Mediaboss Marketing

But progressives must continue to take to the streetsand push Democrats to offer a real alternative.

Protesters of President Donald Trumps Muslim travel ban gather at San Francisco City Hall for a peaceful demonstration on Feb. 4, 2017 (Sipa / AP Images)

The awful irony of Donald Trumps first 100 days as president is that a man who is still frequently described as erratic has governed as an entirely predictable corporate conservativeas everyone paying attention knew he would. Trump was always going to choose billionaire-ism over economic populism. The outsider who promised to drain the swamp was always going to pack his administration with Goldman Sachs cronies and corporate lobbyists pushing privatization, deregulation, and austerity. The fabulist who inflated claims about his opposition to the Iraq War was always going to drop bombs and escalate conflicts. A political newcomer, Trump was always going to revert to xenophobic bombast and a permanent campaign of fear and bigotry in order to hold on to a base of supporters who will never get the security and prosperity that he promised.1

Yes, of course, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller drafted an inaugural address that reflected their dystopian vision of American carnage. Yes, of course, White House press secretary Sean Spicer shredded his credibility on his first full day on the job, and former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway shredded her credibility on her second full day as whatever it is she does. Yes, of course, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos turned out to be incapable of discussing the basics of the system she was nominated to oversee. Yes, of course, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell put partisanship above principle in order to secure the confirmation of DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt, as well as equally unsettling figures like his own deregulation-obsessed wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, and conservative judicial activist Neil Gorsuch, who will prove that there is space to the right of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. And yes, of course, Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan bumbled the task of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act because, it turned out, nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.2

The error made by casual observers of Trump has been a refusal to accept him for who he is: a self-absorbed and largely uninformed man entirely unprepared to assume the responsibilities of the presidency, yet entirely certain that he could gut it out. America finally has the CEO president that dim-witted business-channel commentators have argued that we needed for years. Like George W. Bush, the MBA president who screwed up everything he touched, Trump brings nothing to the White House but a certainty born of his silver-spoon upbringing and an unaccountable business career.3

The open questions on January 20 had little to do with Trump and much to do with the rest of us: Would Americans resist Trump from the start? Would they shout No! in the streets and in Congress, on courthouse steps and at airport terminals? The answers came quicklyand gloriously. The epic Womens March on Washington restored the faith that many of us had lost on Election Day. Trumps Muslim ban was thwarted not just by judges, but by immediate and massive opposition across the country. His attempt to overturn the ACA was tripped up, at least in part, by overwhelming opposition from an Indivisible movement that packed town halls with Americans who proudly declared that they wanted not just Obamacare, but health care as a right. Trumps initial pick for labor secretary, Andy Puzder, withdrew because, as Puzder admitted, the left and the Democrats really didnt want [me].4

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

But in a fight like this, success is only meaningful if its followed by more of the same. To continue to derail the Trump train, Americans must stay in the streets for events like the April 29 Peoples Climate March. Democrats must answer the call of their base and run hard in red states like Kansas, Georgia, Nebraska, and Montanaputting in place a full-scale 50-state strategy for the 2018 midterms. These are the basics. No one should be distracted or deluded by palace intrigue gossip about the cabal of Goldman Sachs executives wrestling for influence with the cabal of Breitbart alumni. They have shared agendas: Bannons talk about the deconstruction of the administrative state was music to Wall Streets ears. Democrats must press harder for investigations and oversight of those agendasnot just of ties between Trump aides and the Russian government, but of ties between Trump appointees and the corporate powers they are supposed to regulate.5

Trumps first 100 days extended from a campaign in which he won only 46 percent of the vote. By governing from the right, Trump managed to get his approval rating as low as 35 percent in an April Quinnipiac poll. It is said that Trump has nowhere to go but up. Not true. The great lesson of these first 100 days is that, even when Republicans control Washington, resistance is possible. Now is the time to turn resistance into something more: a coherent opposition that is capable of saying no to Trump and holding him to account while at the same time organizing, marching, campaigning, and voting for a whole new politics that will consign crony capitalism, militarism, fearmongering, and the cruel chimera of the CEO president to the dustbin of history.6

See the article here:
The First 100 Days of Resistance Restored Our Faith in Democracy - The Nation.

By:Claude Polin | April 24, 2017

What follows is an attempt to portray not the typical statesman, as he repeatedly appeared in the course of Western history up to yesterday, but the average professional politician of our times, the man (or woman) whose chosen trade is to govern his (or her) fellow citizens.

Any ruler must somehow be subordinate to the nature of the society he rules. But in all societies other than democracies, the rulers have some leeway, precisely because as rulers they set the course that the body of citizens must follow.

On the contrary, the democratic politician theoretically has no leeway at all, for the simple reason that he is not supposed to have any. Indeed, no one can disagree that democracy is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This obviously implies that in a democracy there is no legitimate ultimate ruler other than those who are supposed not to be ruled: the people, as they are usually referred to. Democracy means the sovereignty of the people. This is the sacred founding dogma to which all citizens are supposed to deferso sacred that the very existence of some citizens ruling over others should be a scandal in a democracy, unless the latter be understood as mere slaves obeying the orders of their masters.

That is the principle. But the disturbing factone that should be obvious, although democratically incorrect to mentionis that the people is a nonexistent entity, a purely abstract notion devoid of any constant empirical content, with the result that its definition is arbitrary and subject to constant interpretation. There is a logical reason for this.

Any unifying of different parts into a whole comes from the subordination of those same parts to something that is beyond them all. A heap of sand is not an entity, because each grain constitutes a self-contained entity of its own superseded by none other (since they are all the same) and by nothing (since there is no privileged shape for the heap). In a similar manner, since all individuals in a democracy are supposed to be sovereigns, their uniting basically rests upon an individual consent whose motive is definitely individual. The underlying philosophy of democracy is that every man is a self-contained (though not self-sufficient) island, a perfect and solitary whole, as Rousseau used to say. This is why democracies are by nature contractual regimesi.e., societies which, by definition, have no substance other than a free association that each citizen enters only because he deems it somehow useful to join it. What, then, can the people in a democratic society be, apart from a constantly revocable, mutable, and therefore indefinable or ghostly entity whose cohesion and permanence is the product of the brute force of mere habit?

The same may be said of the so-called will of the people. It is readily obvious that it is highly improbable that an aggregate of individuals, whose primary right is for each to obey his own free will, may end up having anything resembling a common will. (Indeed it is enough for the average democrat that the will of the people be equated with the will of the majority; this amounts to confessing that the will of the people is actually the will of the greater number imposed by sheer force upon the smaller one. It should be added that, taking into account the number of abstentions, a majority in Western countries represents at most 30 percent of a constituency.)

Take the example of France. In 1789 the people (individuals enjoying the rights of citizens to the full extent) started at the upper-middle class level; in 1848 it was decided that the people would include all male citizens above the age of 21; then in 1945 it grew to include women, and in 1975 young people above age 18. Today, there is a constant influx of immigrants who become part of the people (after five years residency), mostly in order to obtain the welfare benefits attached to the passport, though determined to retain their own cultural identity. And, to top it all, what constitutes the sovereign people may depend on the electoral system. (In France more than 20 percent of the voting people dont get represented at all.) How more arbitrary could the definition of the people be?

Most modern Americans have forgotten the incontrovertible fact that they were originally white Europeans, Protestants and Catholics, a core around which the new immigrants could fuse, at least to some extent. Unaware of the nature of earlier immigration, Americans today believe they will be the first nation to be an endlessly metamorphic entity, relying on a miracle to retain some sort of identity, despite a constant influx of heterogeneous components. As is the case in France, one may wonder who the people of the United States of America actually are.

Only by keeping in mind these two basic factorsthe sovereignty of the people as a principle and the indeterminate nature of the people as a factcan one understand the predicament confronting the typical politician in a democracy. His universe is two-sided, and like a ball in a pinball machine he ceaselessly rebounds from one wall to the other: On one hand, he is the repository of the sovereignty of an elusive sovereign, which makes him the de facto sovereign; on the other, only the people are supposed to be sovereign, which makes him a de jure usurper.

The standard representative of the people is not supposed to be anything but the mirror image of the peoples sovereign will, its passive executive officer. But since nobody knows, including himself, exactly who the people are or what may actually be the common will of their indeterminate aggregate, the people and their will end up being embodied in their only visible manifestation, which is the elected politician himself and his particular will. The people are merely whatever their representatives may be. The political world is an inverted one: The people become the subjects of those who are supposed to be the servants of the people, while the representatives, who are supposed to bow to the voice of the people, become their masters.

And masters they are. Having inherited the sovereignty of the people, theirs is a natural propensity to arbitrary power, to feeling entitled not only to make whatever decisions they please, but to consider these decisions wise, since they are said to be the peoples. And theirs is a jealous power, resentful of any other that might challenge them. Moreover, where only the popular will is a legitimate one, it naturally should have a say in whatever matter it pleaseshence the tendency of all politicians ceaselessly to invade and legislate the private lives of ordinary citizens. There is a built-in totalitarian streak in the democratic politicians mentality. By the same logic, since the centralization of power is only natural to democracies, because the people are the only decisionmakers, and no man can have two heads, it would be a true miracle if the collective body of politicians were not to take advantage of such a proclivity, and another miracle if each of them didnt claim to embody the will of the people better than the others. (Democracy is the natural breeding ground for all sorts of Robespierres.) And finally, why shouldnt they all unashamedly enjoy wielding their illegitimate but lawful power? Since they are the peoples de facto will, there is no higher authority. Whatever they do, they are irresponsible, blameless, generally beyond any courts reach; their persons are sacred and immune to prosecutionand their own constituency cannot help being hard put to indict those it is supposed to have selected to represent them.

On the flip side, the people, whose sovereignty the democratic politician is supposed to reflect, is but an indeterminate entity. The politician is doomed to choose (or strike a balance) between catering to a more determinate but smaller fraction of the people, on the one hand, and pleasing a larger onea potential majority that is a multiple, heterogeneous, and changing aggregateon the other. In both cases, while he is arrogant as the embodiment of the sovereign people, he must also be a particularly fickle, spineless, and all in all servile species of man, because he is always after available votes. He is in the position of a servant eager to please but with so many masters that he doesnt know exactly which one he should obey first, like a weathervane spinning with the strongest windwhich is why so many politicians are devoid of personality and rather bland or mediocre men who play the strongman only when they feel enough people are expecting them to do so.

There is a point at which politicians become so obsequious as to lose all personal substance and distinguishable characteristics. There is nothing more hollow or shallow than a politicians speech, since the vaguer his words, the greater his chances of reaching the requisite number of voters. Hence, for instance, there is no word he loves more than change: He is the messiah who, if elected, will change everything. (The politicians of the French Revolution, democrats if there ever were any, did not beat around the bush: They kept proclaiming they were in the process of creating the world and man anewand, of course, making them perfect.) Another favorite catchphrase of todays politician is social justice: In a democratic society discontent runs highafter all, citizens expect to be kings but never areso his standard stance is that of the white knight who will right all wrongs. Still another of his standard expressions is tax the wealthy: The usual politician is the new Robin Hood preying upon the (supposed) rich to give to the (supposed) poor; taxes and welfare payments sum up the standard platform.

All in all, the democratic politician is doomed to be a whore whose main and almost exclusive concern is not to have a single thought of his own, but to be alluring to the greatest number of potential clients. (Those who strive to be truthful dont get elected or remain marginal.) Panem et circensesthe old trick is more than ever a modern one, except that todays Caesars take part in the show themselves, to the point of, more often than not, being unashamed to play the contortionists.

Summing up these first two points, Im drawn to the conclusion that the democratic politicians essence is that of an oxymoronic creature, a skittish, jumpy despot.

I want to add a third equally flattering touch to this portrait. Politicians in our democracies are supposedly vested with some competence for the often prestigious functions they fulfill: An election is a selection, and though the people are not embarrassed to admit they are unable to govern themselves (since they are willing to elect rulers), they are called upon to designate by whom they should be ruled. But even supposing the people to be an identifiable entity, how the heck could they comprehend a quality that they themselves admittedly do not possess? Moreover, if the people are only a heterogeneous aggregate, who is he (or she) to know what is good for them allfor the wholesince, by definition, there cannot be anything common to them all? And again, how could a democratic society constitute a whole? Is it not a system in which every citizen is entitled to pursue his own private aimsbe it at the expense of his neighborsand not be subordinate to any restraint that would hinder his effort to attain them? There can be statesmen only when there is a state: When there is none, there is no common good, and there cannot be any competence for serving that good. The only skill a representative may legitimately claim is to be an efficient toola technocrat. But the real issue is to determine wisely the end to be pursued for the sake of the whole, and such an end cannot exist if there is no whole. What competence could a politician then have in a democracy?

This suggests there is a fourth trait typical of the democratic representative. If he is not chosen for his statesmanship, then there is no reason why he should be chosen at all. Which means that if he is actually designated, it must be because he has been artificially presented as the self-evident candidatein other words, because the whole process of the designation of leaders in a democracy is a contrived operation. A representative in a democracy has to be the product of an electoral machine. As a matter of fact, what else makes sense? How could any given individual, inside a huge aggregate whose members are all supposed to have equal standing, possibly stand out enough to be noticed by all, if not because he is raised on the shoulders of some whose particular job is to prop him up? (This is, by the way, precisely the essential function of a political party.)

But then, if this is indeed the case, it means that all the pallbearers must have a special interest in supporting their candidate. It could be argued they are men devoted to the well-being, the power, and the glory of the wholeto the national interestbut again one must then presuppose that there actually exists a whole, a nation. If not, the only logical inference is that all members of the electoral machine are geared to private interestsusually presented, of course, not as selfish ones but as the very embodiment of the true public ones. A representative in a democratic system is basically an investment made by political entrepreneurs (the electoral machine is a costly one always looking for more funding), whether investing their personal money or acting as brokers for sponsors, but in both cases expecting dividends. This makes the politician a salesman for sale, chosen for his ability to attract audiences by his smile, his looks, his joviality, or his talent for team-playing and play-acting according to the mood of his spectators. If a politician represents not the public interest but a particular one (his partys), either he does so out of personal choice but still strives to present a particular interest as a general one, or he does not care and merely gets paid for defending it. In either case he is a politician in order to make a living, if not a fortuneunless it is merely for the perks and the limelight. Politics is not an altruistic business, but one that pays better than many others without being mentally demanding.

The stage does not accommodate an indefinite number of actors. Hence, the politicians principal activityhis fifth featureis to stay in business (to be reelected). Which again boils down to one activity: ruining his competitors. He must, on the one hand, prevent outsiders from setting up shop. (Politics is an exclusive club, discouraging new memberships; the voters are always presented only the members of the club, and Mr. Smith seldom goes to Washington.) On the other hand, he must saw off the board on which his colleague is standing (which is why politicians hate the clean ones, an endangered species on whom they have no hold).

To conclude, I feel tempted to ask the famous question imagined by the French socialist aristocrat C.H. de Saint-Simon about the political elites of the 1820s: What would happen if they all suddenly died? The answer could be this: nothing, except that the country would fare better, because the actual working portion of the population would be left to manage its own affairs to the best of its ability. Unfortunately, it is too much to hope for, mainly for a paradoxical reason: While the masses are often wont to criticize the political class (or to worship it, but only until they realize the hollowness of its promises), they nevertheless keep an undying faith in democracy (the worst of all regimes, apart from all the others). This is a common afflictiondyspeptic people yearn for waterbut a nonetheless incurable one: What other system offers the average citizen, if not actual sovereignty, at least an ability to demand to be treated as a sovereign? It seems as if most citizens think, I may hate or despise this particular politician, but, all things considered, ultimately I have a say in his being or remaining where he is.

Then what can I say, except Nolite confidere in principibus?

From the November 2014 issue of Chronicles.

View post:
The Quintessential Democratic Politician - A Magazine of American Culture

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets around the world in a global March for Science that was endorsed by hundreds of scientific institutions, environmental groups and unions. The Hip Hop Caucus was also a partner. More than 600 events took place, with one on every continent, including Antarctica, where workers at the Neumayer-Station research center tweeted a picture of themselves holding a sign with a quote from chemist Marie Curie. It read, quote, "Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."

The first-ever March for Science coincided with Earth Day and comes as President Donald Trump has galvanized scientists, educators and others with his comments calling climate change a Chinese hoax. Meanwhile, the White Houses proposed budget would cut as much as $7 billion in science funding, including the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research.

Democracy Now! was at the March for Science in Washington, D.C., where thousands braved a stormy day to gather at the Washington Monument to hear speakers. You can watch our full 5-hour broadcast at democracynow.org. Today we bring you some of the voices of the rally. In a minute, youll hear from Denis Hayes, coordinator of the first Earth Day in 1970; wildlife biologist Sam Droege from the U.S. Geological Survey; Mustafa Ali, former head of the Environmental Protection Agencys environmental justice program; and James Balog, the filmmaker and ice photographer who founded the Extreme Ice Survey and is featured in the documentary Chasing Ice. But first we go to Bill Nye, "The Science Guy," the engineer and TV personality best known for the PBS series of the same name.

BILL NYE: Greetings! Greetings, fellow citizens! We are marching today to remind people everywhere, our lawmakers especially, of the significance of science for our health and prosperity. The process of science has enabled humankind to discover the laws of nature. This understanding has, in turn, enabled us to feed and care for the worlds billions, build great cities, establish effective governments, create global transportation systems, explore outer space and know the cosmos.

The framers of the Constitution of the United States, which has become a model for constitutional governments everywhere, included Article I, Section 8, which refers to promoting the progress of science and useful arts. Its intent is to motivate innovators and drive the economy by means of just laws. They knew that without the progress of science and useful arts of engineering, our economy would falter. Without scientifically literate citizens, the United Statesany country, in factcannot compete on the world stage.

Yet, today, we have a great many lawmakers, not just here, but around the world, deliberately ignoring and actively suppressing science. Their inclination is misguided and in no ones best interest. Our lives are in every way improved by having clean water, reliable electricity and access to electronic global information. Each is a product of scientific discoveries, diligent research and thoughtful engineering. These vital services are connected to policy issues, which can only be addressed competently by understanding the natural laws in play.

Some may consider science the purview of a special or separate type of citizen, one who pursues natural facts and generates numerical models for their own sakes. But our numbers here today show the world that science is for all. Our lawmakers must know and accept that science serves every one of us, every citizen of every nation in society. Science must shape policy. Science is universal. Science brings out the best in us. With an informed, optimistic view of the future together, we can, dare I say it, save the world!

DENIS HAYES: Mayor Lindsay had shut down Fifth Avenue, and we basically filled it all up.

FRANK BLAIR: Earth Day demonstrations began in practically every city and town in the United States this morning, the first massive, nationwide protest against the pollution of the environment.

DENIS HAYES: Nationally, Earth Day was the largest demonstration ever in American history, and we had an estimated 20 million across the country.

We are challenging the ethics of a society that, with only 6 percent of the worlds population, accounts for more than half of its utilization of resources.

PROTESTERS: Save our Earth! Save our Earth! Save our Earth!

DENIS HAYES: We are systematically destroying our land, our streams and our seas. We foul our air...

It was a huge, high-adrenaline effort that, in the end, genuinely changed things. Before, there were people that opposed freeways. There were people that opposed clearcutting, or people worried about pesticides. They didnt think of themselves as having anything in common. After Earth Day, they were all part of an environmental movement.

ANDRE LEWIS: Denis Hayes.

DENIS HAYES: OK, this isthis is a science march, so I assume you all knew there was going to be a quiz? This is about last Novembers election. Did America somehow vote to melt the polar ice caps and kill the coral reefs and acidify the oceans?

AUDIENCE: No!

DENIS HAYES: Did we vote to reduce the EPAs research budget by a whopping 42 percent?

AUDIENCE: No!

DENIS HAYES: Did we vote to defund safe drinking water by one-third?

AUDIENCE: No!

DENIS HAYES: Did we vote to eliminate environmental work in Chesapeake Bay and San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound and the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes?

AUDIENCE: No!

DENIS HAYES: Well, thats what we got.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

DENIS HAYES: Forty-seven years ago, on the first Earth Day, 20 million regular, everyday Americans, including millions of angry students, rose up and stormed the political stage and demandeddemandeda clean, healthy, just, resilient environment. Forty-seven years later, to my astonishment, were back in the same spot. Weve got a president, a vice president, a Cabinet and the leadership of both houses of Congress who are all climate deniers.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

DENIS HAYES: They are scrubbing climate change from federal websites and ordering federal employees not to use the words "global warming" in any communication.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

DENIS HAYES: Thisthis is not conservative politics. This is the Inquisition gunning for Galileo. Its now crystal clear that the man who lives right there did not come here to drain the swamp. Hes filling the swamp to overflowing with conflicts of interest, with a White House that reeks of greed and sleaze and mendacity. America has had 45 presidents, but we have never before had a president who was completely indifferent to the truth. Donald Trump makes Richard Nixon look like Diogenes.

We are racing now toward a climate cliff, and our coal-loving president is punching the accelerator, and so millions of us are marching across America and around the world. Our job is clear. Today is the first step in a long-term battle for scientific integrity, a battle for transparency, a battle for survival. So, dont leave here thinking that you came out in the rain, all of you, this awesome crowd, standing in the rain, freezing, and thinking now youve done your part, because you havent. Not yet. Like that first Earth Day, this Earth Day is just the beginning. And in that battle, losing is not an option, because if we lose this fight, we will pass on a desolate, impoverished planet for the next 100 generations. Im old enough that I can remember when people all over the Earth saw America as the worlds best hope. Today, right here, right now, all of you, lets commit ourselves to becoming the worlds best hope again.

ANDRE LEWIS: Ali, Mustafa Santiago.

MUSTAFA ALI: So Im about to take you to Jamaica real quick. I want everyone to say, "Get up!"

AUDIENCE: Get up!

MUSTAFA ALI: "Stand up!"

AUDIENCE: Stand up!

MUSTAFA ALI: "Stand up for your rights!"

AUDIENCE: Stand up for your rights!

MUSTAFA ALI: Its time to stand up, like the legend Bob Marley said: "Get up! Stand up! Stand up for your rights!"

Thirty-five years ago in Warren County, North Carolina, a small but committed African-American community decided to stand up and say, "No more!" They decided to stand up against dangerous PCBs, a cancer-causing substance in their neighborhood. They decided to stand up to protect their lives, their neighbors and the lives of the next generation.

Today, we stand against an administration that places profits over people and tells us that science isnt real, that rolls back regulations that for decades has protected and given people a fighting chance for clean air, clean water and clean land. Today we must stand for community-based programs that give marginalized communities traction to address the disinvestments that have limited their opportunities for positive change. Today we must support our most vulnerable communities on their journey from surviving to thriving. Today we stand up for Standing Rock, to protect and supportthats rightcultures that honor Mother Earth and the lives of our people. Today we stand up for Flint. Today we stand up for Baltimore. Today we stand up for East Chicago, where the devastating effects of lead will have long-term health and economic impacts. Today we stand with 71 percent of African Americans who live in counties that violate federal air pollution standards, and the 68 percent of African Americans who live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Today we stand with Latinos, who are 165 percent more likely to live in counties with unhealthy levels of power pollution. Today we stand with the 24 million Americans suffering from asthma and who are disproportionately at risk. Today we hold our public officials accountable. Today we stand for justice and make our collective voices heard. Today we stand up, and we march.

Everyone, join me. Everyone, say, "Get up!"

AUDIENCE: Get up!

MUSTAFA ALI: "Stand up!"

AUDIENCE: Stand up!

MUSTAFA ALI: "Stand up for your rights!"

AUDIENCE: Stand up for your rights!

SAM DROEGE: Hi, Im Sam Droege, the bee guy. I just realized that if all the bees disappeared, theres tons of unemployed scientists who will do the pollination. So, heres how it works. These are all the flowering plants in the world, thousands and thousands of them. They have a relationship, sometimes one-on-one, with thousands and thousands of different bee species. Theres more than honey bees out there. You lose some of these plant species, you lose a whole chunk of bee species. The system works like this. They encapsulate the Earth, the bees and the plants. Without them, you have little to nothing to live for.

So, heres what you need to do. You need to harbor all the natural areas that are the bank of plant biodiversity, with their bees, that keep it together. And, personally, this is what you need to do. Youre an activist. You probably have a lawn. You need to delawnify the world. Lawns contribution is zero to negative. I will do a paper on that later. But you can haveyou can make a difference in just those small different ways. Remember, my favorite quote from Emerson is "The world laughs in flowers." Thank you.

JAMES BALOG: Good afternoon. Im James Balog. I am a patriot. I fight for spacious skies. I fight for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains majesty. You all are patriots. But I do that by being a photographer, filmmaker and scientist.

We have met here today, where a great battle for the mind, body and soul of this country is being fought. Among other things, it is a battle between objective reality and ideological fiction. My team and I have collected visual evidence of the epic changes sweeping the Earth today. Ive seen how burning coal, oil and gas cooks the air we breathe. I have seen how that altered air heats our forests until they explode in fireballs and homes burn down. Ive seen, through more than a million frames of time-lapse photography, how trillions of tons of glacier ice are melting. Ive seen that melt water enter the seas and flood the coastlines of America. Nature isnt natural anymore. You and I and all seven-and-a-half billion of us are changing the climate. Its what the real-world evidence says.

But, you know, theres good news, too. Each one of us can use our voices and our choices to take us down the road to a better future. I submit to you that we, the people, have an inalienable right not just to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but to clean air, clean water and a stable climate. Our survival demands it, and our children deserve it. And so, empowered by evidence and real-world truth, we shall fight for spacious skies. We shall fight for amber waves of grain. We shall fight for majestic mountains. And we shall march on these streets. We shall never, ever surrender.

AMY GOODMAN: Some of the voices from Saturdays March for Science in Washington, D.C. Among others who spoke was Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, who discovered the connection between rising blood lead levels in the children of Flint, Michigan, with the switch to the Flint River as a water source. She says the Flint story is a story of science. And youll hear from many others. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Thats Jon Batiste and Stay Human performing "Higher Ground" by Stevie Wonder at the March for Science in Washington, D.C. To see our whole, full 5-hour broadcasthe performed throughoutyou can go to democracynow.org.

See the original post:
Hundreds of Thousands Take to the Streets Worldwide for the Global March for Science - Democracy Now!

Protest outside the Hungarian parliament in Budapest against a new law that would undermine the Central European University, a graduate school of social sciences founded by George Soros. Photograph: Laszlo Balogh/Reuters

Tibor Fischer can describe the current state of democracy in Hungary any way he wishes, but he should not be allowed to get away with the assertion that the Central European University has failed to comply with the law (I just dont recognise Orbn as a tyrant, 21 April). For 25 years CEU has worked cooperatively with Hungarian authorities on every issue involving our work here. Our compliance with Hungarian accreditation procedures has been repeatedly confirmed by Hungarian officials and civil servants in the ministries concerned.

We have never sought special privileges that set us apart from the rest of Hungarian academic life. On the contrary, in our fight to defend our academic freedom, many Hungarian institutions, including the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, have given us their public support.

Fischer alleges that there is something irregular about offering American degrees in Hungary if CEU doesnt have a campus in the United States. In fact, CEU is one of more than two dozen American institutions that are authorised to offer American degrees overseas without operating a campus in the US. Mr Fischer is entitled to his opinions, but not to misstating the facts. Michael Ignatieff President, Central European University

Tibor Fischer is correct that media discussion of the Fidesz regime in Hungary would be better informed if more people spoke Hungarian. For readers who do not, Iwould suggest va Baloghs Hungarian Spectrum blog, and Kim Lane Scheppeles forensic analyses of Viktor Orbns constitutional coup in the academic literature, and her account of changes introduced to electoral rules to facilitate his re-election in her contribution to Paul Krugmans blog in the New York Times.

For a Hungarian opposition perspective, two recent publications by Blint Magyar are of interest: his Post-Communist Mafia State and Twenty-Five Sides of a Post-Communist Mafia State, a collection of essays coedited with Jlia Vsrhelyi (both CEU Press). The government perspective on the mafia state, however, is that creating a national bourgeoisie to counterbalance the power of multinationals, Brussels and George Soros is more important than corruption.

Fischer is also correct that there is plenty of critical discussion on TV and radio in Budapest, but opposition platforms keep disappearing, opposition TV and radio is harder to access the further one is from Budapest, and, increasingly, effective opposition comes from Jobbik on the right rather than from parties committed to liberalism or social democracy.

Antisemitism in Fidesz Hungary is heavily coded. To appreciate it fully, you not only have to speak Hungarian but be familiar with Hungarian history: which dates are celebrated, which interwar politicians resurrected as national heroes. Nigel Swain University of Liverpool

As a keen reader of his novels, I was disappointed with Tibor Fischers article. I disagree to varying degrees with all points he raises.

Let me pick out his final point on the so-called Lex CEU, which repeats the government line faithfully, and makes no sense. As both the Hungarian educational authorities and CEU have stated repeatedly, CEU previously fulfilled all Hungarian legal requirements. To my knowledge, the irregularities that were now supposedly found were never specified. Fischer mentions sloppy paperwork; I would like to see his source. If it were but a matter of 27 of 28 foreign universities in Hungary complying with existing legislation, there would be no reason to rush a bill through parliament in an emergency procedure.

This new law makes new requirements, such as the operation of a campus in the country of origin, that would effectively make it impossible for CEU to operate in Hungary. This is what the protests are about (Report, 13 April).

This not only an issue of CEU. What is at stake is the Hungarian governments power to push out an influential university because it doesnt adhere to its political ideology. And thats both an issue of academic freedom and of plurality of opinions, ie democracy. Dr Felix Jeschke Prague, Czech Republic

To claim that Orbn isnt an enemy of democracy omits his assault on civil society. Orbn intends to extrude critical NGOs in 2017 and target their foreign funding. Fischer says people living west of Vienna dont understand whats happening in Hungary, but tens of thousands of people who rallied in Budapest against the closure of the CEU certainly do, and see the attack on the university for what it is: an attempt to shut down academic freedom and critical thinking.

Fischer says Orbns illiberal democracy is still a democracy because it has elections. But European freedoms are about much more than holding regular votes they also require encouraging robust and critical civil society institutions, not smothering them. International human rights organisations know how to spot an authoritarian regime in the making. Orbn and his apologists can call whats happening in Hungary what they like, but if it looks and swims and quacks like a government undermining democracy, it probably is. Brian Dooley Senior adviser, Human Rights First

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Visit link:
Democracy and academic freedom in Viktor Orbn's Hungary - The Guardian

Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

Can Yascha Mounk Save Liberal Democracy? Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription) I t hasn't escaped Yascha Mounk's notice that the decline of liberal democracy has been good for his career. "It's a very bittersweet moment," Mounk says over coffee at a Washington, D.C., cafe. "I'd much rather that my work continue to be obscure and ...

Excerpt from:
Can Yascha Mounk Save Liberal Democracy? - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)