LAKOTA MEMORIAL DAY: Remember Wounded Knee!

RANDOM JACK: WOUNDED KNEE MEMORIAL

LAKOTA MEMORIAL DAY

The 129^th Anniversary of Wounded Knee

December 29, 1890

One hundred and twenty nine years ago today, the Seventh Calvary of the United States Army opened fire on an encampment of disarmed Lakota men, women and children.  Employing the infamous Hotchkiss guns – guns that fire many bullets – they killed over 250 Lakota.  Their crime was daring to dance the forbidden Ghost Dance. 

For a hundred years the massacre was christened by the American government:  The Battle of Wounded Knee. 

Twenty-five soldiers died in the massacre and twenty were awarded the Medal of Honor.  No man and no woman of honor should ever again accept that medal until those awarded to the Wounded Knee soldiers are rescinded.  Further, the government should declare December 29^th Wounded Knee Memorial Day. 

In honor of the Ghost Dancers buried at Wounded Knee: 

NOT AT WOUNDED KNEE

In the land of the Lakota long ago

Deep in the winter of the frozen earth

The people gathered in circles

Hand in hand line after line

To dance the dance of the ancestors

I was not in the lines of dancers

I did not sing the sacred words

My spirit did not rise above the land

To look down upon this scene

I did not see the soldiers circle the camp

I did not hear the order to disarm

I did not see them mount their guns

That shower bullets

I did not hear the cry of mothers

I did not hear the thunder

I did not smell the cloud of smoke

I did not see them fall

I was not there to give my blood

My heart did not explode

My body was not pounded by bullets

Nor pierced by bayonets

I did not die at Wounded Knee

I was not buried in a common grave

But I have walked those hallowed grounds

I have mourned and shed my tears

And I have said my prayer aloud

And I have heard the buried dead

And I am sworn to heed their plea

Remember Wounded Knee

From Wasichu: The Killing Spirit: 

Wo Lakota!

How can I explain the sorrow of Wounded Knee? 

My heart has been pierced by a thousand arrows

My spirit is broken and my soul is in flames

The sorrow runs through me like a mother’s pain

And my tears flow like rivers

But it is not for the right reason

Here lies Big Foot in his dance of death

Here lie the Ghost Dancers

The followers of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull

The keepers of the faith

Here on this sacred hill

I should have no thoughts but this:

The Ghost Dance survives!

Instead the thought that will not leave me

Is this:  It should not be this way

Here on Memorial Hill at the head of the table

Where the father should be

There is a place of worship bearing the sign: 

Sacred Heart Church

So the church of the Black Robes

Lays claim to this most sacred ground

Wo Lakota!  It should not be this way!

[Sacred Lands to Native Peoples!  Free Leonard Peltier!]

Jazz.

RECLAIMING AMERICA: Sticking with the Union

LONG WAY HOME:  DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

REBUILD THE UNIONS

By Jack Random

“You can’t scare me; I’m sticking with union.”

From Union Maid by Woody Guthrie

Unions are to the economic system what elections are to the political system.  Without a strong union presence, there is no counterbalance to the multi-national corporations.  When corporations have dominant power they use it not only to destroy unions and establish a system where workers exist at the mercy of their employers but also to control the political system through financial contributions. 

There was a time when unions posed a viable threat to corporate dominance of our democratic process.  There was a time when union membership and organizational power could almost rival the power of industry and other financial interests.  That time, however, has long receded into the dusty pages of forgotten history. 

 One of many broken promises of the Obama administration was his failure to pass legislation that would protect the right of unions to organize in the workplace against an onslaught of union-killing statewide “right to work” laws.  In the history of organized labor, never has there been a more effective weapon against unions.  The so-called Right to Work mandate is really the right to work in a union shop without joining the union.  It is the right to benefit from union membership without having to pay union dues.  If you don’t have to join the union to gain the benefits, why would you?  From a purely self-interest perspective, only suckers would join the union.  In other word, the “right to work” is the right to freeload on the backs of union members. 

At last count there are 27 states that have enacted such legislation.  They are predominantly red states but include some purple states like Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia and Nevada.  They also include states that are moving in a more progressive direction like Georgia and Tennessee. 

In August voters in Missouri rejected a Right to Work law passed by the Republican legislature with a resounding 67.5% of the vote.  Missouri became the first state to overturn a Right to Work law by referendum. 

The fact that RTW lost in a traditional red state by such an overwhelming margin suggests that when the issues are effectively explained, the people will vote them down.  It also suggests that the tide is turning on anti-union sentiment and that labor rights, including the right to organize, are potentially powerful issues to bring before the electorate in 2020 and beyond. 

Why should voters choose to ban Right to Work laws?  Most recent statistics suggest that workers in RTW states earn at least three percent less that workers in other states.  That is a margin that will only increase when a union movement gathers strength and builds momentum.  At present only an estimate 10.5% percent of workers nationwide belong to a union compared to approximately 20.1% in 1983.  The rate of union representation is 6.5% in RTW states and 13.9% in non RTW states. 

Clearly, where the right to organize is upheld and Right to Work laws are struck down, union membership, wages and benefits go up.  Corporate interests have invested great sums promoting misinformation to pass RTW laws with great success.  That success is at least partly due to the absence of labor rights as a real force in major party politics. 

There was a time when unions represented nearly one third of the American workforce.  The year was 1964 and unions were a viable threat to corporate interests in both electing our public officials and investing in the legislative process on all levels.  Since then union representation has been in steady decline and union influence has declined accordingly. 

The fact is, despite repeated claims by the corporate right, unions have never been a proportionate counterbalance to industry and financial institutions but at least they were a presence.  When combined with their representation of workers and an effective turn-out-the-vote operation they could often tip an election. 

The truth is if we had reasonable restrictions on money in politics we would not need to rebuild the union movement.  Without corporate money both our democratic institutions and organized labor would thrive.  But corporate money has so polluted the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government that we need strong unions just to fight back. 

Increasingly conservative and corporate courts, including the Supreme Court in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have upheld a state’s right to enforce RTW and other anti-labor laws, leaving action by congress and enforcement by the executive branch as the only viable remedy. 

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act would not only reinvigorate a union movement, it would put an end to a decades-long avalanche of anti-labor legislation.  Former president Barack Obama promised to push through the act in his reelection campaign but he never got around to doing it.  He never really tried.  His failure points out the futility of repeatedly nominating corporate moderates as Democratic candidates for president.  However else we may feel about them, they inevitably abandon significant pro-labor change in favor of corporate friendly compromise.  They pay lip service to labor, environment and income inequality but they fail to deliver lasting change. 

Until the people demand real and systemic change, we will get more and more of the same.  Until workers stand up for the union, employers will rule the day.  Until we stand together both in the workplace and at the ballot box, we will slip further and further behind.  The income disparity between the CEO and the lowly worker will only increase.  The protections of labor and the benefits extended from the generosity of employers will only erode. 

There is a reason organized labor has always stood for democratic reform.  There is a reason organized labor fails to take root in non-democratic nations.  Labor and democracy go hand in hand and each must stand for the other or both will fall. 

“Right-to-work is wrong for Missouri.”  By Janelle Jones and Heidi Shierholz.  Economic Policy Institute, July 10, 2018. 

“Right to Work States Still Have Lower Wages.”  By Elise Gould and Will Kimball.  Economic Policy Institute, April 22, 2015. 

“The Workplace Legacy of Barack Obama.”  By Michelle V. Rafter.  Workforce, January 17, 2017. 

RECLAIMING AMERICA: SUPPORTING GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

LONG WAY HOME:  RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY

SUPPORT GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

By Jack Random

Mark it post and save:  On November 28^th President Donald Trump did the right thing.  He signed two bills establishing American solidarity with Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement.  Curiously, he stated he was doing so out of respect for President Xi of mainland China when in fact it was directly contrary to Chinese interests.  It may prove a sticking point in the ongoing trade negotiations between the two economic giants. 

The truth is the legislation had veto-proof support in congress.  The president nevertheless should be applauded for standing up for democracy.  Only weeks before he signaled his support for a military coup in Bolivia – likely instigated and organized by the Central Intelligence Agency.  We have no way of knowing whether the agency acted on Trump’s direct orders or in continuance of long-standing policy but when he applauded the action he also forecast possible future operations in Venezuela and Nicaragua. 

In the contest between democratic and non-democratic forces, the president has not often sided with democracy.  He is proud to stand with the increasingly ruthless authoritarian President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who disregards the rule of law, summarily executes accused drug dealers and declares war on the media.  He stands with President Recep Erdogan of Turkey who conducted one of the greatest purges in modern history and regularly imprisons political opponents on trumped up charges.  He stands with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a strict authoritarian who suppresses opposition voices and controls all sources of political and financial power. 

When the United States of America praises dictators and gives generous support to authoritarian despots in every corner of the world, the incentive to build and strengthen democracy is lacking.  It is far easier to establish military rule or governance by the corporate elite and hold on to power with the strong arm of oppression. 

In recent years we have had opportunities to make great progress in the cause of global democracy but we failed to seize the day.  Because of our ill-advised alliances in the Middle East, we failed to provide adequate support of the Arab Spring.  We failed to support the rise of democratic movements in Latin America because they chose to couple democracy with a socialistic economy. 

Let’s be clear, America has long earned a reputation of hypocrisy when it comes to supporting democracy in foreign affairs.  Ho Chi Minh pleaded with the United States to support Vietnam against the French in the spirit of freedom and equal rights.  The United States under Harry Truman was not interested.  Imagine if we had accepted his offer of alliance and guided Vietnam on a path to democracy.  Millions of lives would have been spared.  If we had stood firm in our support of democracy, countless military and covert operations would not have been necessary. 

America’s history is stained with the support of despots, military juntas and dictatorships around the world.  We have given lip service to the cause of democracy when in fact we have supported our own economic and strategic interests.  We have been cursed with shortsightedness.   Had we built a coalition of republics we would be far better off today.  If we are to be the beacon of liberty that our mythology describes then we must alter our course.   

Unfortunately, we seem to be embarked on the same old course without the embellishment of good intentions.  According to the Global Democracy Index, a rating of democratic fulfillment by the Economist Intelligence Unit of the United Kingdom, the state of our democracy is in decline.  Far from the shining beacon on the hill, we are no longer considered a full democracy.  Rather, given the deterioration of our fourth estate, corporate dominance of our political process, declining participation in our elections and a general acceptance of anti-democratic practices – such as mass disenfranchisement – we are now considered a flawed democracy. 

We can question the methodology if we wish but the stone cold fact is that this nation, the very first sovereign republic on earth, should be rated by anyone as low as twenty-fifth on any list of democratic achievement should give pause to every citizen.  While we pay tribute to our founders and applaud Broadway shows that glorify them, we have betrayed the foundations of democratic government. 

Democracy does not exist in a vacuum.  It exists in a world where despotism, fascism, dictatorship, oligarchy and theocracy have taken control of governments and fight for ever more power and wealth.  For democracy to survive, democratic nations must join together and support each other to achieve economic prosperity and security for all our peoples.  Our trade policy should reflect our democratic values and our foreign policy should always encourage and defend the principles of democracy. 

I am not advocating war for democracy.  I am not advocating covert operations to overturn every dictator and despot in the world.  I am not advocating covert operations or military interventions at all.  As Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa once said:  “We wanted help; we did not want bombs!”  The boycott and divestiture of the government of apartheid South Africa was of immeasurable assistance in paving the road to independence.  That example should serve as a model for our foreign policy. 

We should establish an independent body – as unbiased as humanly possible – to rate governments on the scale of democracy.  Once we have improved our own standing to a fully functional representative democracy, we should invite all full democracies to form an alliance of democracies for preferred trade relations.  Each member nation would agree to impose no tariffs or other restrictions on trade with fellow nations. 

Member nations that are thriving economically should provide assistance to those nations that are striving to improve their democratic status.  Nations that discard democratic values or interfere in the democratic development of other nations should face targeted economic sanctions and trade barriers. 

Of course there will be instances where economic consequences impose hardships on innocent people.  Humanitarian considerations must always be a part of any democratic decision making.  But we must apply pressure on governments that oppress their people.  In the current state of affairs, despite strategic interests, the government of Turkey no longer meets the minimal requirements of a developing democratic nation.  Turkey should be expelled from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for its brutal oppression and democratic backslide.  Its leaders should be subjected to the stiffest penalties.  The same holds true for China and Russia. 

To the detriment of the world, we have chosen capitalism and Free Trade as the guiding principle of international relations.  We have created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to support nations that adhere to and punish those that violate the mandates of Free Trade.  In doing so we have rendered human rights and democratic values secondary or even tertiary considerations.  This is a grave error that should be corrected. 

Democracy and human rights must be established in their rightful place as the foundations of international relations – at least from an American and western European perspective.  The omission of democratic values in trade agreements has virtually assured the decline of global democracy.  Reversing the polarity of Free Trade and human rights – one of which is the right of individuals to choose their government officials – will assure the rise of democracy and lead to the rise of Fair Trade.  The principles of democracy and representation of labor go hand in hand.  One encourages the other.  The IMF and the World Bank are powerful structures that can be reformed to reflect these new values. 

Attempting to establish such a framework for global affairs would meet with stiff resistance for it would threaten the long-established dominance of corporate wealth.  Any candidate for high office who proposes such reform would be attacked with the full force of corporate propaganda.  Any political party that adopted a Democracy First approach to international trade would find itself accused of every conceivable offense: corruption, fraud, extremism, terrorism, mob rule, radical economics, communism, socialism and anarchism. 

None of it would be true, of course, but that hardly matters.  When you threaten the core sources of international power, you will be tarnished by all means and methods.  Democracy is in fact the most radical and dangerous concept on the planet.  True democracy is a threat to the very foundations of global wealth. 

Of course, this is only a dream and will remain so as long as our own political system is dominated by two parties that both answer to the same overlords of corporate affluence.  Advancing global democracy is not possible as long as our government neglects its own democratic values.  This is not what the better of our founders intended. 

Granted, our democracy was flawed from its inception.  But the more enlightened of our founders knew it was a work in progress.  The better of them knew that women would one day be granted the right to vote.  They knew that slavery was an economically motivated abomination that would tear the nation apart.  They knew that the wealthy and privileged would attempt to control the masses by controlling the flow of information.  They knew that foreign nations would try to influence our elections and sway our electorate.  They knew that the press would be biased and politicians would be corrupt. 

They knew that the system they prescribed was seriously flawed but they trusted that those who followed them would be dedicated to the principles of democracy.  They trusted us to build upon their work.  They trusted us to correct their errors and make changes that would move the nation forward toward a more perfect democracy.  They had a dream and they placed that dream in our hands. 

It is up to us to take that dream and move forward.  Once we have repaired the damage to our own republic and fortified its defenses, we can begin to lead the world in progress toward the establishment of worldwide democratic principles. 

As the revolutionary founder Thomas Paine once wrote:  “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”  Let us not neglect that solemn responsibility. 

“United States Doesn’t Even Make Top Twenty on Global Democracy Index.”  By Andrea Germanos.  Common Dreams, January 11, 2019.   

Common Sense.  By Thomas Paine.  Circa 1776.   

RECLAIMING AMERICA: EDUCATION REFORM IN THE AGE OF TRUMP

THE LONG WAY HOME

NATIONAL EDUCATION REFORM

By Jack Random

As a former educator I have long defended public education.  I have argued that teachers are among the most dedicated professionals in the nation.  They are underpaid and too often underappreciated in that they are made scapegoats by far too many politicians who have little to no understanding of the difficulty teachers face. 

I stand by that position but the election of a president who is by every measure unqualified for the responsibilities of high office compels me to realize that our educational system has failed.  Until the election of Donald Trump, I would not have considered it possible that the American people as a whole – even with systemic flaws in campaign financing, foreign interference and the Electoral College – would elect an obvious con man who rejects the basic tenets of democracy and acquired knowledge.  I would not have considered it possible that an educated society would elect a man who holds science in contempt, who discards facts as the products of elitist propaganda, who regards media as the enemies of the people and who demonstrates disdain for the balance of power inherent in a democratic system of government. 

That we could have allowed this to occur once is understandable but alarming.  That we might well allow it to happen again suggests that the foundation of our democracy is crumbling before our eyes. 

Clearly, we need to better educate our children so that they will grow to become informed citizens with respect for the principles of democracy, an understanding of institutions of government and a firm grasp of reasoning and respect for the scientific method. 

Even now, as I write these words, I realize that a significant number of our people cringe at the term “scientific method.”  They are composed of people whose social upbringing and education has taught them that science is the enemy of religion.  They have grown up in a world where every individual must choose between faith and science, between the word of God and the words of Einstein, between the elitists who control our universities and social institutions and the ordinary people who work for wages and struggle to get by. 

We live in a society that divides us by geography and demands that we choose sides and burrow in or risk being ostracized by our family and peers. 

I understand the disdain that many people have for institutions and elitists but the election of Donald Trump demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in a functional democracy.  Because ordinary people have not learned to process information and derive logical conclusions for themselves, they have allowed others to think for them.  Because they have learned to divide the world between good and evil in the most simplistic terms, they have allowed a con artist to use them for his own enrichment. 

Donald Trump is not a man of the people.  Donald Trump does not value the principles of democracy.  Donald Trump is an opportunist who has exploited the prejudice and ignorance of the people for his own aggrandizement. 

A great deal has gone toward the immediate task of removing this man from office as soon as humanly possible.  Relatively little time and resources have been devoted to ensuring that such a tragic mistake of electoral politics never happens again. 

At this point it is important to expand the topic of systemic failure to include a Democratic Party that has also exploited the people in so many ways.  It was the Democrats who signaled “full speed ahead” to NAFTA and the Free Trade Mandate that spelled the demise of American industry.  It was Democratic lip service that allowed unions to collapse as a counterweight to corporate influence.  We should not forget Democratic betrayal simply because Trump is so much worse than anything the Democrats could have delivered. 

Nor should we ignore the fact that Donald Trump’s candidacy was enabled by a Republican Party so removed from the people that a pretender had no difficulty plowing his way through a large field of contenders to the nomination.  The problem is bipartisan and the solution must be nonpartisan. 

It begins with education.  The government guarantees a free public education to all from age five to eighteen.  It is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government.  What our government has not guaranteed is a quality education for all.  We have in fact yielded the content of public education to state and local authorities and that is where the problem begins. 

It is often said that all politics are local and local politicians have long recognized the propaganda potential of education.  Not long ago there were places in this nation where a science teacher could only teach Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution if the Christian church’s creation story was presented for contrast.  Please note that between evolution and creation only one is a theory.  The other is faith-based mythology – aka religion. 

In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach creation myth in a science curriculum.  In 2005 the court ruled that the so-called theory of “Intelligent Design” was only an attempt to repackage creationism in a more acceptable form and it too was banned.  As a result, the rightwing anti-science community has pushed the Charter School movement as yet another way to circumvent the law of the land.  School Boards in Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Arizona and the District of Columbia have approved the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.  [1]

A theory is more than speculation.  A scientific idea begins as a purely speculative postulate before becoming a hypothesis to be tested.  A hypothesis becomes a theory only after rigorous and repeated testing confirms its validity.  The creation myth – an essential story in all known religions – has not survived peer review or rigorous testing and cannot be considered a valid theory.  It does not therefore belong in the same scientific discussion as evolution. 

Religion is personal and every individual is granted the right to believe and worship as he or she will – as long as those beliefs and practices do not prevent others from believing as they choose.  Religion can no part in the scientific realm just as science can have no part in matters of pure faith. 

Science must be an essential part of any public school curriculum and the scientific method for establishing facts and theories even more so.  An education that is not founded on science and the scientific method is not an education at all for at that point it crosses over to the realm of faith. 

Religion can have no part in public education.  The moment you admit matters of faith into subjects worthy of education you give credence to magical thinking.  You falsely enable students to challenge the most basic facts.  You enable students to challenge gravity.  Physics does not yield to prayer or public opinion and will not allow a scientific challenge to gravity because gravity is an established fact. 

If a given district wants to allow magical thinking in its curriculum it must be challenged by a greater authority.  At present, under the leadership of Donald Trump and his faith-based Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a greater authority does not exist.  Or rather, it exists to defend magical thinking.  It exists to divert funds meant for public education into private, faith-based charter schools. [2]

We can no more allow the perversion of science with faith-based diversions than we can allow public school districts to choose their curriculum without regard to scientific validity and historic fact.  For example, we cannot allow districts in the South to teach that the southern states were right to break away from the north because African slaves were inherently inferior and slavery was therefore justified.  I have little doubt that there are those not only in the South but across the nation who believe just that though such prejudice has not and cannot be validated by the scientific method. 

This nation needs to agree that all students regardless of locale are deserving of a sound education grounded in fact and science.  We need to agree that the nation has one historical narrative for all students.  We need to agree that this nation was born with high ideals that were subverted by Native American genocide and African American slavery.  Our universal narrative must include the story of Japanese American internment by a Democratic president.  It must include the stories of systemic discrimination against Latin Americans, Irish Americans and immigrants of all backgrounds and colors. 

Beyond history we need a public school curriculum across all states that prioritizes the teaching of reason – of how to interpret the facts we observe and draw objective conclusions.  A student that does not know how to reason is as critically handicapped as a student that does not know how to read, write or perform the basic functions of arithmetic. 

We should also be teaching our children the art of compromise and the role it has played in the nation’s crowning achievements:  The writing and adoption of our constitution, the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare, the prohibition against child labor, the forty-hour work week, on and on. 

We have come a long way in our understanding of the world and the fulfillment of our ideals but we have blocked our schools and teachers by saddling them with politically motivated curricula.  Let’s be clear.  Education curricula has become a political football.  We must do everything we can to remove both religion and politics from the schools. 

We must also devise a new system that no longer divides students into successes and failures.  This idea that what our kids really need is tough love, that kids must experience the hard knocks of life in their growing years, has got to end. 

No child deserves to fail.  Certainly, no child should be branded a failure and forced to endure years of failure just to fulfill the dictates of a tough love curricula.  We all know that’s how it works and we all pretend there is no other way.  There is.  We cannot simply bend the normal population curve as the George W. Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind initiative proposed.  With its high academic standards and one-size-fits-all approach, NCLB guaranteed failure for a generation of students. 

NCLB reigned over education for over a decade with catastrophic results before being replaced by Common Core (2010) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).  The new program suggests national standards with the goal of producing students who can succeed in college and university.  The actual administration is left to the states. 

Education has gone through this process of rebuilding the education system from top to bottom numerous times and it has always failed.  It fails because all students cannot succeed on a moving scale of academic standards.  The system fails repeatedly because we try and try again to bring students to the system rather than bringing the system to the student. 

All students can succeed if we assess their talents and interests early on and guide them to achievable and functional goals.  All children are not meant to be scientists but all children can learn to employ the processes of logical thought.  All children cannot become doctors and engineers but every student can become and valued member of society.  All students cannot become litigators but all can learn to distinguish credible evidence from opportunistic speculation. 

Those who have advocated trade schools are on the right track.  Society’s responsibility is to determine what trades will be valued in the future and to provide appropriate students the background and training they require.  Some students will naturally be guided on an academic path while others may be encouraged to develop blue collar, artistic or entrepreneurial skills. 

When there is a place for every child’s interests and abilities then every child – with appropriate assistance, guidance and encouragement – will succeed. 

Moreover, when all students succeed they will become citizens who are able to make realistic and responsible judgments regarding our political parties and candidates.  Is it any wonder that those who have been branded failures in education have rejected the institutions and elitists who branded them?  When the electorate is informed and engaged, we will not be fooled by con men and pretenders. 

Who knows?  We may finally reject the politics of cynicism, division and derision.  We may finally elect representatives whose ultimate motive is to improve the lives of all Americans rather than to enrich themselves and their corporate masters. 

1. “Map: Publicly Funded Schools that are Allowed to Teach Creationism.”  By Chris Kirk.

Slate, January 26, 2014. 

2. “Betsy DeVos Wants to Use America’s Schools to Build ‘God’s Kingdom’.”  By Kristina

Rizga.  Mother Jones, March/April 2017. 

RECLAIMING AMERICA: BREAK UP THE MEDIA MONOPOLIES

THE LONG WAY HOME

BREAK UP MEDIA MONOPOLIES

Beginning with Facebook

“They’ve bulldozed the competition, used our private information for profit, undermined our democracy and tilted the playing field against everyone else.” 

Elizabeth Warren, US Senator and Presidential Candidate

Ten years ago this article would have been about the television and newsprint monopolies.  To some extent it still is.  But more importantly it concerns the social media monopolies – most notably Facebook.  For while more Americans still get their news from television, a 2018 Pew Research Center report found that the fastest growing source of news in America is social media. 

At 20% of respondents, social media passed print newspapers (16%) as the primary source of news.  It trailed radio at 26%, news websites at 33% and television at 49%.  Combining social media and news websites, more people got their news online than from any other source.  Moreover, recent revelations about the role of Facebook in laundering Russian propaganda for the election campaign of Donald Trump have alerted us to the dangers that social media pose.  It is in fact fertile soil for unfounded propaganda, rumor, innuendo and conspiracy theory. 

As a candidate for president, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has proposed breaking up media monopolies, drawing the ire of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.  Recently, the word got out that Zuckerberg, Founder and CEO of Facebook, recently informed his employees at a private assembly that he would fight like hell against the “existential” threat posed by candidate Warren. 

Had he tried he could not have choreographed a more effective endorsement of Warren’s candidacy for president.  Those of us who subsist on less than ten digits in annual income can safely assume that Zuckerberg has no concept of a true existential crisis.  He may have dreams of global domination but he certainly has no understanding of the scourge of monopolies on a free market economy. 

It seems Warren has the audacity to stand up to Facebook, noting that the dominant social media platform has swallowed Instagram and WhatsApp and together they control 85% of the American market.  If Warren succeeds in breaking up the dominant platforms, she argues that they would compete in protecting user privacy and assert greater effort at combating the sort of mass misinformation that corrupted the 2016 presidential election. [1]

Zuckerberg’s counter argument is reminiscent of the big three automakers, the railroads and Standard Oil defending their market dominance.  The historical monopolies claimed that only they had the resources to serve the public interest.  Zuckerberg argues that only Facebook has the power and money to combat misinformation and foreign interests.  The problem of course is that Zuck and company lack motive.  Just like John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford, their primary motive is to boost market share and elevate the profit margin. 

Mark Zuckerberg has never demonstrated a social consciousness.  He responds with evasion, obfuscation and misinformation every time Facebook faces criticism.  Even if we could believe in his philanthropic values we should not.  History instructs us that corporate entities always serve their own interests.  Always.  Without exception.  How much power and wealth does Zuckerberg need?  The answer is and always will be:  more! 

Where was Zuckerberg’s social consciousness when Russian agents spent sizable sums creating fake accounts to distribute false facts and scandalous propaganda to targeted populations in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the 2016 election?  Did he know?  Yes.  He had to know.  Several members of Facebook were working directly with Donald Trump’s campaign, working alongside rightwing data operation Cambridge Analytica, in formulating advertisements and targeting Facebook users.  An estimated 126 million users were exposed to Russian propaganda and 85 million had their data stolen by Cambridge Analytica. [2]

There is no doubt that Russia used Facebook and Zuckerberg profited.  At his appearance before congress in April 2018 he testified that “tens of thousands” of fake accounts were identified and taken down in 2017 – after the election.  His solution for new verification requirements can easily be bypassed with shell companies and fake identifications. [3]

Zuckerberg failed to answer questions about the data Facebook provides Russian and other foreign agencies where Facebook operates.  Russia requires Facebook to store their data in Russia where they can access it.  The irony is rich in that Zuckerberg refuses to share data with the US government. 

I’m not suggesting that Facebook should share its data with the US government.  I am suggesting that it should not be sharing personal data with any government.  As it now stands corporations like Facebook operate in a Wild West environment where anything goes.  We have no way of knowing what data it retrieves and stores for analysis and what data it buries.  Moreover, we have absolutely no reason to trust Zuckerberg and his loyal minions.  In fact, we have every reason not to trust him. 

No one on the congressional committee thought to ask Zuckerberg what kind of assistance his employees provided to Russian fronts like the Internet Research Agency.  If they provided data used to target voting populations in critical states, their complicity in defrauding the 2016 election would rise to the critical zone. 

When you take a closer look at the services Facebook typically provides its corporate customers it becomes highly probable that they conspired with Russian interests in tipping the election.  For example, they provide a “custom audience” application that matches the client’s message with a receptive audience.  That is precisely what the Trump team needed to tip the balance in the critical states. 

Between barrages of tech talk that no one outside the industry understands Zuckerberg repeatedly asserted that users have the power to control their own data.  Really?  The truth is we have no idea what Big Brother does with the data we provide.  He repeatedly said they do not sell user data.  That is only true in the most abstract sense.  They use our personal data to feed algorithms that they then sell to advertisers who have something to sell to the user.  Without user data there would be nothing to sell. 

It goes on and on but the bottom line is clear:  Zuckerberg is no friend to American democracy or the public interest.  He and his people are smart enough to find ways to sell us out a million times over and make unconscionable sums of money doing it. 

Elizabeth Warren is right.  The big tech companies should be broken up.  The data monopolies they hold strictly for profit need to be placed under some form of public scrutiny and oversight.  Facebook and its enigmatic leader have earned our distrust.  Zuckerberg has established his place in history as a primary conspirator with Vladimir Putin in getting Donald Trump elected to office. 

If there were a way to put him and his operators in jail for what they did, I’d be all for it.  Unfortunately, the law has not begun to address the wilderness of technology – no less social media. 

Warren’s proposal is just a beginning.  To the extent possible we should break up the media monopolies.  We should also make sure that political ads are delivered with absolute transparency.  If the source is Russian it should be clearly stated.  If the source is Facebook, it should say that as well.  Never again should we be inundated by anonymous popup ads that inform us what to believe without regard for the facts. 

Google, the ubiquitous search engine and owner of YouTube, is even more dominant than Facebook.  In twenty years of existence it has grown to control nearly 90% of all searches on the global market. [1]

It is clear that the algorithms that Google employs to generate sources and their order of presentation have the power to effect our opinions and perspective on the news of the day.  Conservatives complain that Google demonstrates a liberal bias and researchers have found some basis for that complaint.  A media organization called AllSides found in late 2018 that roughly 65% of news sources generated by Google searches yield left-leaning results while only 16% were from the right.  The organization also found that the bias was not intentional per se.  Their algorithms were designed to serve their users and their users tend to be younger and more progressive than the general public. [2]

While we should be more concerned with the validity of news content than perceived political bias, we should be able to access unbiased news through our primary news sources.  It seems to me that some form of user control should be offered if indeed we are unable to break up the monopoly of news. 

Once again, as we transition from traditional news providers to internet-based news sources, we are entering a bold new world of information dissemination.  We need new tools to ensure that what we once called news is not transformed into pure bias-controlled propaganda.  We need standards of journalism to apply to web-based news and we need a non-partisan government agency to monitor the news and enforce fundamental standards of journalism.  That which is not news should be clearly labeled as opinion. 

What do we do about the more traditional news providers?  We know that only a handful of massive corporations with international corporate interests own the primary news sources via television, radio and print media.  We know that the corps of serious journalists and reporters has suffered major cutbacks.  We know that large corporations are nearly impossible to sue for unsubstantiated news or biased reporting due to their deep pockets and scores of high-powered attorneys. [3]

As a consequence, news organizations get away with murder.  Fox News reports one set of facts – adhering closely to the Republican Party talking points – and MSNBC reports another set of facts that too often bear a close resemblance to the Democratic Party talking points.  We suspect that every news organization has a hidden economic and/or political agenda and too often we are right. 

What can we do? 

The first thing that comes to mind is separating news media and journalism from all other corporate entities.  Knowing that opposition will be fierce and buttressed by deep pockets and legions of litigators, multinational corporations with inherent conflicts of interest should have no control of the news industry.  Noting that only media is protected by the first amendment to the constitution, AT&T should be forced to divest itself of CNN.  Walt Disney should be compelled to divest itself of ABC.  Comcast should divest itself of ABC and Media Networks.  In print media, Amazon should divest itself of the venerated Washington Post. 

In radio the picture is even more complex.  The worlds of entertainment, propaganda, news and commentary often overlap.  The same principle should apply.  If we can force the separation of news and journalism from all other corporate interests, we should do so.  To the extent that we cannot separate them, we should require an impenetrable firewall that prevents the corporate masters from influencing the news or informed editorial content. 

The corporate world has spent a lot of time and resources gaining control of the flow of information.  They will not give up that control without a fight.  They hold the reigns of mass messaging.  They will offer dozens of established experts and commentators that will offer a vast array of arguments why it is neither possible nor advisable to break up the media monopolies and separate the news from corporate interests.  They have the money and they have the platforms to deliver their message.  We only have ourselves and common sense. 

In its 2019 report, Reporters without Borders ranked the United States of America 48^th in the world for upholding the principles of a free media.  The report noted that our president has declared the press enemies of the people and consistently labels news reports unfavorable to his interests as “fake news.”  The report also notes the failure of the Trump administration to condemn the Saudi Arabian government for the brutal assassination of Washington Post contributor and Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi. [4]

Forty-eighth out of 180 countries is hardly good enough for the land of the free. 

If we believe in democracy we must do all we can to ensure a free flow of unbiased information.  Democracy depends on an informed citizenry and an informed citizenry depends on a free and fair press – including the media. 

1. “18+ stats that show how search and SEO are changing.”  By Rebecca Sentence.

Econsultancy, October 28, 2019.

2. “AllSides Report on Google News Bias: Analysis of political bias of Google News and

Google News search results.”  AllSides.  October 16, 2018.

3.     “These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies.”  By Kate Vinton.  Forbes, June 1, 2016.    

4.     “2019 World Press Freedom Index.”  Reporters without Borders. 

Jack Random is the author of Hard Times: The Wrath of an Angry God and the Jazzman Chronicles – a collection of 99 commentaries on American and International Affairs from 2000 to 2014 (Crow Dog Press).

RECLAIMING AMERICA: EXPAND THE ELECTORATE

THE LONG WAY HOME: RECLAIMING DEMOCRACY

EXPAND THE ELECTORATE

By Jack Random

If you believe in democracy, you want to expand the electorate.  You want every voice to be heard.  You want everyone to vote, every vote to count and every opinion to be represented.  If you believe in democracy you fight to break down all barriers to participating in the democratic process.  You make it as easy as possible for every eligible voter to cast a ballot. 

If, however, you are not certain that representative democracy is a viable system of government, then you tend to believe that only the elite and well educated should vote.  You would prefer that the working class, the poor and the minorities – too often victimized by substandard education – sit on their hands at election time.  You would rather their collective votes not be counted in any real sense.  You would rather the “best and the brightest” choose our elected officials.  You would rather the common rabble stay home and watch football, soap operas or reality television. 

This is the dirty little secret of American democracy.  The elite have found ways to carry on the pretense of a functioning, majority-rule democracy while creating and perpetuating a corporate-dominant virtual oligarchy. 

The very last thing the anti-democratic forces want to see is an expanded electorate where everyone or nearly everyone who is entitled to vote actually votes. 

According to the Census Bureau, in 2016 there were an estimated 245 million citizens eligible to vote.  Of that total roughly 158 million were registered to vote, of whom roughly 138 million or 56% of eligible voters turned out to cast their ballots.  While most Americans want to believe that our nation is the world’s shining example of democracy, we rank 26^th on a list of 32 developed nations in voter turnout. [1] 

Those who support the way we conduct our democracy would have you believe that most Americans just don’t care.  Who knows?  Given how unresponsive our representatives are to the basic needs of the people, maybe they don’t. 

They would have you believe that those who do not vote should not vote because they are uninformed and uneducated.  The truth is far more sinister. 

The American system in its current form is designed for low voter turnout.  Virtually every aspect of our election tradition is intended to suppress voters.  We hold our elections on Tuesdays – a day when working people are engaged in labor.  Voting requires workers to get up an hour early or to invest a couple of hours after their working day is done.  We could just as easily hold elections on weekends or during the course of a week or even two weeks.  We could make voting day a national holiday so that no worker would find it difficult to locate his or her precinct and cast a ballot. 

The most recent trend in voter suppression is aimed squarely at the student population.  Activated by climate change, income inequality and the blatant racism of the Trump administration, college and university students have begun voting in greater numbers.  According to the Institute for Democracy & Higher Education at Tufts University, student voting more than doubled from the midterm election 2014 to the midterm 2018.  Consequently, Republicans have found ways to make it difficult to vote in the state where a voter attends school. 

In Austin, Texas, they closed down early voting stations on college campuses.  In Florida they did the same in 2014 but a federal court overturned the ban for 2018.  They are poised to try again.  In New Hampshire the legislature passed a law requiring students to get their driver’s license and vehicle registration within the state.  It is no coincidence that university students vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  According to an Axios poll, an estimate 75% of students favor impeaching Donald Trump. [2]

It should not matter how the vote breaks down but it clearly does.  Such efforts must be fought relentlessly in the courts and in the court of public opinion. 

In response to Republican voter suppression laws, many states have moved to pass legislation expanding access to the ballot box.  Automatic voter registration laws have been proposed in New Jersey, Washington, Maryland, Massachusetts and Utah.  As noted above, other proposals to expand the electorate include same-day registration, expanded voting periods and election holidays that enable workers to take time off to vote. 

Many states make registering to vote more difficult than it should be and often require documents that they know many eligible voters do not have – most notably photo identification cards.  At present eight states have strict photo ID requirements while ten states have less strict photo ID requirements.  In states controlled by Republican legislatures there is a push for such requirements because they tend to affect poor and minority voters. 

We could make it easy for everyone to register.  The 1993 National Voter Registration Act required the Department of Motor Vehicles to offer voter registration.  Some states automatically register citizens to vote when they get their driver’s license or official identification.  Fifteen states and the District of Columbia offer some form of automatic voter registration.  All states should do so.  Automatic registration should apply not only at the DMV but at banks and utilities or anywhere that requires proof of residency.  Registering to vote should be as easy and convenient as signing a petition outside your local grocery store.  If memory serves me, activist organizations used to do just that. 

It is a peculiarity of the American system that every precinct and every state is allowed to create its own system of voting.  The process and the facilities should be uniform across all states and the District of Columbia.  An economically disadvantaged neighborhood should not have antiquated machines that cannot serve the number of voters in the district.  Every district should have the same machines and same number of machines to serve their voters. 

Some have suggested that voting should be mandatory.  I cannot go that far.  Voting should be considered a civic duty.  Citizens should be proud to vote and should be rewarded for doing so.  Instead, because jury duty lists are generated from the voting list, people are effectively punished for voting.  Proponents of the current system will say that jury duty is not a punishment but as long as such duty is mandatory it is an undesirable consequence of voting.  I suggest that governments should offer tax deductions for voting and jury duty should come from the DMV list. 

We have to change the way our political system works.  We have two parties dedicated to winning at any cost.  If the Democrats could gain advantage by enforcing requirements that would suppress Republican voters, I have no doubt they would do so.  Both parties should concentrate on lifting their own vote totals rather than suppressing the opposition.  Both parties should be dedicated to free and fair elections.  When they abandon that fundamental principle, the voters should exact a very costly penalty at the polls. 

When that happens we will have a stronger and more vibrant republic.  When people are invested in their own government, the nation will be stronger.  When elected officials know that poor people and working people will vote, more of them will listen and respond to their needs.  When more people vote there will be fewer officials who pay homage only to wealthy corporate contributors. 

When every vote counts and every vote is counted, the virtues of democracy will be self-evident and the principles of democracy cherished. 

1. “US trails most developed countries in voter turnout.”  By Drew Desilver.  Pew Research Center, May 21, 2018. 

2. “As student vote surges, so do efforts to suppress it.”  By Michael Wines.  New York Times, October 25, 2019. 

Jack Random is the author of the Jazzman Chronicles – a collection of 99 essays written from the year 2000 to 2014.  He has also authored novels, plays, poetry and short stories.