EFTA01195155.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 04/13/2014 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:12:02 +0000 Attachments: EllaJosephine_Baker_bio_April_13,2014.docx; Thinlc_the_new_climate_report_is_scary„Thefood- pocalypse_is_already_upon_us_The_Guardian_Mar„3,2014.docx; Climate_changejalready_affecting_food_supply'_— _UN_Suzanne_Goldenberg_TheGuardian_03_31_2014.docx; 20_years_after_the_genocide,_Rwanda is_a beacon of hope Tony Blair The Gurardian April_6„2014.docx; 8_Maps_That_Will_Change_the_Way_You_Look_at_Africa_Vicky_Ramirez_Huff_Post_04 _07_2014.docx; Nigeria_overtakes_South_Africa_to_become_Africa's_largest_economy_Tolu_Ogunles_The _Guardian_April_7,2014.docx; When_Youth_Violence_Spurred2Superpredato_=? WINDOWS-1252?Q?r=92_Fear=5FClyde_Haberman=5FNYT=5F04=5F07=5F2014.docx? =; Austin_or_Bust„America's_Biggest_Cities_Lose_People_to_the_Urban_B- List_By_Karen_Weise_Bloomberg_April_8,2014.docx; Ignorance_is_strength_The_Economist_April_9,2014.docx; Hugh_Masekela_bio.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png; image(10).png; image(11).png; image(12).png; image(13).png DEAR FRIEND In orderfor us as poor and oppressed people to become a part of a society that is meaningful, the system under which we now exist has to be radically changed. This means that we are going to have to learn to think in radical terms. I use the term radical in its original meaning—getting down to and understanding the root cause. It meansfacing a system that does not lend itself to your needs and devising means by which you change that system. — Ella Baker, 1969 EFTA01195155 Ella Joe Baker died in 1986 at the age of 83. Her entire adult life was devoted to building organizations that work for social change find encouraging individual growth in individual empowerment. Nonetheless, even among those generally knowledgeable about the modern history of the African American struggle, neither her name nor her sense of how we make positive social change are widely known. She worked during the time when few Americans were capable of taking a black woman seriously as a political figure. Yet, Ella Baker was a central figure an African-American activism as an organizer and as an advocate of developing the extraordinary potential of ordinary people. Few activities can claim a depth and breadth of political experience comparable to Ella Baker's half century of struggle. She was associated with whatever organization in the black community was on the cutting edge era - NAACP (National Association of the Advancement of Color People) in the forties, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in the fifties, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in the sixties. Miss Baker's activism - and she was always pointed Miss Baker to the people she worked with, a mark of respect, strongly influenced by her family and childhood community. The rhetoric, as she once said, got far ahead of the organization, even when thoughtful and grounded, as ideas often became slogans for people who were less thoughtful and had done less work. She was always dubious about the real value of demonstrations. Because as she would often say, "lobbying and demonstrations may produce some gainsfrom the powers that be relatively quickly, but the same powers may retract those same gains as soon as the political wins shift." What Miss Baker called "real organizing" might mean that results would take longer to achieve, but it might also mean these results would be better protected. Raised by a strong single mother, my purpose in writing this essay is to introduce the "Grand Lady," as her grandfather used to call her, to people who may not have heard much about her way of working and thinking. That Ella Baker could have lived the life she did I remain as little known even among the politically knowledgeable is important in itself. It reminds us once more of how much are collective past has been distorted, and distorted in this empowering ways. Ella Baker is often described as "an unsung heroine of the Civil Rights movement." In the literal sense that's not true, because of all the songs that the black women's a cappella group Sweet Honey in the Rock performs, none is more beloved than "Ella's Song," composed by Sweet Honey founder Bernice Johnson Reagon. The song begins in Ella Baker's own words, "We who believe infreedom cannot rest." Initially a member of Martin Luther King's inner circle, Ella Baker went her own way after two years at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference because she disagreed with its policy of strong central leadership. She gave herself over instead to grassroots organizing, working with young people in particular because she believed that "strong people don't need strong leaders." Today her memory is honored at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, where an initiative is being launched this summer called Reclaim the Future. The plan is "to build a constituency that can transform urban America by creating jobs, reducing violence and honoring the earth." Ella Baker's work, and the work going on today in her name, represents the dimension of nonviolence that Gandhi called, in language that is almost dauntingly prosaic, "Constructive Program." Long live Miss Ella Jo Baker and the thousands of others like her around the world who are unsung heroes in the struggle of righting the wrong for people in need of help through social change. The long-term goal, for which she admittedly had no blueprint, was simply a more democratic, egalitarian, and humane world. Not a bad goal/acheivementfor a little black girl raised in rural North Carolina. EFTA01195156  Piers Morgan concluded his final CNN show Friday night by delivering one last blow against America's gun violence epidemic. The "Piers Morgan Live" host praised the U.S. as "a land of true opportunity," adding, "The vast majority ofAmericans I've met are decent, hardworking, thoroughly dependable people." But he went on to say that an estimated 100,000 Americans per year are hit by gunfire, and argued, "I am so pro-American, I want more of you to stay alive." Morgan pointed out that on average each day in America 35 people are murdered with guns, another 50 kill themselves with guns and 100 more each day are shot but survive, is how he came up with the number of 100,000 people a year hit by gun fire in America. And if this isn't an epidemic then nothing else is Web Link: thoughts.cnn.ht ml Morgan expressed frustration with reaction to the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting and the Newtown, Conn., school shooting: "I assumed that after 7) people were shot in a movie theater and then just a few months later 20first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, that the absurd gun laws in this country would change, but nothing has happened." He added: 'The gun lobby in America, led by the NRA, has bullied this nation's politicians into cowardly silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms." Earlier this month, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre declared, "There is no greaterfreedom than to survive and protect ourfamilies with all the rifles, shotguns and handguns we want "A study published in the American Journal of Public Health last year found that states with more gun ownership often had higher rates of gun-related murders. Morgan argued in his last show: "More guns doesn't mean less crime, as the NRA repeatedly tries to tell you. It means more gun violence, more death and more profitsfor the gun manufacturers." He concluded, 'Wow it's down to you. It is your country. These are your gun laws. And the senseless EFTA01195157 slaughter will only end when enough Americans stand together and cry, 'Enough!' I lookforward to that day. I also lookforward to seeing you all again soon. Thank you. And God bless America. Oh, and while I'm at it, God bless Great Britain too. Good night" We have to wonder why our political leaders not see this pressing issue with the clarity of Morgan, because accepting it as the price for Freedom falls hollow on the more than 11,00o people who die from gun violence each year. Nation of Takers? In the debate about poverty, critics argue that government assistance saps initiative and is unaffordable. After exploring the issue, I must concede that the critics have a point. Here are five public welfare programs that are wasteful and turning us into a nation of "takers." Here is an op-ed Nation of Takers? — that Nicholas Kristof wrote last month in the New York Times to illustrate how much the deck is stacked against the poor while they are being used as scapegoats by the bidders of the rich, who are receiving some of the most egregious subsidies and handouts imaginable. First, welfare subsidies for private planes. The United States offers three kinds of subsidies to tycoons with private jets: accelerated tax write-offs, avoidance of personal taxes on the benefit by claiming that private aircraft are for security, and use of air traffic control paid for by chumps flying commercial. As the leftists in the George W. Bush administration put it when they tried unsuccessfully to end this last boondoggle: "Thefamily offour taking a budget vacation is subsidizing the C.E.O.'s flying on a corporate jet." I worry about those tycoons sponging off government. Won't our pampering damage their character? Won't they become addicted to the entitlement culture, demanding subsidies even for their yachts? Oh, wait ... Second, welfare subsidies for yachts. The mortgage-interest deduction was meant to encourage a home-owning middle class. But it has been extended to provide subsidies for beach homes and even yachts. In the meantime, money was slashed last year from the public housing program for America's neediest. Hmm. How about if we house the homeless in these publicly supported yachts? Third, welfare subsidies for hedge funds and private equity. The single most outrageous tax loophole in America is for "carried interest," allowing people with the highest earnings to pay paltry taxes. They can magically reclassify their earned income as capital gains, because that carries a lower tax rate (a maximum of 23.8 percent this year, compared with a maximum of 39.6 percent for earned income). Let's just tax capital gains at earned income rates, as we did under President Ronald Reagan, that notorious scourge of capitalism. Fourth, welfare subsidies for America's biggest banks. The too-big-to-fail banks in the United States borrow money unusually cheaply because of an implicit government promise to rescue them. Bloomberg View calculated last year that this amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion to our to biggest banks annually. President Obama has proposed a bank tax to curb this subsidy, and this year a top Republican lawmaker, Dave Camp, endorsed the idea as well. Big banks are lobbying like crazy to keep their subsidy. EFTA01195158 Fifth, large welfare subsidies for American corporations from cities, counties and states. A bit more than a year ago, Louise Story of The New York Times tallied more than $8o billion a year in subsidies to companies, mostly as incentives to operate locally. You see where IN going. We talk about the unsustainability of government benefit programs and the deleterious effects these can have on human behavior, and these are real issues. Well-meaning programs for supporting single moms can create perverse incentives not to many, or aid meant for a needy child may be misused to buy drugs. Let's acknowledge that helping people is a complex, uncertain and imperfect struggle. But, perhaps because we now have the wealthiest Congress in history, the first in which a majority of members are millionaires, we have one-sided discussion demanding cuts only in public assistance to the poor, while ignoring public assistance to the rich. And one sided discussion leads to a one-sided and myopic policy. We're cutting one kind of subsidized food — food stamps — at a time when Gallup finds that almost one-fifth of American families struggled in 2013 to afford food. Meanwhile, we ignore more than $12 billion annually in tax subsidies for corporate meals and entertainment. Sure, food stamps are occasionally misused, but anyone familiar with business knows that the abuse of food subsidies is far greater in the corporate suite. Every time an executive wines and dines a hot date on the corporate dime, the average taxpayer helps foot the bill. So let's get real. To stem abuses, the first target shouldn't be those avaricious infants in nutrition programs but tycoons in their subsidized Gulfstreams. However imperfectly, subsidies for the poor do actually reduce hunger, ease suffering and create opportunity, while subsidies for the rich result in more private jets and yachts. Would we rather subsidize opportunity or yachts? Which kind of subsidies deserve more scrutiny? Some conservatives get this, including Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He has urged "scaling back ludicrous handouts to millionaires that expose an entitlement system and tax code that desperately need to be reformed." After all, quite apart from the waste, we don't want to coddle zillionaires and thereby sap their initiative! EFTA01195159  Nathaniel Abraham, 12, is being charged as an adult in a homicide case. He looks around as Sheriff's deputies move in to re-cuff him during a break in his hearing to determine if the trial charging him as an adult will proceed. Since the death of Trayvon Martin I have been trying to figure out how did it become acceptable to kill young African American men and how it's become open-season to kill teenagers of color and sentence them as adults, sometimes 'life without the possibility ofparole'. Then I came across an article in the New York Times by Clyde Haberman - When Youth Violence Spurred 'Super-predator' Fear - which provided the background on how this fear came about. After to surge of teen violence and meet early 199os, some social sciences predicted the future was going to be a whole lot worse. Reality proved otherwise. The media responded by calling it a tidal wave of violence, youth violence was out of control, the future looks bleak and one word said it all, 'super predators.' Social scientists and criminologist looked at the data and sore doom. They stepped out of the ivory towers and into the public arenas, sounding the alarm about a coming wave of kids who are going to ravage the country. These social scientists described this super predator as a young juvenile criminal who is so impulsive, so remorseless that he can kill, rape and maim without giving it a second thought. The prediction was terrifying and lawmakers crack down on juvenile offenders, causing the country to go into a moral panic over a super predators. But there was one problem. The calculations were wrong because they made it up. Yes there were gang violence and yes it was out of control for several years but it was contained to specific geographic areas. Yet no matter where you lived the media made these instances national stories. As such, there was a sense that the country at large was going to hell in a handbag. Yes, from 1985 to 1995 teenage homicides doubled and with studies saying that it would be a million more teenagers (between 14 and 17) by 2000. Some social scientists predicted crime rates would snowball even more, with a doubling or tripling in the rate of youth violence, suggesting that the small percentage of kids that do violent crimes would be much more destructive then the generation before them, as 6% of violent offenders are responsible for more than 50% of all of the violent crimes committed by this age group, a bloodbath often violence by 2005. This was strong language, an alarm that few could ignore and rhetoric prove the most powerful arrow in their quivers. See web link: http://nyti.ms/1 hRseXf It was John DiLulio, and every league academic from Philadelphia in an article, Ticking Time Bomb in the Weekly Standard in 1995 coined the term Super-Predictors which originated when he interviewed an older inmate, who offhandedly referred to some of the young inmates as predictors. And like a match to a flame, the word caught on. When you use the word like predator that is loaded with certain assumptions about a way that an animal hunts another animal, to call someone a super- predator really amps that up even more. DiLulio described these kids as growing up essentially fatherless, Godless and jobless and although not pointing any particular racial group but in 1996 he wrote that as many as half of these juvenile super-predators "could be" young black males. Making race the central issue and with the extent that Black and Latino children were increasing in society and with them, would come a big crime increase. Required in moral panic is the identification of a particular group of people who are demonized in some way. When you describe another group is godless, you can do anything to them. Hence, it became open season against young Black and Latino men and we have seen this is 'stop and frisk' police policies across the countries and the Zimmerman jury verdict. EFTA01195160 Lawmakers seized the moment to spur on the overhaul of a legal system what they considered to lack of adequate legal supervision, equating kids who steal hub caps to those who rape and murder. Newt Gingrich saying, "There are no violent offenses that are juvenile." As a result between 1992 and 1997 forty five states enacted laws cracking down on juvenile offenders, malting it easier to prosecute youths in adult criminal courts and increase penalties. But the same time that these laws were being enacted juvenile crime rates were already falling, as juvenile crime rates have been plummeting since 1994 and in the wake of this panic. The fall in juvenile crime has been attributed to many things. A stronger economy. Better policing. A decline in crack cocaine use. And DiLulilo's research had not foreseen any of these trends. By the late 199os and a steady decline in juvenile crime, it was evident how mistaken Dilulilo was, as the super-predator was a no-show. The predictions were off by a factor of four, which is probably as far off as you can possibly get and call yourself a scientist. The alarm of super-predators was wrong but once this myth was established, it was difficult to reel it in. The problem wasn't the misinterpretation of the data. The real problem is the myth that was created. As the fear of the super-predictor led to a number of laws and policies that we just now are recovering from. Automatic mandatory life sentences for juveniles is now seen as cruel and unusual punishment and has been outlawed. Criminology is not pure science and the fear perpetuated by the media is often as dangerous as the peril it is warning the public against. There is little doubt that television coverage contributes to the public hysteria about youth crime. In particular, local television news plays a primary role in shaping what the public believes it knows about juveniles and the justice system. There are several reasons why TV stories about specific crimes — especially involving young suspects — are so ubiquitous. They are cheap to produce, often come camera-ready with gripping images, and are easy to report because they fit easily into a journalistic formula that has at its core human drama. The increasing visibility of juveniles set in the context of crime lends credence to some people's view that today's youth are a new breed of "super-predators"—violent, remorseless and impulsive pre- adults responsible for widespread mayhem. Of course, the clear but unspoken subtext of the super- predator thesis is that a disproportionate number of criminal youth are from racial minority groups. To be sure, minority youth offenders are arrested for violent crimes at rates exceeding their population sizes. But those who analyze the role of TV news — you will find that the overwhelming focus on violent crime adds to this distortion because the dominant message is consistent with the widely held public perception that young people of color commit violent crime. Recently a group of social scientist set out to examine in a novel way the connections between what people see in local newscasts and what they think about juvenile crime. They designed an experiment to assess the impact of the "super-predator newsframe" in which the only difference between what groups of viewers saw in a news story involved the race of the alleged youth perpetrator. In an experiment conducted to gauge the effect of media on stigmatizing youthful offenders as predators. People were presented with a 15-minute videotaped local newscast, including commercials. EFTA01195161  It was described to them as having been selected at random from news programs broadcast that week. The report on crime was inserted into the middle of the newscast, following the first commercial break. The participants—who were found while shopping in a mall in Los Angeles—were assigned at random to one of the following groups: • Some participants watched a news story—with a "super-predator script" - in which the close-up photo of the alleged murderer showed a young African-American or Hispanic male. • Other participants watched the same newscast and story, except that the race of the murder suspect was white or Asian. • A third set of viewers watched the same newscast, but this time the story did not contain any information concerning the racial identity of the accused. • Finally, a control group did not see a crime story in the newscast. Prior to watching the various newscasts, each participant filled out a short questionnaire. Information about their social and economic backgrounds, political beliefs, level of interest and involvement in political affairs and customary media habits was gathered. After they viewed the newscasts, a lengthier questionnaire was given, probing in more detail their social and political views. Only then was the method and purpose of the experiment explained to them. Here's what they discovered. A mere five-second exposure to a mug shot of African-American and Hispanic youth offenders (in a 15-minute newscast) raises levels of fear among viewers, increases their support for "get-tough" crime policies, and promotes racial stereotyping. However, they also found that these effects vary a great deal by the race of the viewer. Exposure to the "super-predator news frame" increases fear of crime — measured as concern for random street violence and expectations about victimization — among all viewers. The increase for white and Asian viewers is about to percent. The effect is more pronounced among African-Americans and Hispanics, with a 38 percent rise. This, by itself, is not a surprising finding. After all, these two groups are most likely to be victimized and violent crime typically involves people from the same racial and ethnic backgrounds. The more pertinent question is how these fears translate into opinions about crime. The scientists measured this by asking an open-ended question about "solutions to the crime problem" in a follow-up survey. Here is what they found. • Exposure to the "super-predator newsframe" increases a desire for harsher punitive action among whites and Asians by about ii percent. • Exposure to the "super-predator newsframe" decreases support for this type of solution by 25 percent among African-Americans and Hispanics. It is interesting that while the "super-predator script"heightens fear among all viewers, this anxiety translates into a demand for harsher and swifter punishment only among whites and Asians. Among African-Americans and Hispanics, these stories remind them of injustice and prejudice. This finding appears consistent with the historic opposition minority groups have shown toward punitive policies such as the death penalty. Media depictions of "superpredators" remind minority viewers of this fact, while similar news images and stories strengthen the belief among whites and Asians that crime remedies for young offenders need to be harsher, in part as a result of what they've seen. A similar pattern holds for how these stories affect racial stereotyping. Exposure to the image of a minority "super-predator" increases the percentage of whites and Asians who subscribe to negative stereotypes about African- Americans and Hispanics. However, among viewers from these minority groups, the tendency to attribute negative characteristics decreases by 20 percent after viewing these stories. EFTA01195162 The "superpredatorframe," therefore, widens the racial divide among members of the viewing public. From study's perspective as media analysts as well as social scientists, they believe this study suggests why and how the practice of journalism—especially when it comes to reporting youth crime on television — should be revised. Without commenting on intent, it is enough to say that "body-bag" journalism, particularly as it focuses on young people, has a corrosive influence. There are more constructive ways of reporting these stories. Organizations such as The Berkeley Media Studies Group and television stations like ICVUE in Austin, Texas have developed alternative approaches that work well in reporting the story of youth crime and reduce the racially polarizing effect that otherwise emerges. Right now, in the minds of the viewing public, youth crime is as much about race as it is about crime. Many experts believe that efforts to curb youth violence must ultimately deal with the vexing social problems facing young people of color. If this is so, reporters ought to look at developing stories about the nature of these problems and effects they have on community safety. Unless these broader contexts are examined, and the "superpredator script" is revised, then the behavior of the troubled "six percent" of youth will define an entire nation's understanding of these issues. But let's understand that although there are definitely juvenile predictors and I am sure that some deserve to be labeled "super-predators" only a very small percentage of youthful offenders fit this description and by treating a large segment of our youth as predatory society may be creating the thing that it is trying to eradicate which was all based on a myth. Remember that our children are not our enemies, unless wefail them g;T, his artist rendering shows the Supreme Court Justices. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren) Without a doubt the Supreme Court further opened the doors of our democracy to big money in its ruling today in McCutcheon v. FEC. Last week in a five-four split along ideological lines, the Court ruled that overall limits on individual campaign contributions were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court left in place the cap on donations to a single candidate that conservative donor Shaun McCutcheon also challenged in the case. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas moved to strike that limit down as well. "I was disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision today," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who, along with former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. Many of the provisions of that Act have since been rolled back by Supreme Court decisions, including the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. "I am concerned that today's ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the Court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics." McCain said he worried that the ruling would lead to a spate of campaign finance and corruption scandals. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) denounced the ruling saying it would fundamentally undermine American democracy. "The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchicform of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process," he said in a statement. Legal scholar Heather Gerken, who teaches election and constitutional law at Yale — and who spoke with Bill Moyers about the case last October — said today's decision would have far-reaching effects on our campaign finance system. "The Court downplays the significance of its EFTA01195163 decision, but they are wrong to do so. If the Court understood how money runs through the political system, they could not have offered such reassurances. This decision is going to cause the parties to restructure how theyfinance elections goingforward, and we'll allfeel the effectsfor years to come." At The Daily Beast, Lawrence Lessig, a reform advocate and law professor at Harvard University, argued that the decision didn't take the framer's intent into account in its narrow definition of "corruption"as a quid pro quo exchange of cash for policy between donors and politicians. Corruption, he writes, can also occur when politicians are dependent on one class of citizen. "Already we have a system in which Congress is dependent upon the tiniestfraction of the 19b tofund its campaigns. I've estimated the number of relevantfunders is no more than150,000 (about the number ofAmericans named tester!) If aggregate contribution limits are struck, that number willfall dramatically,"he wrote. The decision outraged good government groups, who have been working since 2010 to stem the flow of special-interest money into politics following Citizens United. In that decision, the Court's conservative majority held that money is speech, and that the federal government could not restrict it by limiting "third party"campaign spending by corporations and unions. That ruling gave rise to super PACs and the dark money groups that deep-pocketed wealthy donors use to funnel money to support politicians who share their interests. "No regular person can compete with Charles and David Koch." — Robert Weissman, Public Citizen "The Supreme Court in the McCutcheon decision today overturned 40 years of national policy and 38 years ofjudicial precedent," said campaign finance reformer Fred Wertheimer, who heads Democracy 21, a nonprofit group working to protect fairness and integrity in elections. "The Court's decisions have empowered a new class ofAmerican political oligarchs. These Court decisions (Citizens United and McCutcheon] have come at the enormous expense of the voices and interests of more than 300 million Americans." "Yes, you and I now have the 'right' to spend as much as we want, too. But no regular person can compete with Charles and David Koch," wrote Robert Weissman, president of the good government advocacy group Public Citizen. "There are literally only a few hundred people who can and will take advantage of this horrendous ruling. But those are exactly the people our elected officials will now be answering to." "That is not democracy. It is plutocracy. Today's reckless Supreme Court ruling threatens so many of the things we love about our country. No matter whatfive Supreme Court justices say, the First Amendment was never intended to provide a giant megaphonefor the wealthiest to use to shout down the rest of us." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich echoed these sentiments in a Facebook post, writing that the decision will allow wealthy individuals to purchase "unparalleled personal influence in EFTA01195164 Washington," "drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens." He added: 'This is the most brazen invitation to oligarchy in Supreme Court history." Reich called for an amendment to the Constitution stating that "(0 money is not speech under the First Amendment, (2) corporations are not people, and (3) we the people have the right to set limits on how much money individuals and corporations can spend on elections." `McCutcheon' Means "All the Free Speech You Can Buy" Two events this week have made the fight to save democracy from big money, already an uphill battle, even harder. In Washington, DC the Supreme Court struck down overall contribution limits on how much individual donors can give to candidates, parties and PACs. In New York State's annual budget, Governor Cuomo and legislators killed a commission investigating political corruption, failed to pass campaign finance reform and gave tax breaks to the rich. Fortunate for any of us who believe this country should be about fair play and justice, and those waiters, busboys, and cooks reinforce our faith that organized people can counter organized money. But they are going to need all the hope and heart they can muster. So are we. The fight to save our democracy from the clutches of plutocrats just got harder. Here in New York State, Governor Andrew Cuomo of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, and legislators from both parties, killed a commission investigating political corruption and aborted a promising plan for a more level playing field in state elections. They did so while handing "wealthy individuals in wealthy communities"-- the biggest contributors to elections --some very big tax breaks. And in Washington, as you've heard by now, in the McCutcheon case, the Supreme Court five -- the pro-corporate bloc -- struck down limits on how much money can be given to candidates, parties and political action committees. One prominent right-winger says the justices merely "reinstated thefirst amendmentfor all Americans." But by doubling down on their earlier ruling in the infamous Citizens United case, which equates money with speech, the justices have decreed that you are entitled to all the free speech you can buy. Just like the Koch brothers. The prevailing myth in America has been that the rich have a right to buy more homes, more cars, more gizmos, vacations and leisure. But they don't have the right to buy more democracy. The Supreme Court just laid that myth to rest, and the new gilded age roars in triumph. But we, the people, should not cower or give in to despair. Those restaurant workers aren't quitting. They have summoned a spirit from deep within our past, when those early insurgents stood against imperial authority. Believing that: When injustice becomes law, defiance becomes duty. At our website, , we'll show you some ways you can get involved. And there's more about the fight for a living wage. That's all at I'll see you there and I'll see you here, next time. Bill Moyers: April 4, 2014 EFTA01195165  Now He Tells Us: McCutcheon Attorney Admits Money Is Not Speech Dan Backer, the lead lawyer behind a landmark case that further opened the campaign finance floodgates, conceded in an interview with HuffPost Live that money is not, in fact, speech. The effort to repeal laws regulating the role that moneyed interests can play in elections has long been animated by the notion that any such restriction is a violation of the First Amendment's right of free speech. Indeed, in his first brief comment to HuffPost Live, Backer, who counseled Shaun McCutcheon, referenced speech no fewer than four times in explaining the Supreme Court's rationale in its McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision striking down certain campaign contribution limits last week: "I don't understand why anyone should have theirfree speech limited to help somebody elsefeel like they can speak more. The Constitution does not envision the idea of, as the court said, 'weakening the rights of some and the speech of some in order to enhance or promote the speech of others.' But the argument has a clear weakness. HuffPost asked Backer why, if money is speech, bribery is illegal. Shouldn't bribery be considered an expression of one's First Amendment rights? Money quickly transformed in Backer's reasoning. "The court did not say, and really neither does any serious commentator, that money is speech. Money is not speech. Money is a necessary tool to engage in political speech and political association," he said. If money isn't speech, HuffPost asked, then why is it out of line for the government regulate campaign donations? "It's not out of line. It's allowed to regulate money in elections in order to prevent quid pro quo corruption," Backer answered, referencing the narrow definition of corruption cited by the Supreme Court in the McCutcheon decision. And the above segments are my rant this week and it should be yours as our democracy should not be for sale whether the buyer be Michael Bloomberg of Sheldon Adelson. WEEK's READINGS We're Not No. 1! We're Not No. 1! We in the United States grow up celebrating ourselves as the world's most powerful nation, the world's richest nation, the world's freest and most blessed nation. EFTA01195166 Sure, technically Norwegians may be wealthier per capita, and the Japanese may live longer, but the world watches the , melts at Katy Perry, uses iPhones to post on Facebook, trembles at our aircraft carriers, and blames the C.I.A. for everything. We're No. i! In some ways we indisputably are, but a major new ranking of livability in 132 countries puts the United States in a sobering 16th place. We underperform because our economic and military strengths don't translate into well-being for the average citizen. In the Social Progress Index, the United States excels in access to advanced education but ranks loth in health, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, 39th in basic education, 34th in access to water and sanitation and 31st in personal safety. Even in access to cellphones and the Internet, the United States ranks a disappointing 23rd, partly because one American in five lacks Internet access. "It's astonishing that for a country that has Silicon Valley, lack of access to information is a red flag," notes Michael Green, executive director of the Social Progress Imperative, which oversees the index. The United States has done better at investing in drones than in children, and cuts in social services could fray the social fabric further. This Social Progress Index ranks New Zealand No. 1, followed by Switzerland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All are somewhat poorer than America per capita, yet they appear to do a better job of meeting the needs of their people. The Social Progress Index is a brainchild of Michael E. Porter, the eminent Harvard business professor who earlier helped develop the Global Competitiveness Report. Porter is a Republican whose work, until now, has focused on economic metrics. "This is kind of a journey for me," Porter told me. He said that he became increasingly aware that social factors support economic growth: tax policy and regulations affect economic prospects, but so do schooling, health and a society's inclusiveness. So Porter and a team of experts spent two years developing this index, based on a vast amount of data reflecting suicide, property rights, school attendance, attitudes toward immigrants and minorities, opportunity for women, religious freedom, nutrition, electrification and much more. Many who back proposed Republican cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and public services believe that such trims would boost America's competitiveness. Looking at this report, it seems that the opposite is true. Ireland, from which so many people fled in the 19th century to find opportunity in the United States, now ranks 15th. That's a notch ahead of the United States, and Ireland is also ahead of America in the category of "opportunity." Canada came in seventh, the best among the nations in the G-7. Germany is 12th, Britain 13th and Japan 14th. The bottom spot on the ranking was filled by Chad. Just above it were Central African Republic, Burundi, Guinea, Sudan and Angola. Professor Porter notes that Arab Spring countries had longstanding problems leading to poor scores in the "opportunity" category. If that's a predictor of trouble, as he thinks it may be, then Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran should be on guard. None do well in the category of opportunity. In contrast, some countries punch well above their weight. Costa Rica performs better than much richer countries, and so do the Philippines, Estonia and Jamaica. In Africa, Malawi, Ghana and Liberia shine. Bangladesh (no. 99) ranks ahead of wealthier India (no. 102). Likewise, Ukraine (no. 62) outperforms Russia (no. 8o). China does poorly, ranking 9oth, behind its poorer neighbor Mongolia (no. 89). China performs well in basic education but lags in areas such as personal rights and access to information. All this goes to EFTA01195167 what kind of a nation we want to be, and whether we put too much faith in . as a metric. Over all, the United States' economy outperformed France's between 1975 and 2006. But 99 percent of the French population actually enjoyed more gains in that period than 99 percent of the American population. Exclude the top 1 percent, and the average French citizen did better than the average American. This lack of shared prosperity and opportunity has stunted our social progress. There are no quick fixes, but basic education and health care are obvious places to begin, especially in the first few years of life, when returns are the highest. The arguments for boosting opportunity or social services usually revolve around social justice and fairness. The Social Progress Index offers a reminder that what's at stake is also the health of our society — and our competitiveness around the globe. Nicholas Kristof: April 2, 2014 5 MLK Causes You Didn't Learn About In Middle School ; 4eitt Atj oy One doesn't have their very own national holiday and goo streets named after them unless they are truly deserving. Nor does Gallup name you the second most beloved person in all of the 20th century without good reason. Martin Luther King Jr. was aptly awarded all of the above. Today on the 46th anniversary of his assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, he was celebrated for the Civil Rights Movement hero that was. Sam Moore, of Sam & Dave, is releasing a song titled, "They Killed A King" in his honor, and tomorrow The National Civil Rights Museum is reopening -- after a 16-month renovation -- at the site of his assassination in Memphis. EFTA01195168 Dr. King will always be known for his passion and achievements in the area of civil rights, but it is also worthwhile to remember what made him such a revered public figure was his dedication to numerous causes under the umbrella of human rights. Here are some you may not know Dr. King kept near and dear until his passing. Sanitation Workers' Rights There is much documentation about Dr. King's work for sanitation workers' rights. In fact, MLK was in Tennessee helping organize the Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike at the time of his assassination in 1968. On the evening before his death, MLK gave his famous Mountaintop speech and urged workers, "we've got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end," to keep fighting for union recognition, and thereby adequate wages and improved safety standards. Curriculum Reform Dr. King not only wanted equal opportunity of education for people of all races, but valuable education for people of all races. It is his opinion that is the only way to find truth and raise a human population with integrity and character: A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. The above quote is from "The Purpose of Education" which he wrote in 1947. Advancing Economic Opportunity Part of MLK's solution to economic inequality in America was a anti-capitalist view for the future of the country. He was criticized for it, but he felt passionately about equal pay and equal rights for workers, and would not be moved on the subject despite acquiring a "socialist" label for his beliefs. Anti-War Sentiment Even from beyond the grave, MLK can tell you in his own words how his non-violent protest principle transfers over to international policy in his famous speech, "Why I Am Opposed To The Vietnam War." Working Across Religions Dr. King was a Christian, and a firm believer at that. That did not however, stop him from recognizing shared ideals of social change with people of other faiths, such as Malcolm X, who was Muslim. EFTA01195169 During a PBS civil rights series, Coretta Scott King said about her husband, "I know Martin had the greatest respectfor Malcolm... I think that if Malcolm had lived, at some point the two would have come closer together and would have been a very strongforce." Human Dignity And Integrity Regardless of MLK's position on pro-life vs pro-choice, Planned Parenthood Federation of America awarded him the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award for "his courageous resistance to bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity" in 1966. His wife Coretta Scott King graciously accepted the award on his behalf. Gay Marriage Rights Was MLK on board with gay rights? CNN pieces together the puzzle of dues left behind in his legacy and closest of family and friends. For starters, Coretta Scott King was an avid gay rights activist. Congressman John Lewis, a close friend and esteemed Civil Rights Movement colleague of Dr. King -- the youngest speaker at the March on Washington -- discusses the freedom to marry in the video above. He explains that civil rights and equal rights are one and the same, and how he sees "marriage equality as a step, a necessary step, in completing the long, hard struggle what Dr. Martin Luther King called the beloved community." Scanning the media looking for topics of interest for this week's readings I came across an article in The Guardian by Richard Schiff-man - Think the new climate report is scary? Thefood- pocalypse is already upon us - but what really got me was the article's subtitle - Riots. Towns gone dry. Soaring prices. Crushing starvation. If this sounds like fear-mongering from scientists, talk to the farmers — and if this doesn't get your attention it definitely got mine. The article was based on report, released a week ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate EFTA01195170 Change (IPCC) which is a 2,600-page catalogue of the risks to life and livelihood from climate change — now and in the future. The report was built on the work of more than 300 scientists drawing from 12,000 scholarly articles to produce the most comprehensive picture of climate risks to date. Rajendra K. Pachauri (Chairman of the IPCC) said the report provided all that governments could need for coming up with a strategy for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and protecting populations from climate change and hope that hoped its conclusion on the rising threat of climate change would `jolt people into action". Pachauri, who has headed the IPCC for 12 years, said he hoped it would push government leaders to deal with climate change before it is too late. As Schiffman describes; this mother of all climate reports is so scary that one