Mediaboss Marketing

This column first appeared in the Victoria Daily Times on Feb. 11, 1941. The Rowell-Sirois Report in 1940 recommended significant changes in the financial relationship between the federal and provincial governments. Many recommendations were not adopted, and some others were introduced piecemeal.

Democracy, like all growing things, has its periods of decline when the sap runs back into the roots and the blossoms fall. This figure of speech has its limitations, of course, for the plants in their resting time are not in danger but merely gathering strength for a fresh blooming, and there is nothing to be done about it.

However, when democracy pauses and trembles on the brink, it is a time of real danger when something must be done and done with decision.

We have been shocked to find that three of Canadas premiers, without consulting their people, have been able to set aside, for the time at least, one of the most progressive projects of this decade, the implementing of the Rowell-Sirois Commission.

We thought the war had united us. We thought it had kindled all our heroic instincts and made us ready to sacrifice for freedom. We thought we were all Canadians now. Certainly our armed forces were drawn from the whole of Canada, city and country, east and west, French and British and many others. Even the German population in western Ontario and parts of Nova Scotia is represented on the fields of battle; and that thought of a united Canada in the face of the Nazi menace has heartened us and given us great comfort to Britain in her hour of need.

But now like an ugly snake lifting its head in a garden of flowers, comes up the old poisonous spites and phobias and provincialism. Of course, we always knew we had thin spots in our national garment the industrial east and the agricultural west have many points of divergence, but surely in this hour of trial and testing we should be big enough to make the necessary adjustments and reconciliations, and that is just what has been put before us by the five well-qualified men, five of our finest citizens, who have patiently, laboriously collected evidence all across the country and considered every angle of Canadas problems.

Surely such well-considered recommendations cannot be brushed aside by three men, clothed in a little brief authority.

As a resident now of British Columbia, I am disturbed and disappointed that the premier of this province should be one of the disrupters. British Columbia is a rich province, with lumber and mines, fish and fruit, mountains and rivers, two transcontinental railways and the sea at her door. Because of the mild climate, tourists come in large numbers from other parts of Canada as well as from other countries.

No province of the nine has profited as much from the money spent by the Dominion in tourist advertising as this one. People come here when they are through working, bring the money they earned in other provinces, so it is no wonder that British Columbia can balance her budget.

The mild weather, which is one of her great attractions, is a gift from heaven, and so are the beauties of garden and mountain and sea. British Columbia, of all provinces, remembering these blessings, should be glad to co-operate in a plan that is calculated to help the other provinces, and Ibelieve the people of British Columbia, if they had a chance to speak, would say so.

When the premier said in Ottawa at the conference called by the prime minister to discuss the Sirois report, that he did not propose to have his province ham-strung and hog-tied, he was using exactly the same reasoning advanced by the countries that withdrew from the League of Nations they were afraid they might lose something. Are we never going to learn that no country can live for itself alone?

The Detroit Quill at New Years carried a story that shows that this spirit of selfishness and isolation, by some evil power seems to be growing on this continent. It says the States of the Union are beginning to set up barriers at the boundaries in little outbreaks of self-interest. The fruit growers of one section try to gain an advantage by not allowing their neighbours fruit to come over the state line.

Those of us who are interested in trying to get cheaper freight rates between the prairie provinces and British Columbia to the advantage of these localities will remember that we met opposition by the short-sighted policy of some of those we were trying to help. There were people here in British Columbia who feared the shipping in of Albertas freed-grain would lower their market.

Naturally, we are alarmed to find our unity broken by three men, who by three different routes, arrived at the same decision, which was that they would not even discuss the recommendations of the Sirois report. They knew that these recommendations could be altered, amended, enlarged or curtailed. They knew that discussion would be free and uncensored, but they had their minds made up they would not even consider them. And that three men could destroy the most important conference since Confederation reveals a weak spot in our constitution which should at once be remedied. The fence needs mending.

Much has been written about the Sirois report, much that I would like to repeat here, to show its fairness and the favourable comment it has received from all classes of people, but I am convinced the root of this trouble goes deeper than arguments or statistics. Canada will never be a nation until we are able to lay the old ghosts and forget the old enmities and that must be a work of grace. I feel that the breaking up of this conference puts us in a very bad light which we do not deserve.

The people of Canada, as I know them, are willing to take risks in freedoms cause. I lifted this phrase from a speech of Herbert Morrisons as recorded in arecent Listener. This is the quotation:

Political schemers, sailing under all sorts of official sounding names, who seek to destroy our will to take risks in freedoms cause are, whether they know it or not, playing Hitlers game as their friends played it in the disintegration of Germany and France.

These are strong words biting words, but not too strong. Any appeal to sectionalism, or selfishness of class-hatred or religious antipathies, fits well into Hitlers rule for domination, Confuse! Divide! Conquer!

But we are not going to accept this. The Rowell-Sirois report is still before us. The road does not end here. It is merely a detour.

I have been reading a book, written by an American doctor, Rosalie Slaughter Morton, about the country we used to call Persia, which is now called Iran. In 1906, she says, a crisis arose in the country and it looked as if parliament would not be able to stand out against the influence of Russia, and then occurred a phenomenon that is without parallel.

The women in the harems rose up in protest, resentful that the men should be unable to preserve the freedom of the country. At the peak of the excitement out they marched, 300 of them, with pistols in the folds of their sleeves, straight to the Mejlis (parliament) and demanded of the president that he admit them. What the grave deputies thought of this strange visit is not record But the Mejlis, faced by the militant women, did not sell their countrys birthright.

And that was the women of Persia, in 1906.

Read more here:
Nellie McClung: When democracy is at stake, it's time to mend the fences - Times Colonist

With major media featuring fake news, Net Neutrality is key to keeping the Internet free and open, letting users access all content without restrictions, limitations, or discrimination, an online level playing field for everyone.

First Amendment rights depend on it. Without Net Neutrality, consumer choice will be lost, stolen by corporate predators, making the Internet look like cable TV, letting communication giants decide what web sites, content and applications are available at what cost.

Net Neutrality is essential to assure no content is favored over others. Electronic Frontier Foundations (EFF) legal director Corynne McSherry expressed concern about Trumps new FCC director Ajit Pai taking steps to undermine Net Neutrality protections, adding:

If so, we, and millions of Internet users, will do what is necessary to defend a free and open Internet. Separately, EFF raised concerns about FCC opposition to encryption under Pai, urging tech companies to defend and preserve it along with Net Neutrality and privacy rights.

FreePress.net said everything (it) fought for at the FCC is in jeopardy under Pai. Previously he was a corporate lawyer for Verizon Communications, involved in regulatory and broadband issues, among others.

At the FCC, he held several positions in its Office of General Counsel, most prominently as deputy general counsel. He also practiced law at Washington-based Jenner & Block, specializing in communications practice.

In 2011, Obama named him an FCC commissioner. He strongly opposes regulations, prioritizes their removal. In 2015, he opposed the FCCs Open Internet Order. Last December, he said Net Neutralitys days are numbered.

In January, Free Press CEO Craig Aaron blasted Pai, saying hes been on the wrong side of just about every major issue that has come before the FCC during his tenure.

Hes never met a mega-merger he didnt like or a public safeguard he didnt try to undermine. Hes been an inveterate opponent of Net Neutrality, expanded broadband access for low-income families, broadband privacy, prison-phone justice, media diversity and more.

He looks out for corporate interests exclusively. Their lobbyists are thrilled about his appointment.

Millions of Americans from across the political spectrum have looked to the FCC to protect their rights to connect and communicate and cheered decisions like the historic Net Neutrality ruling, and Pai threatens to undo all of that important work.

Digital democracy is at risk with him as FCC chairman. Net Neutrality is a defining issue, preserving it vital.

Its the last frontier of free and open communication space.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site atsjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

The rest is here:
Online Digital Democracy at Risk: Trump's FCC Chairman Threatens Net Neutrality - Center for Research on Globalization

The American solution to the problem of religious conflict in politicsthe First Amendment and the religious test clause of Article VI of the Constitutionis not well understood today. Much of the time, in fact, liberals deliberately distort the meaning of these clauses to imply a hostility toward religion. Recovering the rightful understanding can begin with a close look at Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty.

But readers really interested in a deeper dive into this whole subject should take in Giorgi Areshidzes new book, Democratic Religion from Locke to Obama: Faith and the Civic Life of Democracy. Its out recently from University Press of Kansas, which is unusual among academic publishers for producing books that are actually readable and interesting, even toperhaps especially tothe non-specialist. Dont be scared by the title here. Much of the book discusses the religious aspects of familiar figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., along with some analysis of the problematic approach to religion by the grand vizier of modern liberalism, John Rawls. Areshidze is appropriately skeptical of the coherence of Barack Obamas religious profile, as he explains in this short conversation we had a few weeks back (2:42 long):

Go here to see the original:
The Problem of Religion and Democracy - Power Line (blog)

In 2017, the rule of law and democracy itself are under attack by President Trump and his administration. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

There is much to celebrate in the court decision against President Trumps immigration ban. It was a stirring victory for the rule of law and reaffirmation of the independence of the judiciary. Yet America faces a serious problem which that decision did not address: the erosion of public faith in the rule of law and democratic governance.

While we have been focused on partisan divides over government policy and personnel, an almost invisible erosion of the foundations of our political system has been taking place. Public support for the rule of law and democracy can no longer be taken for granted.

In 2017, the rule of law and democracy itself are under attack by President Trump and his administration. This is as much a symptom as a cause of our current crisis. Public Policy Polling has released the startling results of a national survey taken this week. Those results show significant fissures in the publics embrace of the rule of law and democracy.

Only 53% of those surveyed said that they trust judges more than President Trump to make the right decisions for the United States. In this cross-section of Americans, 38% said they trusted Donald Trump more than our countrys judges. 9% were undecided. Support for the rule of law seemed higher when respondents were asked whether they thought that President Trump should be able to overturn decisions by judges when he disagrees with those decisions. Here only 25% agreed, with 11% saying they were unsure.

But, the result changed when the data were narrowed to those who identified themselves as Trump supporters: 51% agreed that Trump should be able to overturn court decisions. 33% disagreed. 16% were not sure.

It is tempting to attribute this difference between Trump supporters and others simply to the fact that the presidents supporters prefer a more authoritarian style of government, prioritize social order, like strong rulers, and worry about maintaining control in a world they perceive to be filled with threats and on the verge of chaos.

As the PPPs survey reveals, Trump is appealing to a remarkably receptive audience in his attempts to rule by decree and many are no longer attached to the rule of law and/or democracy. Other studies confirm these findings. One such study found a dramatic decline in the percentage of people who say it is essential to live in a democracy.

When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how essential it is for them to live in a democracy, 72% of Americans born before World War II check 10, the highest value. But, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) has grown much more indifferent. Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed.

While millennials may be politically liberal in their policy preferences, they have come of age in a time of political paralysis in democratic institutions, declining civility in democratic dialogue, and dramatically increased anxiety about economic security.

These findings suggest that we can no longer take for granted that our fellow citizens will stand up for the rule of law and democracy. Thats why, while President Trumps behavior has riveted the media and the public, our eyes should not only be focused on him but on this larger and troubling - trend.

If the rule of law and democracy are to survive in America we will need to address the decline in the publics understanding of, and support for both. While we celebrate the Ninth Circuits decision on Trumps ban, we also must initiate a national conversation about democracy and the rule of law. Civics education, long derided, needs to be revived.

Schools, civic groups, and the media must to go back to fundamentals and explain what basic American political values entail and why they are desirable. Defenders of democracy and the rule of law must take their case to the American people and remind them of the Founders admonition that: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

We need to remember that our freedom from an arbitrary or intrusive government depends on the rule of law and a functioning democracy. We need to rehabilitate both before this crisis of faith worsens.

Austin Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College

See more here:
Americans aren't as attached to democracy as you might think ... - The Guardian

I watched President Trumps inauguration from an airport TV in Guatemala. Id just finished leading 22 people on a pilgrimage to live, study, and participate in ceremonies with Mayan shamans at sacred sites. For me, it was the first leg of a two-month working journey. I am still in Latin America, teaching and speaking at a variety of venues. In the days since that inauguration, I, like so many, have felt the horror of the emerging Trump policies.

Latin Americans cannot understand why so few of us voted in the last election and why so many who did voted for Trump. A larger percentage of people vote in most Latin American countries than in the U.S.; in several countries, voter turnout exceeds 90 percent. Many of these countries have a history of brutal dictatorships. Once free of these dictatorships, their citizens revel in their rights to hold democratic elections; they see their ability to vote for their leaders as both a responsibility and a privilege. They wonder why a relatively small percentage of voters would elect a potential dictator. And moreover, why those nonvoters did not vote against him.

The participants on the Guatemala trip ranged from successful business executives to community organizers and healerswith lots of other professions in between. They came from Canada, Ecuador, England, France, Indonesia, Italy, the United States, and Guatemala. Many, especially those from the U.S., arrived in Guatemala feeling disenfranchised, disempowered, depressed, and, yes, horrified by the election.

However, as we moved through the shamanic ceremonies, the participants grew increasingly convinced that the election is a wake-up call for Americans. We have been lethargic and allowed our country to continue with policies that hurt so many people and destroy environments around the world (including Washingtons involvement in the genocidal Guatemalan Civil War against the Mayas, which raged for more than three decades). This election exposed a shadow side. It stepped us out of the closet.

Many participants expressed the realization that Americans had failed to demand that President Obama fight harder to end the wars in the Middle East, vacate Guantnamo, rein in Wall Street, confront a global economic system where eight men have as much wealth as half the worlds population, and honor so many of the other promises he had made. They recognized that he was up against strong Republican opposition and yet it was he who continued to send more troops and mercenaries to the Middle East and Africa, brought Wall Street insiders into his inner circle, and failed to inspire his party to rally voters to defeat Trump and what is now a Republican majority in both houses.

We talked about how throughout the world, the U.S. is seen as historys first truly global empire. Scholars point out that it meets the basic definition of empire: a nation 1. whose currency reigns supreme; 2. whose language is the language of diplomacy and commerce everywhere; 3. whose economic expansions and values are enforced through military actions or threats of action; and 4. whose armies are stationed in many nations.

The message became clear: We must end this radical form of global feudalism and imperialism. Those who had arrived in Guatemala disillusioned and depressed now found themselves committed to transforming their sense of disempowerment into actions.

At the end of World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill told his people that England could choose the course of empire or democracy, but not both. We in the U.S. are at such a crossroads today. For far too long we have allowed our leaders to take us down the path of empire.

President Franklin Roosevelt ended a meeting with union leaders by telling them that now they knew he agreed with them, it was their job to get their members to force him to do the right thing. FDR understood that democracy depends on We the People insisting that our leaders do what they promise to do.

We failed with our last president. Lets not repeat that mistake with the new one.

It is extremely important that We the People force Trump and his band of corporatocratic henchmen to keep the promises we heard in his inaugural address. Let us hear making America great as making America a true democracy. Let us hear we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the American People as we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to followan echo of Churchills contention that a country cannot be both a democracy and an empire.

It is up to us to insist upon democracy. It is essential that we continue to demonstrate and march, to bombard Donald Trump and our other elected officials with tweets, posts, phone calls, and emails; to rally, clamor, and shout; and in every way to get out the word that we must end the wars, feudalism, economic and social inequality, and environmental destruction; we must become the model democracy the world expects us to be.

When General George Washington was hunkered down with extremely depressed troops at Valley Forge in the bleak winter of 1777, he ordered that an essay by Thomas Paine be read to all his men. Some of the most famous lines are as applicable today as they were then:

These are the times that try mens souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he who stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. A generous parent should say, If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace I love the man who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious future.

We have arrived at such a time again. We must each do our part. Lets here and now commit to taking positive actions. I commit to writing and speaking out at a wide variety of venues. I commit to supporting the Love Summit business conference, a powerful event committed to bringing love and compassion into business and politics, to transforming a Death Economy into a Life (Love) Economy. What are your commitments?

We have arrived at a time that tries our souls. We must gather strength from distress, grow brave by reflection, and know that by perseverance and fortitude we can achieve a glorious future. Lets make sure that the combined legacies of Presidents Obama and Trump will create the opportunityindeed the mandateto show the world how a country can be a true democracy. These are the times

This article was originally published atjohnperkins.org.It has been edited for YES! Magazine.

See the article here:
This Is a Wake-up Call to Take Back Our Democracy - YES! Magazine