Fracking’ issue tests citizens’ authority

Letter to the Editor
Canton Repository
Posted Dec 30, 2010
http://www.cantonrep.com/opinion/letters/x1599383372/-Fracking-issue-tests-citizens authority

TESTIMONY AT PLAIN TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES MEETING ON FRACKING

Greg Coleridge, Director, Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee
14. December. 2010

Thank you for sponsoring this hearing to listen to community concerns. I encourage you to support enacting an ordinance prohibiting gas drilling in your community.

The discussion and debate surrounding the issue of hydralic fracking in Plain Township is more than simply about drilling for natural gas. It’s also more than about water contamination associated with drilling. It’s even more than about property values and road safety connected to increased truck traffic.

The core issue is about democracy, about self-governance. It’s about whether the citizens of Plain Township and their elected Trustees have the authority to protect their citizens or not. It’s at root whether citizens have the right to decide by ordinance what a gas drilling corporation can and cannot do to protect the health, safety and welfare of their community.

Who (or what) possesses more power? Citizens? Or corporations?

Claims that drilling corporations have some god-given, cosmic or legal constitutional right to do what they want, when they want, and where they want is an assault on We the People’s right to protect our own community -- politically, economically and environmentally.

Throughout history, corporations have escaped democratic control in three different ways:

1. By working to shift decision making from one political level to another (local to state, state to national, national to international). Drilling corporations have done this by working to pass a state law removing the right of local communities to control gas drilling.

2. By working to shift decisions from the legislative level to regulatory agencies – which are easier to influence. The compliant and corporate friendly…and funded… Ohio Department of Natural Resources is Exhibit A on this front, and,

3. By shifting decision making from the legislative arena to the courts – where judges can be easily influenced to buy into the ridiculous notion that corporations have same constitutional Bill of Rights protections as human beings.

Citizens are waking up. Local public officials are waking up. People are tired of being pushed around, led around, and given the run around by corporations.

The time has not yet arrived when the created is greater than the creator. We the People through laws and charters create corporations. They are legal creations of government provided with privileges to do what we feel will serve the common good. They’ve not been given permission to tell us what to do or how we should run our cities, villages and townships.

I applaud the efforts of Plain Township to consider passing an ordinance that asserts the Township’s right to decide what the people of Plain Township, not some outside gas drilling corporation, considers best for protecting the health, safety and welfare of your community.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHgvOzv32JA&feature=player_embedded

For All The People – Cooperatives in America

John Curl's book is an exhaustive study of cooperatives, mutual aid and intentional communities from the First Nations to the present. Scores of obscure and forgotten groups can be discovered here. What Curl shows is the record of struggle by ordinary people to construct a humane and democratic way of life in the face of opposition and adversity.

You find that there is no division between class struggle or organization at the point of production and the formation of coops. Nor is there a real split between political movements and alternative building. For the Knights of Labor and the Populist Party alternative building went hand in hand with union organizing or political action. Socialism, from its very inception as a tendency, right up to, and including the foundation of the Socialist Party, meant cooperative production, or as it was expressed as the “cooperative commonwealth.”

While parties and unions built alternatives, the people involved with them sometimes did so at different periods. When a union was broken or a workplace struggle defeated, the members would turn to community building or forming a coop. If these failed, they would then return to union organizing or party-building.

It turns out that all left wing organizations built cooperatives and mutual aid societies, including the Communist Party. Even the left wing New Dealers got in the act, encouraging the formation of consumer and farmers coops, as well as surprisingly, cooperative communities. While Curl's study is limited to the USA, one must also remember that in the early-mid 20^th Century, the European Social Democrats built an entire counter-culture of cooperatives, mutual aid societies, schools, and associations. While this development was most prevalent in Austria and Germany, Northern Italy and the Scandinavian counties were not far behind.

This unanimity around cooperation leads me to question the accuracy of the notion of “state socialism.” While some people such as anarchists, cooperative socialists and syndicalists were “pure cooperators”, the rest of the left preferred a mixed economy of coops, municipal and nationalized industries. State socialism must then be a matter of degree and the term ought only be applied where the economy would be fully dominated by the state sector. Since everyone likes coops, anarchists and cooperative socialists ought to be able to approach “state socialists” in a positive, rather than negative manner. The following questions ought to be asked; “You support coops in this area, why not elsewhere? Don't you think cooperative principles could be applied to the industries you seek to nationalize? Couldn't there be a form of national ownership that is not statist?”

Many cooperatives failed, and most intentional communities collapsed in short time. Curl gives the reasons for these failures. One was external problems. The capitalists did everything in their power, from economic warfare to terrorism, to crush alternatives. Governments, in the pay of their corporate masters, were hostile and used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to prevent the formation of the cooperative federations which could have been of assistance to fledgling coops. Later governments enacted doubled-edged coop legislation which was used to control, de-radicalize and steer the cooperative movement in a more capitalistic direction. There were also funding problems. Banks refused to lend money and the government wouldn't help either. New coops were saddled with heavy debt-loads or were grossly underfunded.

Then there were the internal problems. Ideological differences fractured groups. There were organizational problems, especially a lack of experienced personnel for the “nuts and bolts” daily coop activities. Naive idealism ruined many an intentional community, unworkable ideas like large-scale communal living and a lack of practical members. (Lots of philosophers, fewer carpenters and farmers.) Coops often over-extended themselves in good times, which lead to collapse and bankruptcy in bad times.

See http://www.pmpress.org/content/article.php?story=johncurl

Economic [In]Justice By the Numbers/Call Congress

·     Percentage of America’s net worth (source: Economic Policy Institute) owned by top 1%: 34
·     Percentage owned by top 10%: greater than [ > ] 70
·     Percentage owned by bottom 90%: 29
 
·     Percentage of income controlled by top 1% of Americans in 2007: 24
·     Percentage of total increase in American incomes from 1980-2005 that went to richest 1%: > 80
 
·     Number of times as much on average CEOs of largest US companies earned in 1980 compared to average US worker: 42
·     Number of times in 2001: 531
 
·     Amount generated (according to the Congressional Research Services) if Estate Tax is capped in 2011 at 35% after a $5 million tax free allowance: $11.2 billion
·     Amount generated if Estate Tax is capped at 45% after a $3.5 million tax free allowance: $18.1 billion
·     Amount generated if the current 55% Estate Tax is maintained: $34.4 billion
 
·     Amount of record profit posted by US corporations (source: Bureau of Economic Analysis) during third quarter of this year: $167 billion
·     Percentage increase from same time last year: 28
·     Current US unemployment rate (due in large part to corporations not creating US jobs): 9.6%
 
·     Number of unemployed workers for every new job created: 5
·     Number of people unemployment benefits lifted out of poverty in 2009: 3 million
 
·     Percentage worse off current recession would be (source: Labor Dept study during Bush administration) without unemployment insurance (UI): 18
·     Amount of jobs preserved in each quarter by continuing unemployment insurance: 1.6 million  
·     Number of dollar increase in economic activity for every dollar spent on UI: 2
 
·     Total amount of tax cuts to those with incomes above $250,000 per year (according to Tax Policy Center) if Bush cuts are continued: $700 billion
·     Average tax cut of richest .1% if Bush cuts are continued: $370,000
 
·     Recently released total of bailout by the Federal Reserve to US and foreign banks and corporations during the economic crisis: at least $3.3 trillion
 

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=  
 
“My point [is] that the wealthiest plutocrats now actually control a greater share of the pie in the United States than in historically unstable countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guyana…I’m appalled by our growing wealth gaps because in my travels I see what happens in dysfunctional countries where the rich just don’t care about those below the decks. The result is nations without a social fabric or sense of national unity. Huge concentrations of wealth corrode the soul of any nation…I don’t know if that makes us a banana republic or a hedge fund republic, but it’s not healthy in any republic.”
-      Nicholas Kristof, New York Times (Plain Dealer, 11/21/10)

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=  
 

Call Senators Brown and Voinovich using the US Action Congressional Hotline 1-866-606-1189

Messages:
Extend unemployment insurance through 2011.
Don’t extend tax breaks for rich.
Don’t cut estate tax on wealthy.
Bail out people, not Wall Street banksters. 

Three Stories, Three Children: On the Requiem Road

The elderly native man stares at the white woman across the table of the greasy spoon in Kamloops, British Columbia, where they both wait for a bus. It is November 25, 2010.

His name is George.

“I lived my whole life on our reserve, just south of Calgary. As a young boy, I got taken to the Catholic residential school north of us. That’s where I got all these.”

The man lifts his shirt and reveals deep scars on his chest and arms. Another deep furrow runs across his head.

“But that wasn’t the worst. It happened one night in winter. Cold as hell, and blowing hard. These three little girls from our reserve had all been raped by the head priest. The oldest girl was only seven. The others must have been five or six. The eldest one said to the others they had to run away. They was just in little cotton nightgowns, no shoes or nothing. But they escaped and ran off into that blizzard.”

The man looks down and shakes his head.

“They didn’t get more’n a mile. I was on the search team that found ’em. All three of ‘em were still holding each other’s little hands, lying face down in the snow. When we reached ‘em, the priest, the guy who’d raped them, got all mad and started cursing, like he was mad at them.

“That’s when I saw the oldest girl start moving. She weren’t dead. But when the priest saw her move she told me to just leave her there. He turned away from her and left her there, dying in the snow.”

The man is about to continue when his bus arrives.

“I couldn’t leave her there …” he begins. He turns to his wife, who has sat next to him the entire time, nodding sadly.

“We gotta go” he says to the white woman.

2. Far to the west, a day later, William Combes shuffles into the Ovaltine café on Vancouver’s hastings street skid row with his few belongings stuffed in a backpack. He nods and smiles at me, for we haven’t seen each other in weeks.

“I been drinking again, really bad” he begins apologetically, for he knows how much I rely on him, and how he relies on that reliance.

“The memories again?” I ask.

“Yeah, but it’s like now, I ain’t got nowhere to talk about it. Not now, with your radio show gone. That was the way I got by, talking on the show …”.

I nod, remembering with more than anger how his lifeline was severed so brutally. I say quickly,

“I’ve got a new show, a blog radio program. You have to come on it.”

He looks at me wearily, then reaches into his bag and extracts a nearly-empty bottle and swigs from it. We let the minutes tick by, hoping for something.

Finally William says,

“Remember when the Queen came to our school? How she took away those ten kids?”

“Yeah, I checked on that. She was definitely in B.C. in the fall of ’64.”

“I remembered their names. Some of ‘em. The boys.”

I pull out my notepad.

“There was Harvey and Ralph Parker – Metis boys from Lytton. They were in the group taken away by the Queen and Philip, after the picnic at dead Man’s Creek. Five other boys went, and three girls. They were all in the smart group in school.”

The ten children were never seen again.

“Are you remembering anything else William?” I asked.

He nods sadly.

“George Adolph and Ralph Arnuse, they were with me that day, they saw the kids taken away. And how she made ‘em all kiss her foot.”

“What?”

“The Queen had on these white gloves, and she put out her foot and told all those ten kids they had to kiss it. They all did.”

William shuddered and started coughing.

“I started talking about it the next day in school, said it wasn’t right. Then the nun told me if I said anything against the Queen I’d get killed for it.”

I stopped jotting notes and looked at him carefully.

“There’s more, isn’t there?”

The man nodded.

“I seen Brother Murphy throw that epileptic boy off the fire escape, three stories up. Murphy did that to a bunch of kids.”

“How many?”

William screws up his eyes and stutters,

“Happened all the time. I’d say fifteen. Twenty.”

“He killed that many kids?”

“Sure. Nobody survives that kinda fall. Murphy burned a few of them in the school furnace. I saw him do it once.”

William wouldn’t eat anything that day. I managed to get some oatmeal into him but he quickly threw it up into a urinal.

3. That night, waiting for a bus on Hastings street and sheltering from the rain, I encountered Josephine, an aboriginal prostitute I’ve known for years. Somehow, she’s still alive, although tonight she was bleeding from a new wound to her forehead.

“Eduardo did it. I still owe him.”

She sat next to me in the bus cubicle, watching warily for the Guatemalan pimp and drug dealer who rules a two block stretch of Hastings as his personal fief. The cops don’t go near him. Rumor has it that he used to be a political activist in his homeland. Now he murders people.

“Killed Francine by jumping on her head, over at the Patricia” recounted Jo to me once, years ago.

“She owed him fifty bucks. Made the mistake of telling him off.”

Jo was cold that night, and I offered her my coat. She smiled shyly and declined.

“Are you safe?” I asked.

She just tilted her head at the stupidity of the question, but being native, said nothing.

The elderly native man stares at the white woman across the table of the greasy spoon in Kamloops, British Columbia, where they both wait for a bus. It is November 25, 2010.

By Kevin D. Annett - www.hiddenfromhistory.org

Tell Sen. Voinovich to Pass the DISCLOSE Act

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision in January allowed corporations to divert money from their treasuries to influencing elections -- specifically for so-called independent "issue ads." Most of these contributions/investments went to front groups so that corporations didn't have to disclose their identity or amount.

The Supreme Court ruled, however, in Citizens United by an 8-1 margin that existing disclosure laws (meaning those who contribute/invest in political campaigns) should be required to reveal the size and source of the funds.

This last point was largely ignored as well over $100 million in shadowy funds poured into the fall elections.

Earlier this year, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act which would shed light on these secret contributions/investments. The Senate now needs to do the same. Provisions of the Act are below.

Call or fax Senators Voinovich and Brown urging them during this "lame duck" session to pass the DISCLOSE Act. Senator Brown always supports the Act. Senator Voinovich can be persuaded to do the same.

Several of us from Cleveland met with his aide on Wednesday urging the Senator to take one more independent step away from the Republican Party position (most Repubs oppose the Act).

Call Voinovich today!

Name / Local Office Number / Local Fax Number (Faxes are better than calls)
Senator George Voinovich / 216-522-7095 / 216-522-7097
Senator Sherrod Brown / (216) 522-7272 / 216-522-2239

The DISCLOSE Act legislation will address seven major provisions:

1. Enhance Disclaimers
Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.

2. Enhance Disclosures
It is time to follow the money.

3. Prevent Foreign Influence
Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.

4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure
We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.

5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending
Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.

6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties
Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.

7. Tighten Coordination Rules
Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate.


Posted on Mon, Nov. 29, 2010
Inquirer Editorial: Transparent elections

Time has all but run out for the Senate to take a modest and reasonable step to restore sanity to out-of-control campaign spending.

Although a majority of senators favor the DISCLOSE Act, Republican lawmakers are blocking a vote. The measure, which passed the House last summer, proposes a basic requirement that people who donate hefty sums for election ads identify themselves.

What's wrong with that?

In this year's midterm elections, at least $125 million was donated secretly to defeat or support various candidates. It was the first time in nearly 40 years that such large amounts of secret money influenced an election, for which the blame goes to the Supreme Court's tragically misguided ruling in the "Citizens United" case.

Rest of Philadelphia Inquirer editorial at
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101129_Inquirer_Editorial__Transparent_elections.html