Divinity: Dr. Martin L. King: Last Speech in Memphis (1968)

Source:Divinity- Dr. Martin L. King speaking in Memphis, Tennessee, in April, 1968.

Source:The Daily Journal

“I Have Been to the Mountaintop Full Speech” 

From Divinity

I don’t believe there are many people perhaps in the history of the world, but certainly in the history of the United States who had better timing than Martin L. King. And I say that for a few reasons, but just take when Reverend King gave this speech and when he died which was the next day in 1968 and then look at, or listen to what Reverend King said in this speech and what was in it and what he had to say. Which I at least believe was vision for what the civil rights movement was all about.

Dr. King laid out in his last speech what it means to be an American no matter your race in a liberal democracy such as the United States. Where we all under the United States Constitution are to be treated equally under law with the same constitutional rights and freedoms as any other American. That we aren’t supposed to be treated better, or worse by law in this country. And that’s just one reason why the way African-Americans were treated in America prior to the civil rights laws of the 1960s was simply unconstitutional. Because African-Americans were treated worse than Caucasian-Americans under law in this country.

What Reverend King was saying in this speech was that he’s seen the mountaintop of where all Americans were being treated equally under law. That this vision is real where no American has to live in poverty without the basic necessities and skills to be able to live well in life. That we aren’t there yet and you might not see him there with you, but this vision is real and we can get there together as a people if we keep moving forward as a people and a country to build this society where no race of people is treated worse under law simply based on their race.

Dr. King said that we can accomplish this Utopia in America and get there together if we keep up the fight and struggle for equal and human rights in this country until we finally reach the mountaintop. And finally accomplish what we’ve struggled for all of these years.

Thats what this speech was about as far as I’m concern at least and what Reverend King was telling his supporters, that even if you don’t see him there with you, he’s already seen the vision of what we are fighting for. And know we can get there if we keep on moving the ball forward until we get there. 

Robert F. Kennedy For President: 1968 Campaign Ad

Source:Robert F. Kennedy For President-  this is from a 1968 RFK For President campaign ad for Nebraska.

Source:The Daily Journal

“RFK campaign ad 1968, directed by John Frankenheimer (“The Manchurian Candidate”)”

From RFK Must Die

The environmental movement in the late 1960s, which was just becoming big to the point today and perhaps even twenty-years ago that national Democrats at least couldn’t win without them, especially if they were running for president. But Democrats they couldn’t win in Congress without the environmental community unless they represented a very rural state, or district that was heavily dependent on oil, gas and coal. States like West Virginia, to use as an example.

America changed a lot politically in the 1960s where the Democratic Party started truly becoming the progressive party and the Republican Party starting to become the conservative party. With both parties still have moderate factions in them, but just not as big as they use to be.

Senator Kennedy, made the environment a big part of his 1968 presidential campaign. But it was more about regulations of energy industries and not so much about his own national energy policy. And had he been elected president in 1968, we probably get an EPA and perhaps an Energy Department as well. Instead of President Richard Nixon creating the EPA and President Jimmy Carter creating the Energy Department.

It was also President Nixon that pushed for the idea of a national energy policy and getting off of foreign oil and gas. President Gerald Ford and President Carter, wanted to do the same thing, but differently at least in President Carter’s case. But making the environment a real issue was still very new when Bobby Kennedy ran for president in 1968.

Salon Magazine: Mugambi Jouet: 'In Prison Debate, Race Overshadows Poverty'

Source:Salon Magazine with a look at America prisons.

"The way to stop filling up prisons is to end the War on Drugs, curb inequality and change our perspective on class. 

Racial discrimination is often used to explain the fact that 1 percent of American adults is behind bars and that we're the only Western democracy not to have abolished the death penalty. Given that America’s prisoners are disproportionately black and Hispanic, this is understandable. But what's often overlooked is class -- even though the clear majority of white, black and Hispanic prisoners stems from the underclass and working class.

Criminal justice systems are largely a reflection of economic systems. It is no coincidence that their practices are the most humane in Scandinavian countries, known for their high degree of economic solidarity. In a society marked by sharp wealth inequality, such as modern-day America, the criminal justice system can come to negate solidarity and embody the notion that those at the bottom rungs of society are little more than a nuisance. Thus, the U.S. criminal justice system emphasizes harsh retribution, disfavors rehabilitation and tends to ignore social factors behind crime, such as poverty, failing public schools or lax gun control.

America could put an end to mass incarceration by following the example of other Western democracies. Prison terms in those countries are much shorter in all types of cases, and very lengthy terms are usually reserved for the worst offenders. With regard to nonviolent offenders, these countries are also less likely to rely on incarceration as opposed to fines or probation. In addition to other reforms, America should therefore abandon peculiar and counterproductive policies like the “War on Drugs,” “three strikes laws” and harsh mandatory-minimum stays in prison.

Authorizing the recreational use of marijuana — like the Netherlands, Colorado and Washington have done — could go a long way. In 2011, over 750,000 people were arrested for marijuana offenses in America, 87 percent of whom were charged with possession only. As documented by Michelle Alexander in her book "The New Jim Crow," local police departments have received substantial federal funding to aggressively pursue minor offenders as part of the “War on Drugs.” Such incentives should be eliminated.

However, it is difficult to imagine meaningful reforms without a change of perspective. The main reason why mass incarceration exists — despite well-known solutions — is that few Americans consider it a real “problem.” Only a segment of the public is even aware that America has by far the world’s top incarceration rate. Some citizens feel concerned, but many think that draconian punishments are “just deserts,” a public safety imperative or both. Neither political party genuinely aims to tackle the issue.

Efforts to reform the system have been minimal because the premises behind harsh punishments tend to stay the same. For instance, voters recently scaled back California’s “three strikes” law. The third strike will now have to be for a “serious or violent” crime, with various exceptions. But penalties remain draconian — instead of 25-years-to-life for a third strike, nonviolent offenders will now get a sentence twice as long as normal. That is still an extremely long time, given that “normal” sentences nowadays are far lengthier than in other Western democracies and than they were in America before the rise of the “tough on crime” movement. But California’s reform is a step forward. Certain nonviolent prisoners are now in the process of being resentenced to shorter prison terms or are being released after having served extensive time.

Supporters of mass incarceration have been relatively successful at labeling advocates of reform “soft on crime.” In order to move forward, the public will have to prove more discerning and not be swayed by the politicians, judges and prosecutors who campaign for office by exploiting fear of crime. Needless to say, elected officials will also have to refrain from demagoguery and develop the will to push for what may be unpopular reforms, a change that seems implausible nowadays.

Most importantly, an end to mass incarceration is hard to foresee without a shift towards a socio-economic system rooted in greater equality and solidarity. The fact that prisoners mainly stem from the underclass and working class prevents certain Americans from identifying with them. As long as prisoners are commonly dehumanized, much of the general public and political leadership may be unwilling to accept significant criminal justice reform. While racial discrimination and other factors help explain mass incarceration, the lowly social status of poor people of all colors at a time of acute wealth inequality is a key reason why over 2.2 million human beings live behind bars in modern-day America." 

From Salon Magazine

Camila Orti: 'Juvenile Lifers'

Source:Camila Orti- convicted murderer Jason Golka being interviewed for this piece.

"A legislative bill in Nebraska is attempting to make the state compliant with a Supreme Court ruling that says automatic life imprisonment without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional.

Production and videography by Camila Orti" 

From Camila Orti

Just to answer the question of one of the victim rights advocates who was interviewed for this piece: juveniles don't have the same mental capacity as adults. They're not as capable of looking at the consequences of their decisions the same way as adults. Which is why they shouldn't be treated as adults. 

You take any hope of a 16 or 17 year old adolescent away from ever even having any shot at freedom in life, even 30, 40 years down the road, then what reason do they have to even continue on. You also make it more difficult to incarcerate that person, even once they're moved to an adult prison to serve the rest of their sentence because you've taken away anything that they could possibly have to lose. 

I'm not saying we should release juvenile murderers. I'm saying they should have a shot at getting a parole date, And even before that, they would have to meet certain conditions, just to be eligible for a parole hearing: 

confessing to their crime or crimes

being seriously apologetic about what they did 

getting their high school diploma and even a college degree while in prison 

and be able to convince the parole board that they would be able to function on the outside on their own and no longer be a threat to society. 

They would need to meet those conditions just to be eligible for a parole hearing, under my policy.

Salon Magazine: David Sirota: 'Not All Democrats Are Elizabeth Warren'

Source:Salon Magazine- U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, Massachusetts)

"Despite its success in recent elections, and despite the image of unity it projects, the Democratic Party is in the throes of an epic identity crisis pitting its corporate money against its stated principles. The recent actions of two of the party's rising stars -- Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- tell the deeper tale of that crisis. It is a microcosmic story, suggesting that the 2016 election may be a decisive turning point in the party's history.

The money side of the schism is embodied by Hickenlooper. As the new vice-chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, the former petroleum geologist and beer mogul represents a cabal of Democratic politicians whose brand couples moderate positions on social issues with hard-edged corporatism on economic ones.

Corporatism, of course, is a vague label, but in Democratic politics it typically refers to helping campaign contributors bust unions and dismantle environmental regulations, with the expectation that servile labor and environmental leaders will sit by as their movements are decimated.

Despite its success in recent elections, and despite the image of unity it projects, the Democratic Party is in the throes of an epic identity crisis pitting its corporate money against its stated principles. The recent actions of two of the party's rising stars -- Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- tell the deeper tale of that crisis. It is a microcosmic story, suggesting that the 2016 election may be a decisive turning point in the party's history.

The money side of the schism is embodied by Hickenlooper. As the new vice-chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, the former petroleum geologist and beer mogul represents a cabal of Democratic politicians whose brand couples moderate positions on social issues with hard-edged corporatism on economic ones.

Corporatism, of course, is a vague label, but in Democratic politics it typically refers to helping campaign contributors bust unions and dismantle environmental regulations, with the expectation that servile labor and environmental leaders will sit by as their movements are decimated.

Hickenlooper’s actions this month show how the formula works.

On labor issues, after a summer of staging media events to thank firefighters for combating wildfires, the Colorado governor publicly threatened to veto legislation that would enshrine the right of those firefighters to choose to form a union. Of such basic legal protections, Hickenlooper flippantly declared that he does "not believe it is a matter of state interest."

On environmental issues, it is the same story. Hickenlooper this week testified against federal legislation that would compel energy companies to disclose what toxic chemicals they use when fracking for natural gas. His testimony made headlines after he insinuated that fracking fluid is so harmless that Americans can safely drink it.

While Hickenlooper's claim was later debunked, few observers were surprised he would utter such a pernicious lie. After all, with Hickenlooper's electoral career bankrolled by fossil fuel firms, he has not just ignored the scientific evidence that shows fracking is dangerous; he has also denied that climate change is happening, offered to back corporate lawsuits to overturn municipal drilling regulations and appeared as a spokesman for the oil and gas industry in its political advertisements. Additionally, the Denver Post reports that Hickenlooper's regulators "rarely penalize companies responsible for (drilling-related) spills."

If you find this repulsive, then you are probably on the other side of the Democratic Party divide, the one personified by Warren.

Though a freshman legislator, she is already a celebrity thanks to her longtime advocacy on behalf of the poor, her fiery tenure running the panel that audited the 2008 bank bailout and her 2012 election victory over a Wall Street-financed opponent. This week, as if deliberately underscoring her commitment to live up to the Democratic Party's populist billing, Warren rejected the unspoken Washington rule requiring junior lawmakers to keep quiet. Instead, she used her first committee hearing to slam Obama administration regulators for being weak on financial crime.

In assuming such a posture, Warren, along with Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Al Franken, D-Minn., represents what the late liberal Sen. Paul Wellstone called "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party." In other words, unlike Hickenlooper's cadre, she doesn't represent the business elites who buy politicians like shares of stock. She represents the millions of voters who win the party elections.

For his part, Hickenlooper has deployed cronies to stoke rumors of a presidential candidacy. Meanwhile, the ABC News headline "Elizabeth Warren 2016?" summarized the sentiment of liberals who are buzzing about a possible Warren White House bid.

Regardless of whether the two run, it is likely that the 2016 Democratic presidential primary will feature their archetypes, forcing the party's coalition to choose a side. It is also a good bet that because those archetypes are at odds with one another, whichever side wins will decide the party's direction for generations." 

From Salon Magazine

See Progress: Heather Boushey: 'Middle Out Economics 101'

Source:Center For American Progress I believe at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

"CAP's Senior Economist Heather Boushey, explains how middle out economics helps bolster the United States economy." 

From the Center For American Progress

If you watched and listened to this video, you'll hear or see nothing that has to do with raising taxes across the board, or even just on the wealthy. Or arguing for a bigger, stronger, national government. Or less individual choice and more government control of the marketplace. Or paying people not to even bother working. Or some national basic income, so no one has to work for a living. 

What I just laid out and what you didn't see or hear in this video, is not what President Barack Obama and the Center For American Progress is proposing. But instead an alternative to both supply side economics, that's just about lowering taxes and regulations on the wealthy. As well as an alternative to social democracy, which is what American leftists are proposing in America, that we simply change our form of government and become a social democratic state.

Think Progress: Jeff Spross: 'Moving The Goal Posts: Simpson-Bowles Renege On Their Own Plan For More Revenue'

Source:Think Progress- left to right: former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (Democrat, North Carolina) & former U.S. Senate Alan Simpson (Republican, Wyoming?

"Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles will release a new plan today to reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The pair of deficit hawks previously co-chaired a 2010 commission on fiscal reform (which failed) and then released a proposal for $6.3 trillion in deficit reduction.

That plan became a go-to talking point for Republicans — except, of course, whenever Obama recommended similar targets.

The new Simpson-Bowles plan adds an additional $2.4 trillion in savings onto the approximately $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction the United States has already carried out since 2010. Roughly three-fourths of that new $2.4 trillion would come from spending cuts and savings on interest payments:

The outline below is not meant as a revision to the original Fiscal Commission plan, but rather builds upon where elected leaders were in their negotiations last year. […]

[W]e call for an additional $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next ten years. Roughly one quarter of those savings should come from health care reforms and another quarter from tax reform. The remaining savings should come from a combination of mandatory spending cuts, stronger discretionary caps, cross-cutting changes such as adopting the chained CPI for inflation-indexed provisions in the budget, and lower interest payments. This $2.4 trillion should exclude savings from policies such as the war drawdown.

There’s a very simple problem with Simpson and Bowles’ latest proposal: It represents a massive shift away from their own previous target and towards even more spending cuts.

As the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities previously laid out, the original 2010 Simpson-Bowles plan split its $6.3 trillion in deficit savings between $2.9 trillion in spending cuts, $2.6 trillion in tax revenue, and $800 billion in reduced interest payments on the debt. Since then, the country has passed roughly half of those recommended spending cuts — but less than a quarter of the recommended tax increases, according to recent calculations from the Center for American Progress.

Between the budget deals in the spring of 2011 and the Budget Control Act, which averted the debt ceiling crisis that same year, spending has been cut by $1.5 trillion and interest payments reduced by another $200 billion. Then the American Taxpayer Relief Act, which solved the impasse over the “fiscal cliff,” raised $600 billion in new tax revenue.

So if Simpson-Bowles are interested in “building upon” what lawmakers have already achieved, the logical thing to propose is another $1.4 trillion in spending cuts plus another $2 trillion in additional tax revenue. Or if they’re happy with their new $4.8 trillion target — rather than the original $6.3 trillion — their new proposal should heavily favor tax increases, since deficit reduction so far has favored spending cuts by three to one. Instead, Simpson and Bowles are proposing $1.8 trillion in new spending cuts and reduced interest payments, and only $600 billion in additional revenue.

This continues a trend amongst Republicans and deficit hawks. They’ve consistently treated every new round of deficit reduction as if it exists in a vacuum, throwing the cumulative spending cuts already achieved down the memory hole.

It’s also worth mentioning that their goal of bringing debt below 70 percent of GDP by early next decade is likely major overkill. There is no magic debt-to-GDP ratio at which safety is guaranteed or doom is assured. There’s also plenty of reason to the think America’s debt-to-GDP ratio can be stabilized at well over 70 percent without significant threat to the budget’s fiscal sustainability. The Economic Policy Institute recently calculated that debt stability over the next decade could be achieved with as little as $670 billion in additional deficit reduction — $580 billion in actual policy savings, plus $90 billion in resulting interest savings." 

From Think Progress