A more dramatic and law detailed look at the processes at work in the ongoing sellout of American Democracy and wholesale blockage of expanding democracy worldwide. Note, without the first priority, “Rescuing Science from Politics” (CUNY Law School), all other efforts will be completely futile and a total failure. Energy evolution cannot remain at the bottom or sidelined list of priorities (as in MoveOn’s other 98% activities), especially when every known threat to human survival, evolution, sustainability….. stems from, and is caused by, a lack of Understanding and application of advanced energy systems since the late 1940's. The slightest perusal into the science of energy glaringly spotlights the impossibility of modern science to still be stuck in oil, or in the extremely elementary and deadly form of nuclear energy. Taking Einstein’s “incomplete (but testable and tested portions in the 1940’s) 1928 Unified Field Theory”, opened the doors to infinite decentralized energy source applications for antigravity, field propulsion, transportation of goods point to point without going through all points in between, energy medicine, etc. ….. along with overwhelming common sense insights of what not to do to destroy earth and it’s Life. (see StarSteps)
Rescuing Science from Politics –Putting Science Before Politics
Putting Science Before Politics
Excessive Secrecy in Government
http://www.progressivereform.org/secrecy.cfm
Undercutting the Democratic Process and Protecting Corporations from Accountability
Rebecca is a Professor at The City University of New York School of Law and a scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform. Rebecca Bratspies, Professor, joined the faculty of CUNY Law in 2004. Her teaching and scholarly research focus on environmental and public international law, with a particular emphasis on how legal systems govern the global commons and how law can further sustainable development. She has published widely on the topics of environmental liability, regulatory uncertainty, regulation of international fisheries, and regulation of genetically modified food crops.
http://www.law.cuny.edu/faculty-staff/RBratspies.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987029##
“A point has been reached in history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment . . . .”1
The problem is that the world has changed, and the boundaries of authoritative decision are no longer clear. Where states formerly would have pursued their own vision and balance, a world of ever denser interconnection means that the two perspectives, even if wholly valid expressions of community preference, cannot readily co-exist. As decisionmaking centralizes, the struggle over which approach will attain dominance becomes increasingly contentious.
This contest takes place against a backdrop of a world that not only embraces sustainable development, but is also in the throes of unparalleled industrial growth and integration. As such, it is one salvo in a broader struggle for dominance between those who view the world through the lens of the market and its efficiency, and those who would order society according to other values.
Globalization, and particularly the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) radically reconfigured decision making for many important public decisions. International organizations and transnational corporations now play a role in decisions that had formerly been the purview of states. This shift in turn raises questions about democratic legitimacy and whether such decisions are truly “authoritative”
Critics of this shift point to a democracy deficit. They contend that the rising role of the WTO, coupled with the growing influence of transnational corporations both domestically and internationally, means that the key decisionmakers—and the states that use the WTO processes—are no longer democratically accountable to citizens.
The realities of global warming, ozone depletion, desertification, and spreading invasive species make a mockery of the traditional distinction between transboundary and wholly domestic harms. If we are to live together and flourish on our shrinking, warming planet, we must reach beyond oversimplified and dated dichotomies, ones that place international and domestic law in separate realms. In the globalized arena, few, if any, matters are purely domestic. Instead, countless decisions made by individuals, private
corporate actors, and government officials at every level have effects beyond the borders of any single nation-state. The New Haven School’s efforts to grapple with the global community as an authoritative decisionmaker resonate profoundly with the struggle to confront global environmental challenges.
Undercutting the Democratic Process and Protecting Corporations from Accountability
Rebecca is a Professor at The City University of New York School of Law and a scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform. Rebecca Bratspies, Professor, joined the faculty of CUNY Law in 2004. Her teaching and scholarly research focus on environmental and public international law, with a particular emphasis on how legal systems govern the global commons and how law can further sustainable development. She has published widely on the topics of environmental liability, regulatory uncertainty, regulation of international fisheries, and regulation of genetically modified food crops.
http://www.law.cuny.edu/faculty-staff/RBratspies.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987029##
“A point has been reached in history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment . . . .”1
The problem is that the world has changed, and the boundaries of authoritative decision are no longer clear. Where states formerly would have pursued their own vision and balance, a world of ever denser interconnection means that the two perspectives, even if wholly valid expressions of community preference, cannot readily co-exist. As decisionmaking centralizes, the struggle over which approach will attain dominance becomes increasingly contentious.
This contest takes place against a backdrop of a world that not only embraces sustainable development, but is also in the throes of unparalleled industrial growth and integration. As such, it is one salvo in a broader struggle for dominance between those who view the world through the lens of the market and its efficiency, and those who would order society according to other values.
Globalization, and particularly the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) radically reconfigured decision making for many important public decisions. International organizations and transnational corporations now play a role in decisions that had formerly been the purview of states. This shift in turn raises questions about democratic legitimacy and whether such decisions are truly “authoritative”
Critics of this shift point to a democracy deficit. They contend that the rising role of the WTO, coupled with the growing influence of transnational corporations both domestically and internationally, means that the key decisionmakers—and the states that use the WTO processes—are no longer democratically accountable to citizens.
The realities of global warming, ozone depletion, desertification, and spreading invasive species make a mockery of the traditional distinction between transboundary and wholly domestic harms. If we are to live together and flourish on our shrinking, warming planet, we must reach beyond oversimplified and dated dichotomies, ones that place international and domestic law in separate realms. In the globalized arena, few, if any, matters are purely domestic. Instead, countless decisions made by individuals, private
corporate actors, and government officials at every level have effects beyond the borders of any single nation-state. The New Haven School’s efforts to grapple with the global community as an authoritative decisionmaker resonate profoundly with the struggle to confront global environmental challenges.
Our current economic system is an aristocracy according to Marjorie Kelly, The Devine Right of Capital. Think British rule of the American colonies. It's based on the divine right of kings: The interests of the king are paramount; the aristocracy alone has a say in government. At the center of the economic aristocracy we have today is the corporation, its authority based on the divine right of capital. Shareholders are king and their interests reign supreme. The aristocracy's primary goal is to pay shareholders as much as possible and pay employees as little as possible.The public good is ignored.
“To rest our hope with ethical leaders is like waiting for the philosopher king. At some point you wake up and realize aristocracy itself is the problem–and you move to democracy–you don’t wait for justice and equality to show up in some noble leader, you build them into social structures.” (Marjorie Kelly)
“The aim is to educate people that the problem isn’t greedy executives or evil individual corporations like Exxon. The problem is the system design. The problem is state law that says corporations exist only to maximize gains for shareholders.”
“To rest our hope with ethical leaders is like waiting for the philosopher king. At some point you wake up and realize aristocracy itself is the problem–and you move to democracy–you don’t wait for justice and equality to show up in some noble leader, you build them into social structures.” (Marjorie Kelly)
“The aim is to educate people that the problem isn’t greedy executives or evil individual corporations like Exxon. The problem is the system design. The problem is state law that says corporations exist only to maximize gains for shareholders.”
Toppling the Corporate Aristocracy
Nearly a dozen lawmakers have been honored by university endowments financed in part by corporations with business before Congress, posing some potential conflicts
Current or Former Lawmakers Linked to Endowments Made by Corporations - NYTimes.com
Nearly a dozen lawmakers have been honored by university endowments financed in part by corporations with business before Congress, posing some potential conflicts
Current or Former Lawmakers Linked to Endowments Made by Corporations - NYTimes.com
Food Stamp Recipients, Millionaires, on Rise
How peculiar our converted Freedom truly is, as we sit immobilized on freedom's oil highways, contemplating how our freedom rule of laws are created .... and ignore the hungry, homeless, jobless ….. and ignore worldwide, slow murder by poverty, in an age of miraculous science, technology and understanding (see gifts to future generations - previous post), as we make excuses for no jobs in a world exploding in population growth, need and demand.Food Stamp Recipients, Millionaires, on Rise abcnews.go.com
No comments:
Post a Comment