Sunday, February 28, 2010

Call for Constitutional Convention in PA

If and when we become much more organized in Ohio, this may be something worth replicating.

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

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
P.O. Box 2016 Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201
www.celdf.org

MEDIA RELEASE
February 20, 2010

For Immediate Release
Contact: Ben Price Projects Director 717-254-323 bengprice@aol.com

Attached: The Chambersburg Declaration (see next e-mail)



Laying the Groundwork for a People’s Constitutional Convention
Pennsylvania Community Rights Network Launched

To organize a people’s convention of delegates, representing municipal communities, who will propose constitutional changes to secure the inalienable right to local, community self-government free of state and corporate preemption.

Chambersburg, PA (February 20, 2010)

Citizens from more than a dozen counties met in Chambersburg on Saturday, February 20th , to initiate plans to convene a Pennsylvania People’s Constitutional Convention made up of delegates from municipalities across the state.

The Community Rights Network Conference brought together men and women who have struggled for years to assert the rights of citizens to protect the health, welfare and environment of their communities, only to be met with a barrage of legislative preemptions and threats of corporate lawsuits. “Not one of our 12.5 million Pennsylvanians enjoys the fundamental right to self-government in the communities where they live,” commented Ben Price, Projects Director for the Legal Defense Fund. “In January 2008, attorney general Tom Corbett’s office declared in Commonwealth Court that ‘there is no inalienable right to local self-government.’ Pennsylvanians overwhelmingly think he’s wrong, and it’s time for our Constitution to reflect the will of the people,” Price said.

The day-long conference was the first opportunity for many of these local organizers to meet and share their experiences. Describing their townships and boroughs as “resource colonies for corporations” and “sacrifice zones” for waste haulers, they concluded their deliberations by pledging to become Community Rights Networkers, and by issuing the Chambersburg Declaration, which presents the case for building a community-driven movement for constitutional change to guarantee local self-governing rights that protect the rights of all Pennsylvanians, not just the privileges of corporations and their limited-liability beneficiaries.

The Networkers pledged to quickly implement the first steps of a campaign to create a people’s movement for community rights. They will be hosting neighborhood discussions, scheduling Democracy School seminars that unveil the legal checks on democracy that prevent people from exercising their rights to protect their quality of life in the places where they live, and by urging their municipalities to appoint delegates to form an organizing committee as the first step toward convening a People’s Constitutional Convention.

Background
Over the past few years, more than a dozen communities across Pennsylvania have adopted local self-governance ordinances that challenge the authority of the state to preempt local decision-making on behalf of corporations. In response, the state and corporations have conspired to adopt anti-democratic legislation that preempts local decision-making, and have used the courts to sue a handful of these municipalities. Some cases have been dismissed, some communities have prevailed and others are ongoing, but state agencies, municipal solicitors, state legislators and corporate lawyers have erected a legal fortress to protect corporate privileges against democratic governance at the community level.

Over the past year, the Legal Defense Fund staff have discussed the need to bring together all of the communities they have worked with across Pennsylvania to decide on next steps in the struggle for community governing rights. The goal is to build a statewide movement to drive the right to local self-government into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The need for constitutional change has been recognized by a growing number of people and organizations across the state. Of highest importance to the convening of any constitutional convention are the manner of its convening, the scope of its powers and the choosing of delegates.

The Pennsylvania Constitution recognizes that “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.” (Article I, Section 2) It also cautions us “To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.” (Article I, Section 25) And yet, the legislature and courts, to whom we, the people, have delegated high powers, claim that the “inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper” may be exercised by the people only if and when the legislature places a question on the ballot to call for a convention or to allow the people to adopt an amendment proposed by the very government the people want to alter, reform or abolish.

The Pennsylvania Community Networking Conference marks a significant turning point in the struggle for community rights, and the Chambersburg Declaration is a common-sense assessment of the obstacles to Pennsylvanians realizing their aspirations right there in the communities where they live. Placing a constitutional convention in the hands of real people representing their municipal communities is the innovative solution that is needed.

In 1776, when Pennsylvania revolutionaries drafted the first state constitution, they asserted that:
“all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such…government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are only part of that community: And…the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.”


It is time to realize those principled aspirations.


~ 30 ~



The Chambersburg Declaration


By the Undersigned in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, on
Saturday, February 20th, 2010


We declare:

- That the political, legal, and economic systems of the United States allow, in each generation, an elite few to impose policy and governing decisions that threaten the very survival of human and natural communities;

- That the goal of those decisions is to concentrate wealth and greater governing power through the exploitation of human and natural communities, while promoting the belief that such exploitation is necessary for the common good;

- That the survival of our communities depends on replacing this system of governance by the privileged with new community-based democratic decision-making systems;

- That environmental and economic sustainability can be achieved only when the people affected by governing decisions are the ones who make them;

- That, for the past two centuries, people have been unable to secure economic and environmental sustainability primarily through the existing minority-rule system, laboring under the myth that we live in a democracy;

- That most reformers and activists have not focused on replacing the current system of elite decision-making with a democratic one, but have concentrated merely on lobbying the factions in power to make better decisions; and

- That reformers and activists have not halted the destruction of our human or natural communities because they have viewed economic and environmental ills as isolated problems, rather than as symptoms produced by the absence of democracy.


Therefore, let it be resolved:

- That a people’s movement must be created with a goal of revoking the authority of the corporate minority to impose political, legal, and economic systems that endanger our human and natural communities;

- That such a movement shall begin in the municipal communities of Pennsylvania;

- That we, the people, must transform our individual community struggles into new frameworks of law that dismantle the existing undemocratic systems while codifying new, sustainable systems;

- That such a movement must grow and accelerate through the work of people in all municipalities to raise the profile of this work at state and national levels;

- That when corporate and governmental decision-makers challenge the people’s right to assert local, community self-governance through passage of municipal law, the people, through their municipal governments, must openly and frontally defy those legal and political doctrines that subordinate the rights of the people to the privileges of a few;

- That those doctrines include preemption, subordination of municipal governments; bestowal of constitutional rights upon corporations, and relegating ecosystems to the status of property;

- That those communities in defiance of rights-denying law must join with other communities in our state and across the nation to envision and build new state and federal constitutional structures that codify new, rights-asserting systems of governance;

- That Pennsylvania communities have worked for more than a decade to advance those new systems and, therefore, have the responsibility to become the first communities to call for a new state constitutional structure; and

- That now, this 20th day of February, 2010, the undersigned pledge to begin that work, which will drive the right to local, community self-government into the Pennsylvania Constitution, thus liberating Pennsylvania communities from the legal and political doctrines that prevent them from building economically and environmentally sustainable communities.

That a Call Issues from this Gathering:

- To create a network of people committed to securing the right to local, community self-government, the reversal of political, legal, and cultural doctrines that interfere with that right, and the creation of a new system and doctrines that support that right;

- To call upon the people and elected officials across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to convene a larger gathering of delegates representing their municipal communities, who will propose constitutional changes to secure the right of local, community self-government; and

- To create the people’s movement that will result in these changes to the Pennsylvania Constitution.


Founding Signers,

- Bill Belitskus – McKean County, Hamlin Township
- Mary Belitskus – McKean County, Hamlin Township
- Martin Boksenbaum – Northampton County, Lehigh Township
- Lori Cooper – Northampton County, Lehigh Township
- Bonnie Glose – Carbon County, Bowmanstown Borough
- John Liddle – Schuylkill County, Norwegian Township
- Kathleen Liddle – Schuylkill County, Norwegian Township
- John Dunphy – Montgomery County, Cheltenham Township
- Monica Liggins – Montgomery County, Cheltenham Township
- Joe Martin – McKean County, Foster Township
- Diane Martin – McKean County, Foster Township
- Joe Norley – Chester County, West Chester Borough
- Maria Payan – York County, Peach Bottom Township
- Cathy Pedler – Erie County, Erie Township
- Lisa Pignataro – Northampton County
- Kara Scott – Carbon County, Bowmanstown Borough
- Marva Simon Iano – Montgomery County, Cheltenham Township
- Vicki Smedley – Lycoming County, Nippenose Township
- Bob Stanley – Lancaster County, Mt. Joy Township
- Fred Walls – Franklin County, St. Thomas Township
- Pat Walls – Franklin County, St. Thomas Township
- John Wolf – Lancaster County, Mt Joy Township
- Ben Price – Cumberland County, North Middleton Township
- Stacey Schmader – Franklin County, Guilford Township
- Shireen Parsons – Carbon County, Summit Hill Borough
- Cathy Miorelli – Schuylkill County, Tamaqua Borough
- Chris Morrison – Schuylkill County, Tamaqua Borough

The Chilean Earthquake and the Rightie Moonbats

Disasters like these seem to bring out all the haters and bigots. I got these choice comments (and this is only a small sample) from the CBC comments section, which supposedly has a more liberal audience. One can only wonder what is being emailed in the right wing media.

What is a 'Chilean-Canadian' and how do I sign up to receive benefits from two countries, but only pay taxes to one? I'm being ripped off.

Classic right winger, full of envy. God help anyone who gets a little more than they do, but billionaires, no problem!

I wonder if Hugo Chavez will help out his South American friends......ya, right.

Just can't let an event like this go by without slandering their favorite American propaganda created bete noir. (Who in fact is sending aid.)

* It's all because of Global warming!!!!!!We're all gonna DIE!!!!!! Al Gore and Suzuki better save us

* Global warming is causing this.

There were many like these. Infantile attempts at sarcasm as a way of denying global climate change.

I think your commie buddies take care of this one. The lefties has been pretty useless up to now....

Any stick with which to beat the left

And Canada won't care because Chile isn't French.

Why let an opportunity pass and not attack Quebec? Classic Anglo-Canadian anti-French racism.

Chile's government has expressed nothing but contempt for America, yet America is one of the first nations to offer aid.

Cow like ignorance combined with a boot-licking attitude toward the Empire.

* Another international tragedy so by protocol let's open the refugee floodgates to anyone and everyone across Chile. In fact lets pass out Canadian passports worldwide to citizens of the developing world just in case an event happens again

* Oh here we go "again" with the "Aid Agencies" milking our wallets, lathering on lots of "developed world" guilt to get us to support the victims of Chile "

* Okay Haiti, put your begging bowl away, it's Chile's turn.

Xenophobia combined with selfishness and a total lack of understanding of the nature and causes of underdevelopment.



For a comparison of the earthquakes in Chile and Haiti and some important information missing from the corporate media see this article by Jose Antonio Gutierrez D.

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15978



Saturday, February 27, 2010

Harriett Nahanee

Why Canonize People We Never Noticed?

Thoughts on the Harriett Nahanee Cult

by Kevin Annett, www.hiddenfromhistory.org

Harriett Nahanee of the Pacheedaht Nation died three years ago this week.



You can't listen to a youthful "activist" in Canadian radical - indigenous circles these days without hearing at some point an obligatory reference made to "warrior and elder" Harriett Nahanee, who, although largely ignored by the same activists while she was alive, has suddenly gained a quasi-mystical status in their minds.



Idolizing a stranger is usually the most handy way to dismiss who they actually were and what they were fighting for, and that certainly fits Harriett and her treatment by trendy activists.



I knew Harriett Nahanee for over a decade until her judicial murder, and together we made public the first eyewitness account - hers - of a murder of a child in a United Church Indian residential school: little Maisie Shaw, who was kicked to her death by Rev. Alfred Caldwell in 1946, right in front of ten year old Harriett.



Harriett's post-humous fans never mention this little fact in all their hosannas to her, but to expose Maisie's murder and similar killings of countless children in Christian Indian residential schools was Harriett's purpose in life: something she kept saying, time and again, to the handful of people who would come to our rallies and public meetings from 1995 to January of 2007, just weeks before her death, when I last met her outside the church we were picketing.



The real Harriett Nahanee was ornery, filled with rage, and apt to turn on you if you disagreed with her. She often said that she hated whites and wouldn't work with them, since she didn't trust them. She loathed sharing the spotlight with anyone, because she was consumed with her purpose, like a prophet. And over and over, she spoke out about Maisie's murder and called for the United Church of Canada to be brought to justice.



For years, nobody listened to us, including all the activist groups who claim to own her now. And even today, when it's safer to talk about massive deaths in residential schools now that the Globe and Mail has given official sanction to the issue, the same activists will never mention Maisie Shaw and Harriett Nahanee in the same breath. Indeed, the residential school murders, like Harriett, now seem to be history.



To dismiss the real Harriett and what she was fighting for in this manner is to defame and dishonor her. And the fact that a cloak of misinformation has been imposed on Harriett and her efforts to expose residential school murders is not accidental, since she was killed just a month before the opening of the campaign by our network that would eventually force an "apology" and national exposure regarding the residential schools genocide.



Harriett Nahanee, being aboriginal and an eyewitness to a residential school murder, was not intended to survive to give credence to that campaign. And her relationship with me, which caused the first Tribunal into Canadian residential schools in 1998 and the eventual success of our work, has also faced a deliberate misinformation campaign by the very churches and state that stood to lose by our exposure of their crimes.



The undercover operative who destroyed our 1998 tribunal, Jim Craven, likes to speak on the internet about how I "dishonored" Harriett, including by not attending her funeral, not mentioning, of course, that I was out of the country when it happened. What he's also not mentioning is the letter that Harriett gave me that last time I saw her, that describes the smear campaign started against me by Craven, and how he asked her to be part of it.



So the present falsified image of Harriett Nahanee so espoused by her erstwhile acolytes, as an aboriginal warrior who blockaded roads but whose witness to murder and hatred of the churches is censored out of her activism, is something generated by the very government and churches that killed her. Once again, the capacity of the state to guide and control supposed radical movements with its own version of reality has blinded a new generation of militants to the truth.



Harriett would mourn the fact that, last Sunday, only eight of us stood outside a downtown church with a banner "All the Children Need a Proper Burial", after we had emailed over five hundred people about our action. It's the same place, Christ Church Anglican, where I saw her for the last time. I remember she smiled at me that day, and said how I was the only white man she'd met who cared enough about dead Indian children to protest about them, year after after.



"That will never change" she said sadly. Then she smiled again and said,



"So fuck them all".



I agree with Harriett, and I'll be outside Christ Church cathedral again this Sunday, with a few others. And Harriett Nahanee.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Food Sovereignty in Europe

A good article on the movement toward food sovereignty in Europe

The growing impossibility of a dignified livelihood in the European countryside has provoked a widespread and active social response on the part of Europeans unwilling to sacrifice their society and environment to corporate greed. Farmers’ unions, environmental organizations, consumers’ groups, fair trade organizations, and economic solidarity networks, among many others, have begun to work throughout Europe to denounce the impact of the EU’s agricultural policies and call for alternatives.

Article continues at http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1825



Sunday, February 21, 2010

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

It’s not big government per se than people are angry about. It’s big government in cahoots with big business. This new poll is well worth reading.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed
Thursday, February 18, 2010

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.

Among voters under 40, 25% believe government has the consent of the governed. That compares to 19% of those ages 50 to 64 and 16% of the nation’s senior citizens.

Those who earn more than $100,000 a year are more narrowly divided on the question, but those with lower incomes overwhelming reject the notion that today’s government has the consent from which to derive its just authority. Those with the lowest incomes are the most skeptical.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans say the government does not have the consent of the governed, and that view is shared by 65% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. A plurality of Democrats (44%) agrees, but 32% of those in President Obama’s party believe the government has the necessary consent.
From an ideological perspective, most moderate and conservative voters say the government lacks the consent of the governed. Liberals are evenly divided.

In his new book, In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are “united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers.” He adds that “the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”

The book has earned positive reviews from Larry Sabato, Pat Caddell, Bill Kristol, Joe Trippi and others. In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters think that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.

Thirty-five percent (35%) say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people.

Nearly half of all voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do as good a job as the current Congress.

Colin Ward 1924 – 2010

Robert Anton Wilson, Murray Bookchin have left us, now Colin Ward has gone too. Colin was one of the great popularizers of anarchism in the English speaking work. His review, "Anarchy", which he published from 1961 to 1970, brought anarchist thinking out of its ghetto, applying anarchist ideas in a whole range of areas like education, urbanism, culture. And in doing so many people became acquainted with anarchism, who otherwise would not have.

He sought the "anarchism of daily life", showing how in so many instances we act freely and with mutual aid, being anarchists without even knowing it. Colin also showed us "the path not taken" by social democracy when it instituted state-run social services. According to him, the existing self-managed systems of mutual aid should have been extended rather than replaced by state bureaucratic institutions.

The following is an article taken from A-Infos about Colin Ward

Ward was the most practical radical I've ever read: Rather than sketching out utopian blueprints of a society without a state, he searched for empirical examples of everyday people organizing to solve their own problems. Once he started looking, he found that voluntary, non-authoritarian cooperation was everywhere. Utopia, he wrote in his 1973 book Anarchy in Action, is "already here, apart from a few little, local difficulties like exploitation, war, dictatorship and starvation." ---- Because he took his ideals seriously, Ward butted heads regularly with both the conventional left and the conventional right. In the '80s and early '90s, his column for New Statesman & Society was peppered with examples of the Tory government failing to live up to its rhetoric of liberty and decentralized power. At the same time, he was harshly critical of the social democratic left. In one of his most famous passages, he pointed out that



When we compare the Victorian antecedents of our public institutions with the organs of working-class mutual aid in the same period the very names speak volumes. On the one side the Workhouse, the Poor Law Infirmary, the National Society for the Education of the Poor in Accordance with the Principles of the Established Church; and, on the other, the Friendly Society, the Sick Club, the Cooperative Society, the Trade Union. One represents the tradition of fraternal and autonomous association springing up from below, the other that of authoritarian institutions directed from above.



As Stuart White notes in his tribute to Ward, the writer was



a formidable and dedicated opponent of what is often understood as the Fabian tradition. This comes across very clearly in his work on housing where he was always highly critical of state-heavy efforts, led by middle-class housing professionals, to provide housing for the working-classes. In this context, he argued for the alternative left tradition of cooperative self-help in the form of tenant cooperatives, self-build projects and squatting. He pointed repeatedly to the illogicality of local governments - often Labour-controlled - who would rather destroy unused council housing stock than allow it to be occupied by squatters.



These squatters, to be clear, were not self-righteous trustafarians seizing a private home while the owner took a holiday. They were ordinary families finding uses for resources the state had left fallow. Such self-organization was a longtime theme in Ward's work. Quoting White again: "Much to the consternation of the [postwar] Labour government, many thousands of working-class people responded to acute housing shortage by taking over and adapting disused military bases. While his comrades in the anarchist movement struggled to see the point, Colin saw this as an example of what he would later call 'anarchy in action': direct and cooperative self-help." Ward's interest in the institutions that people build from below took him to areas that radical writers rarely touched: He wrote appreciative histories and sociologies of holiday camps, allotment gardens, amateur music-making, even the street culture of urban children.



Ward had an eye for the creativity of ordinary people and the ways we use that inventive energy to transform our environments. He didn't have trouble imagining a society immersed in liberty and spontaneous order, because he knew that liberty and spontaneous order were what sustained society in the first place, even if they sometimes had to take a stunted form.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The Anti-Olympics Demonstration and the Black Bloc.

I have never cared much for the Black Bloc, but the amount of hypocrisy about the "violence" of breaking a couple of bank windows this Saturday in the demonstration against the Olympics corporate welfare fest has almost made me sympathetic.

Tactical differences and criticism are legitimate. There are ethical and utilitarian aspects to any tactical choice and the BB's can be questioned about these. However, the bulk of hostility wafting their way has little to do with arguments about tactics. Many of the red-faced and bellowing crowd (1) simply hate "protesters" period and use the BB as an excuse to spout venom at any public critic of the system.

Those who rant about violence would be comical in the extremity of their hypocrisy if it wasn't just plain sad that people could be so blind and so deluded. A newspaper box was thrown through a bank window – you would think it the atrocity of the decade. Thirty million children die each year from malnutrition and bad water. If a few broken windows makes these folks apoplectic, how do they deal with this violence? How about the trillion dollars a year squandered on military foolishness while those same kids drop dead? Shouldn't that peeve these clowns enough to heat up the comments sections of the on-line forums?

So far I have seen accusations of cowardice against the BB's and at the same time calls for vigilante action against them (and also generic "protesters.") 20 unarmed, unprotected people take on hundreds of armed, body armoured riot cops. They may be nuts but cowards they ain't! The accusation of cowardice is actually psychological projection on the part of the right-wingers. What is a right-winger but someone filled with a host of irrational fears – of protesters, trade unions, feminists, environmentalists, peace activists, socialists, communists etc., all raised into towering bogey-men causing the poor little right-winger to practically piss himself in terror? A fair fight to a right-winger is a thousand to one – the lynch mob so let's drop all talk of cowardice.

I have actually heard it all before. Back in the 1960's we student radicals were attacked in similar terms. "Public opinion" turned apoplectic when the Yippies arrived on the scene and went off the Hate Mongers Richter Scale when a bunch of street kids destroyed a train load of brand new automobiles during the Blaine Invasion. (And you morons get your shorts in a knot over a couple of windows?)

The BB made me think of other violence that I witnessed during that time. I was in Berkeley in May of 1970 when Nixon invaded Cambodia. The students held a night demo and molotov cocktails were hurled at the ROTC building setting it on fire. Around the same time students in Santa Barbara burned the local Bank of America to the ground.

Now let's move away from the right-wing moonbat element and turn to one aspect of the tactical criticism of the BB. The notion that their actions will "turn people against the movement." No one other than right-wing fanatics reduces the movements of the 1960-70s to the most extreme or violent aspect of those movements. People are actually a lot smarter than that. Debate on the BB will have to move to other areas other than this, but that would have to be another time...



1. I got this image from living in Quebec. This is how most Quebecois see Anglo Canadians.