How can we change the whole basis for American corporate-based society, when so many perceive it as the source of their financial and material stability and comfort?

We can anticipate that the first question in some reformers minds will be: “Can we presume to alter society so fundamentally, and risk depriving people of this sense of stability and comfort?”

If this weighty question blocks us from proceeding, it will be at the cost of the planet, not to mention that valued but vulnerable stability and temporary comfort. But I recognize that it is not enough to make this assertion. How do we change perceptions of the problem, so that the many, who have no choice in current privileged minority decision-making process under the corporate state, see that their stability and comfort come at a cost they are no longer willing to pay?

To ask it more pointedly: how can we strategically create a People’s Movement that rejects the usurpations of a corporate state, even at risk of stability and comfort?

At Democracy School we spend insufficient time considering how People’s Movements of the past succeeded in driving their values into lore and law. It has been immensely helpful to me to study not just the history, but the tactical, strategic and personal stories of Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison was often accused of being a radical, who asked for too much too fast. He identified himself as an “immediatist,” who demanded no delay in ending slavery, no “reforms,” but only immediate abolition.

In terms of strategy, many historians criticize the Garrisonian Abolitionists. They called not only for immediate emancipation, but also for equality of the sexes, an end to capital punishment, and other steps to perfect society. It was all too much for conservative “reformers” of the day, and for chroniclers of the time, who were fine with Abolition, but who saw the rest of Garrison’s causes as threatening the stability of society, and in particular the conservative Christian sects that found biblical justification for the oppressions identified by the other causes.

Aileen Kraditor, in her book “Means and Ends in American Abolitionism: Garrison and His Critics on Strategy and Tactics, 1834-1850″ makes a compelling argument that, without asking for the whole ball of wax, Garrison would not have succeeded in moving northern white supremacists to the cause of emancipation. Why? Because it was necessary to create what today we might call “cognitive dissonance” between what it meant to be a Christian and what the average “Christian” was willing to stand up for. If slavery was working just fine for the average American who was satisfied with the stability and comfort life afforded under the slave state (Abolitionsim in the 1830’s - 1840’s was extremely unpopular), then it would be necessary to create a disconnect between what people believed they believed and what they experience daily, between their self image and their real world.

In terms of current organizing, we may or may not want to or be able to target the conservative clergy, move heaven and earth and split them from their congregations by setting up “cognitive dissonance” between what believers believe they stand for and what they experience. On the other hand, causing the average American to value fundamental rights more highly than her or his automobile, 401K plan and mortgage may seem like an even larger Herculean task. But the Garrisonian parallel is worth considering. Americans have deep-rooted beliefs in the legend and mythos of “America.” Making visible the disconnect between those ideals and the structure of law that sustains and nourishes the corporate state: that seems to be the direction laid out before us.

- Posted by BenGPrice@aol.com, CELDF

Here’s more on AT&T’s continued efforts to bludgeon those communities in Illinois for daring to resist them. This is important information for any and all citizens concerned about local governance rights, preservation of their rights-of-ways and resistance to the use of eminent domain by private corporations. Readers in Ohio, take notice. This is Ohio Senate Bill SB 117 in another guise.

Promising increased competition and consumer advocacy, AT&T is investing $4.6 billion in a national move into the cable industry, yet many area municipalities have accused the telecommunications giant of pursuing anything but fair competition.

————-

…While AT&T blames the system, many municipalities state that it was not the system itself that caused negotiations to stall, but rather AT&T’s insistence in not considering itself bound by the rules of cable franchise agreements.

“They say that they are not a ‘cable’ franchise,” said Terry Miller, senior assistant attorney for the city of Naperville. “We have not been able to agree with them because they want to follow a different set of rules.”

————-

However, during the negotiations, city officials found too many discrepancies that they could not come to terms with, primarily that AT&T would not guarantee universal coverage of its services, said Terry, placing it on a scale different from already competing entities in the municipality.

“You can’t cherry pick customers,” said Miller. “How do you compete fairly when someone who says they will service everybody goes up against someone who doesn’t have to?

“It is not a small issue if you say that you aren’t going to service everyone. And if we were going to be a blueprint for other areas we could not let that pass with a clear conscience.”

————-

Comcast released a statement saying that “If AT&T wanted to provide video to all customers today, there is nothing preventing them from doing so. Instead, they are seeking special rules that will apply only to them since they don’t want to be held accountable for problems with their proposed cable service.”

Another problem that arose during negotiations with numerous municipalities was public right-of-way laws. AT&T’s new service would require that a cable box be established for every 300 users. The boxes are 63 inches high, 48 wide, and 25 deep and must be stationed on concrete.

————-

“The current bill says that we can control permits, but it does not state that we can tell AT&T ‘no,’” said Miller. “If they want to put one of their boxes in the middle of someone’s lawn, there is no way for us to say ‘no.’”

Read The Full Article

There’s finally a Legislative Reference Service bill analysis posted for Senate Bill 117, AT&T’s bill to eliminate local cable franchising in Ohio. The bill substitutes a state-issued “Video Service Authorization”, or “VSA”, for local cable TV franchises. The LRS analysis says in paragraph four:

“a VSA confers on a person the authority to (1) provide video service in the video service area specified in its application, (2) construct and operate a video service network in, along, across, or on public rights-of-way, and (3) when necessary to provide the service, appropriate private property.”

If AT&T (in its capacity as a state-rubber-stamped VSA) should decide that it needs a piece of your yard to provide U-Verse video to your neighbors, your only recourse will be a court of law. Your local government will have no authority at all in the matter; and the state Commerce Department, which will issue the VSA, “has no authority to regulate video service rates, terms, or conditions of service”.

Read The Original Post on DaytonPolitics.com

This pretty much nails it in regards to the hypocrisy of the GOP in regards to their ’small government’ and ‘local authority’ principles, as well defining what indeed that party has become…simply the political arm of corporate interests in America today.

So why is the supposedly “conservative” GOP that controls the General Assembly pushing such a bill? Because in the final analysis the GOP has become the corporate party of American politics. Conservative values are fine as long as they don’t interfere with what private corporations want, but if such a conflict happens, then corporate interests will win out almost everytime.

Read The Full Post

Cleveland City Councilman Matt Zone’s testimony to the Ohio Senate regarding their bill SB 117. This serves as a concise description of what a real giveaway to corporate wants at the expense of the public interest and well-being this legislation really is.

Read The Complete Transcript

The question someone should be asking in regards to the current telco legislation in Ohio, Senate Bill SB 117, is this….

Is TimeWarner profitable?

I believe the answer is yes.

So if they have been able to make a profit under the current law, why should we assume another company could not be as equally profitable? Why would we modify a law that is working for business and for consumers?

The argument over the high rates is because no other competition has challenged the current provider. But again, if the current provider was able to make a profit under the current law, why then would we assume a second company could not be as equally successful and why would the rules of supply and demand not apply under the current law?

Just because it is difficult and expensive to start up a business does not mean that the laws need to be changed. If the public is well served by the current law and the provisions in it providing for public use and compensation, just think how much more we can do if all providers are held to the current standard. This should be a time to discuss what other great services could be offered with the additional resources a second provider would be required to supply for the public.

I am not one to defend TimeWarner, but if they could do well under the current system why can’t another company? And this is itself is not a matter of a direct public interest issue, because cable tv is not right or even a privilege. It is a service provided by a third party to the citizens. The government’s only involvement is in the control of the use of the public rights of way. A citizen can choose not to have cable service. I am one of them because I think it is too expensive, but I do not look to my government to change that. I look to market forces to eventually lower the cost.

On a level playing field all companies can compete freely, under the same laws and regulations. The fact that one company got there before the other is a non-issue. It was and is difficult for the current providers to do what they do, but they are doing it because they can make a profit. When they raise the rates high enough that another company decides that they can provide a better product and win over customers, then they will enter the market and free market forces will control the price.

The laws should treat all companies fairly and changes might need to be made to correct current inequities. But to reduce the current level of resources allocated to the public in exchange for these company’s usage of public property in order to make a profit, all in an attempt to simply lower cable bills is to miss the point. This is not equal to lowering taxes for all citizens. All citizens benefit from the current public access. To reduce cable rates will only benefit a subset of citizens to the detriment to the entire body of citizens on a whole whom are compensated for the use of their collectively owned public space.

- Posted by Doug Fritz for USTV Media

Good analysis on the nature of how the corporate state actually works, and why talk about our system being one of ‘free market competition’ is pretty much bunk. This should be required reading for all high school civics classes. (It explains how things like Ohio Senate Bill SB 117 come into existence, for instance).

Crony capitalism is the practice of government supporting specific companies or industries for favorable treatment in legislation, government grants, legal permits and beneficial tax laws. The concepts of open competition and free markets do not apply, because government actively intervenes to assist privileged corporations. In crony capitalism, there is a close relationship between government and corporations, and their actions towards each other are mutually financially beneficial. National laws and regulations are enacted that provide special permission for particular companies for acquisitions, mergers, real estate transactions and tax benefits. The quid pro quo for Republican and Democratic politicians are campaign donations, future jobs for themselves or relatives, and are disguised or hidden perks in exchange for favorable legislation for privileged organizations. Crony democracy occurs when crony capitalism merges with democracy, with major players becoming interchangeable with the lobbying promoting it.

The Bushevik regime has brought this cycle to a new height of influence in American history. And the article talks about the Bush administration’s conflict of interests in regards to their policies and who benefits. I would suggest it is not so much the case of the Bush family and their cronies exploitation of conflicts of interest, as much as it is the family’s long history of an interest in conflict.

Read The Full Essay Here

The following is a pretty accurate analysis by Greg Coleridge of POCLAD (Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy) of the situation we are facing regarding Ohio Senate Bill SB 117. It brings to light the important fact that failure to properly understand the nature of the problem we face will result in applying solutions that do not actually solve the real problem (for without doing so we can at best only mitigate the symptoms for a time. We condemn ourselves to fighting defense instead of offense, and in the process cede our rights to asserting democratic accountability and local governing authority for our communities).

———————-

Stripping local control over cable and telephone corporations Ohio Senate Bill (SB) 117 calls for stripping the authority of Ohio’s municipalities and townships to establish “franchise agreements” (i.e. contracts) with cable and telephone corporations, outfits like the Time Warner corporation and AT&T corporation. The bill, if passed, would profoundly threaten the ability of citizens from producing and airing programs on “public access” channels; public spaces that every franchise agreement legally stipulates. Public access program is what allows citizens to be producers, and not mere consumers, of information; information that most of the time is ignored in the corporate press.

Bills like this are popping up in state after state after corporate-backed efforts stalled (at least for now) at the federal level to transfer power and authority for cable franchising from the local to the federal level. Transferring authority to the state level is the next best corporate strategy. The rule of thumb for corporations is always concentration; to shift as many decisions as possible to corporate board rooms (corporatized decisions). If decisions must be “public,” then they need to be made by as few “public” decision-makers as possible (federal rather than state; state rather than local; judicial rather than legislative; regulatory rather than legislative). Of course, the ultimate goal is global decision-making transcending the nation-state itself.

SB 117 was introduced on March 12. It’s sponsored by Jeff Jacobson and co-sponsored by 6 (4 Republican and 2 Democrats) of the 9 members of the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee. Public hearings on the bill won’t take place until after Easter.

Below are 2 pieces analyzing SB 117; one from a law firm, Walter & Haverfield LLP, represenating municipalities and specializing in technology issues; the second from Dayton Access Television.

We’ll provide updates on hearing dates (there will probably be 3 of them) as they’re scheduled. In the meantime, familiarize yourself with the bill, call you State Senator (numbers and email addresses in second posting below), spread the word, and plan to be at one or more hearings if possible.

As with so many of these types of issues, the root concern here isn’t about cable television, but of self-governance. Who should have the right to decide? Will you and I have a greater opportunity to shape, monitor and evaluate actions of cable and television corporations at the state or local level? Should these decisions be public or private? In this case, the arena of decisions are specifically around items like cable service, community programming, access to equipment/studios, training, and the number of community channels.

But the core issue is the right of the community to make these decisions, not others at the state or federal level…or business corporations. It’s tough enough to get our democratic foot in the door of public buildings where public officials are making public decisions that are supposed to benefit the public, but most often don’t. Shifting decisions to the state or federal level where the [corporations] can influence decision-makers (especially when so much is at stake) and eventually assume decisions is the surest way for the public to have zero democratic access.

For a description of what this legislation entails, and a point by point run down of the core provisions of SB 117 and how it poses a grave threat to municipal Home Rule authority, municipal fiscal health, and the continued existence of PEG access in Ohio, read this report (pdf) from Walter & Haverfield, a Cleveland law firm that acts as counsel for a number of municipalities on cable and telecom matters

Dayton Access Television (DATV) has also posted a very good quick rundown of what this bill is, how it will eliminate PEG access in Ohio, and what you can do to help stop it and save public access in Ohio. Read it Here.

- Greg Coleridge

The legislation passed March 1st, 2007 by the House called the “Employee Free Choice Act” is being celebrated as a victory for labor, a “reward” from the Democrats. Highlights of the bill include:

1. Allowing unions to form without using the secret ballot. The beauty of the secret ballot was that corporations steered (cajoled and/or threatened) employees away from forming a union. Disallowing the secret ballot would mean employees sign up to form a union by filling out cards. Once a majority of employees have filled out cards, the union could form. So this would make it a bit easier for that to happen.
2. Penalties corporations would receive for not being good partners in business-labor relationships would be increased.
3. Mediation and arbitration would be required under first contract negotiations. This would benefit workers against corporations who refuse to negotiate˜on the first contract.

So often we read e-mails from the unions and from our liberal friends that exclaim how great it is to have the Dems in control again so we can get “victories” like the Employee Free Choice Act. George Will wrote a column against it in which he fulminated about the theft of “free speech rights” from the corporations via enactment of this new law. Why is it never about workers’ rights under the 13th Amendment? Why are workers regulated by statute, the way gasoline additives are “regulated?” Why are we agreeing to fight on this battlefield…the one that says workers can only beg for crumbs, but can never demand on-the-job rights?

Part of the problem is rooted in the ascendency of “Rights of Property” over human rights. So-called “representatives,” including those who voted for this law, accept the premise that on “corporate property” workers have no Constitutional protections, but the “rights” of the corporation are absolute.

We have yet to embrace the notion that People are self-sovereign, and self-owning beings whose authority to act and decide and to be un-harassed in their rights, wherever they may be, supercedes any claimed corporate “Rights of Property.” Boards of Directors regularly hide behind a corporate charter and use it to trespass on the inalienable rights of workers, and the law of the land protects them, the way it once protected slave masters as they violated the human self-sovereignty of people that the law recognized to be “property,” not sovereign citizens.

Some celebrate laws like this too easily, too readily. Perhaps the People are so use to being mere widgets in the commerce clause defined rules of American governance that they can’t imagine a rights-defined system of self-government. Some celebrate lip service and window-dressing as though freedom on the job has been achieved. This isn’t sour grapes you’re reading. It’s a raisin in the sun. It’s not that the glass is half empty; it’s that we aren’t allowed to pour our own water. It’s not that this law is a “step in the right direction” that I wish had gone further — what makes me want to turn off the celebratory music is that it’s being played in a hall of mirrors where everybody is dancing around the real issue.

- Posted by BenGPrice@aol.com, CELDF

And they don’t mean the denim kind. This is the advent of a true Dystopia, and the apex of corporate colonization. If this is allowed to continue, and it will be, as long as corporations and using the model of corporate economics as the primary driving principle behind every aspect of our society, then we are truly headed for a very disturbing future.

The degree of control that life patents grant their owners is of growing concern to scientists, human rights and patient advocates and ethicists. More than 20 percent of human genes have already been patented, and most of those patents are owned by corporations.

——————

There are many other examples of life patents causing public concern. One of the most important examples involves patents on food crops and cloned animals. These patents have a growing potential to cede control of the world’s food supply to biotech patent holders.

Important questions must also be answered about who can legitimately “own” or control our personal genetic information. And no one has yet been able to address economic, social and legal questions raised by the patenting of genetic resources taken from developing countries.

This month, for example, Peruvian farmers protested against the biotech giant Syngenta , which genetically modified a common potato variety so that the potatoes are sterile unless a chemical is applied.

Read the New York Times article Here