Since President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord earlier this month—a move Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune dubbed "one of the most ignorant and dangerous actions ever taken by any President"—calls for resistance have blossomed into plans for mass, collective action.
McKibben knows the score. Hopefully the days when progressives organize rather than talk about how we need to do this and need to do that! Organize people and 'get on with it'! We need a way to learn about local actions - a climate change bulletin board would be nice. National actions and world wide actions too. Why do we make it so hard to find out what is happening?
Pundits and progressive website contributors need to get out in the streets and help organize people and not just talk endlessly about why we should be organized.
Once we called it by various names - Peace Protest Network - Peace Calendar - whatever. The bulletin boards in our flimsy cheap newsprint magazines and newsletters ... changed the world because they enabled us to be brought together and together changing the world was then possible.
People need more advance warning of protests and days of action so that they can plan ahead to participate.
The 'future' needs to be 'saved' from much more than Trump.
James Comey seems to me the best way forward - i.e., what is at stake here is not climate, or biodiversity, or even a habitable planet.
These are always in flux.
At this moment in time,Thomas Jefferson's democracy is at stake - and Abraham Lincoln's democracy - and our democracy.
It seems to me that unless Trump is removed from office - all other 'good will hunting' initiatives are doomed from the get-go.
The sign says: "Equal Justice Under Law"
Laws come and go - like politicians.
Justice is different.
There are concepts of justice different from our rigid ideas. Here I am thinking indigenous - where reparation for the victims is at least as important as punishing the oppressor - perhaps vastly more important.
Who has suffered most here ?
I think "we the people" - and we know who we are, and what that means.
Watching helplessly as the very idea of democracy and equality is smashed to bits and trodden underfoot - pretty much for all of our lives - is disheartening in the extreme.
We need to get back our self-respect.
Simply removing Trump will not do that - but it is a necessay step in that direction.
I've been "lesser of two eviled" for fifty years or more. No more!
I decided long ago not to be suckered into voting which sock puppet put up by the duopoly should "govern" for the next four years.
* If We the People will get together and form a "People's Party" under whatever name they wish, dedicated to human rights, civil rights, world peace, health care, and all the other things the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written to keep safe, it will have my 100% support.
* What I will not fall for is the mealy mouthed bottom feeders who say if we just support the Democratic Party, we can defeat the evils of trump. That would just be changing the color of the sock puppet obeying the 0.01%. "D" or "R", We the People have been falling deeper into the rathole that guarantees that the 0.01% will gain even more riches at the our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
* It is way past time for change in this nation, from power to the billionaires to Power to the People.
* UP THE PEOPLE! Off the Oilagarchy!
This looks much smaller than the People's Climate March. It takes months to organize something on that scale. There is not just grassroots activity on this but leaders in government, education, and business are getting involved. But the deed is done. Trump was elected. The president is not Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or Jill Stein. What effect the lack of US leadership on climate change will have on the international level is of course not clear but it could be profound. It is hard to imagine the Kyoto Agreement ever occurring without the involvement of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. There would not have been a Copenhagen Accord without Barack Obama and certainly would not have been a Paris climate agreement without Obama. What happens to the Paris agreement now is very uncertain. Stronger pledges are absolutely necessary. Can that possibly happen without US leadership? It is hard to be optimistic.
Just in from Naomi Klein - a stunning article from her new book, very much in keeping with my own thoughts - i.e., Trump is the face of a much greater evil.
One can act individually to great effect - in many ways - eg cut your credit cards in half and live day to day - voluntary impoverishment, if you want a phrase.
Since the government won't do anything remotely substantial to avert the climate destabilization disaster now at hand it's up to 'The People' to do something concrete about the climate and poisoning that threatens us all. Start by grassroots organizing communities and expand from there. Eventually the government will have to act to reduce the immense footprint of the military, the largest contributor from the us, closely followed by transportation. I believe energy production is third on the list, and yes, significant. Presidents and politics are against any real action, economy is not an excuse when the planet is being scorched, or any other lame excuse for that matter. It's up to all of us now, our survival is at stake.
People have been doing this since the 1980's So much of what Reagan was doing in all areas should have had more resistance. People hid out in the universities and the media and talked. Endlessly.
Have you ever heard of The Green Party? They're already organized, share your values, and have ballot access in a majority of states.
Of course. I voted for Jill in the last election. The reason I am advocating a People's Party, by whatever name it is called is that there are dozens of groups and parties out there. Each one is trying to get votes, raise money, hoping to get 2% or 5% of the pie.
* The Oilagarchy loves this. They even donate to some of them. It keeps We the People busy, working for our pittance, our small percentage of votes. Meanwhile they pour millions into their red and blue sock puppet "races," knowing that whichever wins, the puppet masters run the show and extort the profits.
* What is needed is for all the various "People's" parties and groups to get together as one coalition, set goals for the People, not the various special needs of the individual parties. If we can muster enough people and parties to win from the duopoly, all of our various concerns, poverty, health, renewables, environment, end of our war culture, establishment of peace, can be addressed and supported by the coalition, millions of votes, not just a few thousand here, a few thousand there.
* If We the People will get together and work together to slay this dragon of greed, they can call it Green, or Purple, or People, or Socialist, or Peace, but we've got to work together!
* As Ben Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
"there are dozens of groups and parties out there. Each one is trying to get votes, raise money, hoping to get 2% or 5% of the pie..."
Yes, there are lots of "groups" out there, but there are only two political parties, besides the D&R, that are already organized, with ballot access in enough states to actually win. Not working with the Greens, but calling to establish another group to run is useless, counter-productive and a waste of time and resources.
And it's thinking like that gives the right, alternative, Libertatians more votes than the Greens. And keeps Bernie fighting Dems instead of Republicans.
For crying out loud! Read what I said! We've got to pull together to make any progress against the duopoly. I have no argument against it being the Green Party. It would be a good idea, but I am trying to make people see that we've got to pull together or we are doomed. When I said "People Party", I said whatever it may be called. A "Green Revolution" would be great, but it requires cooperation and hard work. It will also require the support of other groups to get the votes and support. That is what I am advocating. That is why I said a "coalition". England has made that work to turn over some very powerful parties and executives.
* co·a·li·tion ˌkōəˈliSH(ə)n/ noun
noun: coalition; plural noun: coalitions
an alliance for combined action, especially a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states.
"a coalition of conservatives and disaffected Democrats"
synonyms: alliance, union, partnership, bloc, caucus; More; federation, league, association, confederation, consortium, syndicate, combine; amalgamation, merger
"the ruling four-party coalition" [Wikipedia]
* Does that clarify what I am talking about?
"That is why I said a "coalition". England has made that work to turn over some very powerful parties and executives."
England has a parliamentary system. Similar parties form coalitions to achieve majority control. The US doesn't have a parliamentary system. The US has a two party, winner take all system.
So, you are saying that the US is locked into a D-R system. One or the other sock puppet rules and that's the way it is. Then you mention the Green Party. Isn't that a third party in a "two party, winner take all system"?
* This nation does not have a parliamentary government. It is no longer a Constitutional Republic, It is a fascist, neo-Nazi empire.
* What I don't understand is why you reject a coalition of all the affected groups, to form a powerful party that can combat and possibly win over the puppet government. A coalition does not have to be a collection of minority "political parties," it can be a group of independent people who are tired of the system and want change. That is how we got our revolution in 1776. People cooperated in changing the system, and they fought to change it by whatever means were necessary. They tried diplomacy, they tried legal methods, and when none of that worked, they fought for freedom.
* There were many groups involved, some of rather disparate beliefs and philosophies, but when push came to shove, they formed a coalition to achieve a goal. When that was achieved, then the differences between groups could be sorted out, and debated. Gradually, a new country and a new Constitution was formed.
* If all the states (colonies) and the various interests, commercial and otherwise had decided to revolt, each by themselves, the more powerful British could have cleaned them out, one at a time.
* But, I'll concede to your view. This nation is a "two-party, winner take all system" dominated by enormous wealth with the D's and R's taking turns to serve that wealth and power. And Jill Stein and the Green Party will win without having to count on a coalition of the rest of the nation to help. Wow!
Hey minitrue, thanks for a recap of the "official" US revolutionary history. In reality, the constitution wasn't written by a broad coalition of "the people", but rather the merchant/business/wealthy, concerned more about building their wealth than freedom. While the French revolution had the inspiring goal of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", the business sponsored US revolutionary goal/slogan was "No taxation without representation."
And, as per a document written by the wealthy, freedom, equality and fraternity were the last things on their minds. When they couldn't sell their business model, they added The Bill of Rights, 10 amendments, so they wouldn't have to rewrite the whole thing. Obviously the freedoms in the Bill of Rights hasn't occurred to the businessmen while they were writing the constitution.
But getting back to the Greens, yes, of course I voted for Jill; we're on the same page, dude. I think where we disagree is how to get Green victories. You seem to prefer lots of groups funneling voters to the party. Hey, that's what's happening now. And the reason it isn't working is because of a MSM lock out of Green Party coverage - from local, to their national convention.
And what pisses me off is the MSM ignoring The Greens also extends to lefties, even those on this site, who either express longings for a third party or prefer to fight Democrats for inclusion - seemingly oblivious that an already organized, third party with ballot access in most states, that agrees with their views, exists.
"What I don't understand is why you reject a coalition of all the affected groups, to form a powerful party."
I don't. A coalition of affected groups has already formed a political party - The Greens. And instead of working to make it powerful, they ignore its existence, and instead call for more groups.
Well, we are the Left. If we aren't forming more "the people's" groups because of idealistic and puritanical intercene squabbles, what are we doing?