our side, even just a little.
(The following was signed by Maude Barlow, Wendell Berry, Tom Goldtooth, Danny Glover, James Hansen, Wes Jackson, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, George, Poitras, David Suzuki and Gus Speth - MK)
This will be a slightly longer letter than common for the internet age -- it's serious stuff.
The short version is we want you to consider doing something hard: coming to Washington in the hottest and stickiest weeks of the summer and engaging in civil disobedience that will likely get you arrested.
The full version goes like this:
As you know, the planet is steadily warming: 2010 was the warmest year on record, and we've seen the resulting chaos in almost every corner of the earth.
And as you also know, our democracy is increasingly controlled by special interests interested only in their short-term profit.
These two trends collide this summer in Washington, where the State Department and the White House have to decide whether to grant a certificate of 'national interest' to some of the biggest fossil fuel players on earth. These corporations want to build the so-called 'Keystone XL Pipeline' from Canada's tar sands to Texas refineries.
To call this project a horror is serious understatement. The tar sands have wrecked huge parts of Alberta, disrupting ways of life in indigenous communities -- First Nations communities in Canada, and tribes along the pipeline route in the U.S. have demanded the destruction cease. The pipeline crosses crucial areas like the Oglalla Aquifer where a spill would be disastrous -- and though the pipeline companies insist they are using 'state of the art' technologies that should leak only once every 7 years, the precursor pipeline and its pumping stations have leaked a dozen times in the past year. These local impacts alone would be cause enough to block such a plan. But the Keystone Pipeline would also be a fifteen-hundred-mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet, the one place to which we are all indigenous.
How much carbon lies in the recoverable tar sands of Alberta? A recent calculation from some of our foremost scientists puts the figure at about 200 parts per million. Even with the new pipeline they won't be able to burn that much overnight -- but each development like this makes it easier to get more oil out. As the climatologist Jim Hansen (one of the signatories to this letter) explained, if we have any chance of getting back to a stable climate "the principal requirement is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground." In other words, he added, "if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over." The Keystone pipeline is an essential part of the game. "Unless we get increased market access, like with Keystone XL, we're going to be stuck," Ralph Glass, an economist and vice-president at AJM Petroleum Consultants in Calgary, told a Canadian newspaper last week.
Given all that, you'd suspect that there's no way the Obama administration would ever permit this pipeline. But in the last few months the president has signed pieces of paper opening much of Alaska to oil drilling, and permitting coal-mining on federal land in Wyoming that will produce as much CO2 as 300 power plants operating at full bore.
And Secretary of State Clinton has already said she's 'inclined' to recommend the pipeline go forward. Partly it's because of the political commotion over high gas prices, though more tar sands oil would do nothing to change that picture. But it's also because of intense pressure from industry. TransCanada Pipeline, the company behind Keystone, has hired as its chief lobbyist for the project a man named Paul Elliott, who served as deputy national director of Clinton's presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the US Chamber of Commerce -- a bigger funder of political campaigns than the RNC and DNC combined -- has demanded that the administration "move quickly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline," which is not so surprising -- they've also told the U.S. EPA that if the planet warms that will be okay because humans can 'adapt their physiology' to cope. The Koch Brothers, needless to say, are also backing the plan, and may reap huge profits from it.
So we're pretty sure that without serious pressure the Keystone Pipeline will get its permit from Washington. A wonderful coalition of environmental groups has built a strong campaign across the continent -- from Cree and Dene indigenous leaders to Nebraska farmers, they've spoken out strongly against the destruction of their land. We need to join them, and to say even if our own homes won't be crossed by this pipeline, our joint home -- the earth -- will be wrecked by the carbon that pours down it.
And we need to say something else, too: it's time to stop letting corporate power make the most important decisions our planet faces.
We don't have the money to compete with those corporations, but we do have our bodies, and beginning in mid August many of us will use them. We will, each day through Labor Day, march on the White House, risking arrest with our trespass. We will do it in dignified fashion, demonstrating that in this case we are the conservatives, and that our foes -- who would change the composition of the atmosphere -- are dangerous radicals. Come dressed as if for a business meeting -- this is, in fact, serious business. And another sartorial tip -- if you wore an Obama button during the 2008 campaign, why not wear it again? We very much still want to believe in the promise of that young Senator who told us that with his election the 'rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet start to heal.' We don't understand what combination of bureaucratic obstinacy and insider dealing has derailed those efforts, but we remember his request that his supporters continue on after the election to pressure the government for change. We'll do what we can.
And one more thing: we don't want college kids to be the only cannon fodder in this fight. They've led the way so far on climate change -- 10,000 came to DC for the Powershift gathering earlier this spring. They've marched this month in West Virginia to protest mountaintop removal; Tim DeChristopher faces sentencing this summer in Utah for his creative protest. Now it's time for people who've spent their lives pouring carbon into the atmosphere (and whose careers won't be as damaged by an arrest record) to step up too. Most of us signing this letter are veterans of this work, and we think it's past time for elders to behave like elders. One thing we don't want is a smash up: if you can't control your passions, this action is not for you.
This won't be a one-shot day of action. We plan for it to continue for several weeks, to the date in September when by law the administration can either grant or deny the permit for the pipeline. Not all of us can actually get arrested -- half the signatories to this letter live in Canada, and might well find our entry into the U.S. barred. But we will be making plans for sympathy demonstrations outside Canadian consulates in the U.S., and U.S. consulates in Canada -- the decision-makers need to know they're being watched.
Winning this battle won't save the climate. But losing it will mean the chances of runaway climate change go way up -- that we'll endure an endless future of the floods and droughts we've seen this year. And we're fighting for the political future too -- for the premise that we should make decisions based on science and reason, not political connection. You have to start somewhere, and this is where we choose to begin.
As plans solidify in the next few weeks we'll be in touch with you to arrange nonviolence training; our colleagues at a variety of environmental and democracy campaigns will be coordinating the actual arrangements.
We know we're asking a lot. You should think long and hard on it, and pray if you're the praying type. But to us, it's as much privilege as burden to get to join this fight in the most serious possible way. We hope you'll join us.
Maude Barlow
Wendell Berry
Tom Goldtooth
Danny Glover
James Hansen
Wes Jackson
Naomi Klein
Bill McKibben
George Poitras
David Suzuki
Gus Speth
p.s.--Please pass this letter on to anyone else you think might be interested. We realize that what we're asking isn't easy, and we're very grateful that you're willing even to consider it.
After a pleasant weekend spent mostly away from the 'Tubes, I awoke this morning to much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the Congress may be close to passing a budget/deficit/debt resolution bill. No one seems happy with it, and I'm not either, even though the specifics remain illusive. Paul Krugman thinks it's a disaster. Booman attempts to see the glass as half full. A valid point of contention is the call for a "Super-Congress", 12 special folk who have the ability to make or break the nation's economic future .. to a point. That's insidious and likely not very Constitutional. An invalid point of contention is that Congress is enacting the wrong policy, the point about which Krugman is very shrill. I agree that this austerity push is the wrong direction for economic policy, but that isn't the claim being made. The claim at hand is that these people don't have the authority to do this contrary to the people's needs and the people's will. Yes, they really do because ~we~ gave it to them when ~we~ elected them. Just ask the voters in Wisconsin. Sometimes politicians lie. Okay, most of the time, politicians lie. It's often helpful to remember political reality is what it is, and saying you want to do something you fail to do is not always a lie. That's because, quite simply, others carrying the authority ~we~ gave them might just disagree.
As of this writing, the Senate will pass this deficit reduction 'compromise'. Nate Silver is handicapping that the House won't. I'm not going to bother linking to Twitter because that could all change in the next hour. But what is, or at least should be, clear is that Congress is pursuing this effort. That is as it should be. Not the result, of course, but the effort certainly. What has struck me strongly through this whole debate is the importance given to one man, truly desperately, by both the right and the left. This is all about President Obama. We have been lied to, duped, by a meme far beyond the idea policy should be what we want it to be. We have been duped into thinking that we have a unitary executive. I can't count the number of times I have written that the President is the executor of the will of Congress, and that Congress is the representative body of the American people.
All sorts of progressive folk this past two days are writing that they will never again vote for Barack Obama. I'm not disagreeing with them. I just think they're following a path set by the right that will damage the country far more than accepting the austerity thematics/dramatics. These folk are buying into the idea that we have a unitary executive. They have accepted what the right has worshiped as gospel for at least 30 years. They think we have a king we can vote for. We don't. In fact, we have a populace that increasingly accepts that we don't have a role in governance, and we elect 'leaders' who have no principles by which to govern. We blame the President for not being what he/she was never meant to be.
Any prioritization scheme amounts to the Treasury making de facto appropriations decisions.
I think this is worrisome. But on the other hand, it goes to a trend in our politics that has been escalating since the 1960s. More and more, Congress has been willing to simply forego its role in making policy to the President. This trend has only been highlighted during the Obama Administration, because Obama, more than any President in recent memory, has been deferential to Congress' role as policymaker. We saw that in the Health Care Bill and Stimulus Packages, and we're seeing it now in the debt ceiling fiasco. The result is an almost desperate flailing by Congress to get the President to do something. That's a bad thing for Constitutional governance.
...
Third and finally, however, there's a lot of rhetoric in conservative circles about fidelity to the Constitution. Well, it's clear who's supposed to originate budget and revenue related policy: Congress. Not the President. Congress. All the Constitution allows is for the President to veto budget laws. Yes, we've established a tradition of the President putting forth policy, but it's just that - a tradition. And not a healthy one.
That's the point that keeps getting missed with the frustration, desperation and agitation over this debt ceiling fiasco. It isn't Obama's job to fix this problem. It wasn't his job to fix health care, or DADT or DOMA. It isn't the job of the President to "fix" Congress. It's ours. And holy crap have we dropped the ball. 'Fixing' Congress should be the clear principle we follow. After all, it's stated very clearly in the Constitution that that's our job, our goal and our agreement by which we will live with ourselves in this country.
President Obama has already said that this debate may be the one that 'gets him fired' next year. If the 'Tubes are to be believed, it will be. To me, that's fine. He's already done more for the effort of forcing Congress to represent in 3 years than any President I remember in the last 30. He's tried to get Congress to do it's job. We progressives love to talk about how we want to hold politicians "accountable". Obama has actually attempted to do that. I respect that effort. It won't make me vote for him; I have other reasons to do that. But his efforts speak clearly to my principles, chief among them supporting the rule of law as defined by the Constitution. I don't like this budget "compromise", which is more of a capitulation. But if we want different, perhaps we'd be better served by getting the Tea Party and corporate Republicans out of our governance.
I've no interest in having the same tired arguments about how corporations force every hand in the voting booth save our special digits, when we bother to bring them. There is no point to discussing how big money purchases our politicians. If all that caterwaul is universally true, then there isn't a damned thing we can do anyway, and all this smack talk about how Obama is dead to our principled selves is just ego blather. Our politicians will do what we want when ~we~ remember who they serve and why. They take an oath to serve the Constitution. It's hard for them to remember that, I'm certain, when the electorate forgets that we implicitly serve the Constitution as well, as it serves us. A unitary executive doesn't serve anyone, and there is strictly no principled point to demanding that it will. That's where the Republican/Tea Party fails the principles of the Constitution. If the American people didn't agree with them, the Overton Window wouldn't be drifting to the right. I wonder why many on the left are so willing to follow those lemmings off that cliff.
I haven't any doubt that there will be those who read this and say to themselves "He's just a Demorat/Obamabot defending President Betrayer". Hardly. Turner, over at 4 &20, sarcastically asked:
Would President Bachmann please you?
My answer: Yes, IF I could have a Congress that actually represented the will of the people, and was actually capable of accomplishing anything.
