Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Mountaintop-Removal Mining and Democracy in the U.S.

Written by 

kennedy2

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. gave an important interview to Tavis Smiley earlier this past summer. He talked about mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia, the influence of corporations on democracy in the U.S., and the influence of corporations on U.S. media.

I'll provide a link to the 24-minute interview, the trailer of Kennedy's new documentary, The Last Mountain, and also give you selected excerpts from the transcript of the interview, along with a few stills from the film.

Here's a link to the interview. And here's the trailer from the documentary.

 

 

And here are selected excerpts from the transcript:

“They have flattened an area larger than the state of Delaware. They have blown up the five hundred biggest mountains in West Virginia in the last ten years, and it’s all illegal. They have buried 2,500 miles of rivers and streams. That’s illegal. . . . In order to do that, you have to subvert democracy. So if you go to West Virginia, democracy essentially doesn’t exist. . . . The transparency is disappeared in government, which is the hallmark of democracy. The agencies that are supposed to protect the West Virginian public from these companies have become the sock puppets [or] instrumentalities for these companies they are supposed to regulate. And the judiciary and virtually every publically elected official in the state has been corrupted by big coal. By every poll, two thirds of the people in West Virginia want to see mountain-top removal banned, but not a single politician dares to say that in the state, and this is what happens when corporations take over government.

dm2

“You see the Tea Party out here, Tavis, saying that big government is the big threat to democracy, and I agree. . . . But the bigger threat comes from unleashed corporate power, and we have to understand in this country that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And that is what you’re seeing. . . . Well, our job is to walk that narrow trail in between and hold big business at bay with our right hand and big government at bay with our left and walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And to do that, we need an independent press that is willing to stand up and speak to power and is going to inform the public, and we need an informed public that can recognize the milestones of tyranny, and we don’t have either of those things left in this country.

“When my father started talking about strip mining in the Appalachians back in the sixties, I remember a conversation I had with him where he said, ‘This is the richest state if you look at the resources and the land, but it’s the poorest people after the state of Mississippi, the 49th poorest people in the country.’ Why is that? It’s because the corporations have stolen the resources from the people in the state. He said, ‘They’re not just destroying the environment; they are permanently impoverishing these communities because there is no way that you can regenerate an economy from these barren landscapes that are left behind.’ And he said, ‘They’re doing it so they can break the unions.’ And that’s exactly what they did in West Virginia."

dm3

“When he told me that, there were 151,000 unionized mineworkers in West Virginia digging coal out of tunnels in the ground. Today there are fewer than 15,000 miners left in the state. So 9 of 10 jobs have been removed. But they’re taking twice the amount of coal out of the state that they were in 1968. The only difference is, back then a large amount of that wealth was being left in that state for salaries and pensions and reinvestment in the community. Today it all goes straight up to Wall Street. . . .

dm4

“Now we have a Supreme Court . . . there’s no coherent right-wing philosophy to the Supreme Court. The only coherent philosophy to Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Clarence Thomas, one thing: The corporations always win. If it’s government against an individual, the government wins. If it’s corporations against the individual, the corporation wins. If it’s corporations against the government, the corporation wins. Show me any exception to that written by that Supreme Court. . . Last year they repealed this 100-year-old law and made it legal for the first time in a century for corporations to flood our federal political campaigns with a tsunami of money, and that is the beginning of the end. . .

“The devolution of the American press began in 1986 when Ronald Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine. We had a law in this country that we passed in 1928 that said that the air waves belong to the public. The broadcasters can be licensed to use them, but only if they use them to promote the public interest, to inform the public and advance democracy. That’s why we have the 6:00 news. They didn’t want it. The broadcasters didn’t want that because the news departments were chronic money losers. . . .

“Today as a result of Reagan’s changes—Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine in 1988 as a favor to the Christian right, which had helped him get elected, and wanted to take over all of AM radio, which is now complete. Talk radio is 95 percent controlled by the right. And the big studio heads helped him get elected who wanted to take over all media.

“So now you have five giant corporations that control virtually all 14,000 radio stations in our country, all 2,200 TV stations, 80 percent of our newspapers, all of our billboards, and most of the large internet content providers.

“So you have five guys who are deciding what Americans hear as news. They no longer have an obligation to serve the public interest. Their only obligation is to their shareholders. They serve that obligation not by informing us, telling us the things we need to understand to make rational decisions in a democracy, but rather by entertaining us. . . . They got rid of their investigative reporters. Eighty-five percent of them lost their jobs in the last 15 years.”

Here is a link to Kennedy’s website.

Related items

Join the Discussion

Commenting Policy

Beams and Struts employs commenting guidelines that we expect all readers to bear in mind when commenting at the site. Please take a moment to read them before posting - Beams and Struts Commenting Policy

10 comments

  • Comment Link Philip Corkill Tuesday, 27 September 2011 21:08 posted by Philip Corkill

    Well, I hope those five guys are the most skilled, wise and compassionate incarnations of the five major Bodhisattvas the world has ever hosted.

    And that their shareholders are the best boomers out there! Though they do seem to be taking this investment in flatland thing a bit far here (scuse my sick cynic).

    Otherwise, by this account...

    ...we're pretty fucked!!

    Or am I missing some integral hook here that I've just swallowed? Shouldn't I be feeling helpless, angry and hoping for a generation of padmasambhavas to walk through the political valley of corporate c********ers and up the last mountain, to subdue those five scary giants? Enlighten me.

  • Comment Link Trish Shannon Wednesday, 28 September 2011 21:16 posted by Trish Shannon

    And the way this "work" is accomplished is to sell the legislature, the state officials, and the voters that this is the ONLY path forward that will "get" jobs into West Virginia. And, of course, since jobs (or the lack of them) is what has been at stake in West Virginia for the last 35 years, this is the path that has been taken.

  • Comment Link Trevor Malkinson Wednesday, 28 September 2011 22:56 posted by Trevor Malkinson

    Phil I don't think there's any secret hook that you're missing here; granted David doesn't give a ton of his own perspective on the issue, but I know him to be a very concerned and morally passionate/upright guy, so I suspect he's straight up saying this is wrong (or f*&ked!) and we need to be aware of it/absorb it's reality pronto. That would be my guess. But of course, I don't want to speak for David, and I'm sure he'll come on here when he's got some time to say a little more.

    But I must admit Phil, you have set me up nicely here. :) David and I had a good exchange on Facebook recently (we actually met through Beams) where we differed over the OccupyWallSt. protests that were then just beginning. In response to my support of the protest David wrote:

    "Although I sympathize with them on some issues, it sounds like they wanted to make it a disruptive protest. Apparently, some wanted explicitly to shut down the area for weeks and start an uprising like the Arab Spring. I don't think that would be a good idea. It wouldn't be helpful to hurt business in New York, and policy makers tend to live in Washington D.C., anyway. A popular uprising like that--people in the streets--would also have a very different outcome in the U.S. than it would in North Africa.

    I think people have to get into the trenches and reform the system in legitimate ways, not try to shut things down or do damage. I don't blame them [the mainstream media] for not publicizing it when they had disruptive intentions".

    So David hello, thanks for this post, I was mostly unaware of things mentioned above, and they are definitely worthy of attention (pretty grim). I have a question for you- there seems to be a tension between what you just said there regarding the Wall St. protests, and this post above. The situation as described in this post seems to be as far advanced and dire as Phil gives voices to. Yet you want to maintain civil obedience and go through the system to force changes. So I want to ask you, how far do things have to go before we view the current system (state + corporations) as thoroughly corrupt and thus having lost all legitimacy in terms of approaching it in the ways you suggest?

    If you see the interview with Chris Hedges that Bergen just posted, he thinks the situation has deteriorated to the point that "the criminal class has gained power". He also elsewhere calls it "a coup d'etat in slow motion". He's not the only person who's been saying these things about the level of full blown criminality and corruption worldwide, but particularly in the American situation. I thought the documentary 'Casino Jack: The United States of Money' was pretty eye opening in this regard.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQXjV3g-Lc

    Here's that candid stock trader on BBC that a lot of people have been passing around the past few days. He says "Goldman Sachs rules the world":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA&feature=player_embedded

    And lastly a recent NY Times article about protests worldwide and how they're related:

    "From South Asia to the heartland of Europe and now even to Wall Street, these protesters share something else: wariness, even contempt, toward traditional politicians and the democratic political process they preside over...They are taking to the streets, in part, because they have little faith in the ballot box".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/as-scorn-for-vote-grows-protests-surge-around-globe.html?_r=1

    So David I was wondering if you could speak to this seaming tension in your view. At what point do we rule out any chances of systemic reform? Have we in your view hit that point yet, given the type of almost total control of the levers of power that we see in your post? Have the leaders and levers of official power lost legitimacy? What do they have to do before that happens for you?

    I must admit, I lean toward Hedges. I think this has gone farther than most of us are prepared to accept at this point, but that view could be wrong. However, my hat's officially in the ring with that view now.

    thanks David!, enjoying the exchange as always.

  • Comment Link David Thursday, 29 September 2011 01:51 posted by David

    Hi, Philip. Nice to meet you.

    "Shouldn't I be feeling helpless, angry and hoping for a generation of padmasambhavas to walk through the political valley of corporate c********ers and up the last mountain, to subdue those five scary giants?"

    No, you should BE one of those padmasambhavas going out to subdue those scary giants. :)

    Yes, I thought RFK Jr. would pretty much speak for himself, and it would be clear I was on his side here, though there may be some complexities that I'm not aware of. Generally, I think it's awful what has happened in West Virginia, and to a lesser extent the same thing has happened everywhere else, too. There may be some other perspectives to consider, like: What are the viable alternatives to coal right now? Do they have potential dangers? Would it really be helping if 100,000 people were in those mines and breathing in all that coal? But it looks like the state is being robbed and the citizens left with nothing, and I think that is a real calamity. It's awful that the natural beauty of West Virginia has been marred like this, as well as the economic impact on its citizens. It's kind of a dramatic example of what is happening everywhere now, pretty much.

  • Comment Link David Thursday, 29 September 2011 01:56 posted by David

    Trish, yes, they sell these things in the most deceitful ways. They probably also argue that it will lower energy costs for people doing it this way, and I just tried to look that up. But I suspect all it means is that the people running the companies will make more and faster money. Also, it seems that they hardly even need to sell it at all in West Virginia, that the system has been so corrupted elected officials won't stand up to it. But I suppose we have to fault the electorate to some degree there--why can't they elect more honorable people who will stand up to it? Of course, it's difficult the way campaigns are run these days; it takes a lot of money.

  • Comment Link David Thursday, 29 September 2011 03:04 posted by David

    Trevor, great comments. I think you bring up some important, crucial issues. I will try to explain my position a little better.

    "Yet you want to maintain civil obedience and go through the system to force changes."

    I am not for civil obedience in all matters; I am for civil disobedience in certain matters; I am just against the destructive sort of protest, and it sounded to me that the objectives of at least some of the organizers of the Wall Street protest were bent on something that sounded a little destructive, in terms of economic effects. Here is what I wrote on my second post in that thread on your Facebook page:

    "Trevor, Dennis, I am not against protest in general. I am just against destructive protest. I am for something along the lines of MLK Jr, who I think was very effective at transforming people, rather than destructive riots, for example. I am for consciousness-raising protest, not protest that would harm necessary structures, the economy, people. That is not leaving it up to the establishment. But I do think that ultimately reform has to take place through transforming people and through elections and legislation. The civil rights protests of the early 60s, for example, ultimately led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964."


    And I was about to go on some spiel about MLK Jr. and Ghandi and civil disobedience, but I thought the post was long enough as it was.

    I probably could have studied this protest a little more deeply before opining on it, but I read a couple of articles. But who knows, the articles may have been misinformation from the Corporatacracy. :) I think it happens.

    But, my impression was that the protest was coming, at least in part, from the "Eco Warrior" altitude in Sean Hargen's scheme of ecological reformers, bordering or perhaps crossing the line into ecoterrorism. This protest was a little broader than just ecology, of course, but I think we can apply Hargen's model. You can see it here:

    http://integrallife.com/node/42871

    I'm all for integrating a bit of the eco-warrior essence, just not to the point where it becomes destructive or verges into economic terrorism. It sounded a little too much like eco-warriors blowing up UW laboratories or SUV parking lots in Oregon. I don't know if that sort of thing has risen as far north as BC.

    You know, in the recent UK riots they probably had some legitimate gripes, but they ended up burning down a lot of innocent small businesses, often in their own neighborhoods, that had nothing to do with the wider problems.

    I am for the MLK Jr. approach--Love as an organizing principle--rather than the early Malclom X approach, which tended more toward violence. These two videos below illustrate the difference beautifully, I think. I think in the first video Malcom X demonstrates the attitude of the eco-warrior or civil-warrior and in the second MLK Jr. demonstrates the civil-integralist-sage:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rr-aRxItpw&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwKIUMbi9Jk


    Also, as I mentioned in the second Facebook quote, eventually reforms have to become law (like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965), and it's only when they become law that the objective has really been gained. Who knows whether Malcom X was able to influence it any positive way, but I know that MLK Jr. actually had discussions with LBJ about it, and my impression was that MLK Jr. was successful in speeding up the effort. You can see MLK Jr. standing behind LBJ as LBJ is signing into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965 here:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4265614821/

    So I think we need to keep our eye on that sort of prize--new laws, new amendments, new and better elected officials--and use dramatic but non-violent protest specifically toward those ends. If a protest is very specific and might stop a very particular, harmful practice (like Sea Shepherd taking some direct action with whaling boats) I may be for it; I am for it in the case of Sea Shepherd. And maybe this protest will raise consciousness some, but I think the fact that it hasn't gotten really wide coverage tells me that it has missed the mark a little. Of course, with real damage or destruction it would get more attention, but I think there are ways to get attention that don't involve real damage or destruction, though of course those are harder to come up with.

    So I am all for systemic reform; I just think it needs to get really directed and targeted. All this time and energy could be spent on the upcoming election or pushing very specific policy initiatives, with some really dramatic, consciousness-raising, non-violent protests to back it up and draw attention to it. If they are targeting this in any particular way, they aren't doing a good job of spreading the word, because I have looked at a few articles and haven't seen anything too specific.

    You know, maybe the Wall Street protests will help. Maybe it will rouse the consciences of Wall Street executives as they go to work, but I'd like to know how they are specifically trying to do that if that is the case.

  • Comment Link David Thursday, 29 September 2011 03:34 posted by David

    Just to clarify a little, it sounded to me like the original objective of the Wall Street protests was to shut down the entire district. Maybe that was just hyperbole to draw attention to it, but that's just what I objected to because it seemed like a scattershot approach that would have a lot of collateral damage.

  • Comment Link Trevor Malkinson Friday, 30 September 2011 01:20 posted by Trevor Malkinson

    Thanks David, some great points there, that clarifies things for me a lot.

    I liked your emphasis on gaining traction within the sphere of law; this was not a frame that was up for me. Matt Taibbi said something similar about the protests the other day:

    "I would imagine the end game of any movement against Wall Street corruption is going to involve some very elaborate organization. There are going to have to be consumer and investor boycotts, shareholder revolts, criminal prosecutions, new laws passed, and other moves. But a good first step is making people aware of the battle lines. It sounds like these demonstrations have that potential".

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/occupy-wall-street-drawing-the-battle-lines-20110927

    He also makes the point, in an interview with Keith Olberman, that for those with knowledge of things like derivatives markets and working for legal change in that arena, they can gain a lot of support from popular protests and general unrest. So perhaps we could look at change as more of an ecology, where different actions play different roles, each helping the other.

    http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/matt-taibbi-on-the-evolution-of-the-occupy-wall-street-protest

    I liked your push for non-violent protests. It's funny you mention the dichotomy between King Jr and Malcolm X, as I've been see-sawing back and forth between those two forms of action for years. It depends on my mood and what's happening in the world, but I've felt a tension between those two positions for some time. At this point I probably lean toward the King Jr side of the street, but I never rule out force in a last resort.

    It's worth noting that Chris Hedges is also calling for non-violent protests in part 5 of the videos Bergen posted. I appreciate his voice on this and his insights there. Your voice for non-violent protest also sparked a memory in me of something Steve McIntosh wrote in his first book. It struck me because I've just never heard this particular view/emphasis on postmodern consciousness before or since really. He writes:

    "Postmodern consciousness finds its advantage over modernism in its unique ability to bring about change through nonviolent political action and moral strength. Examples of this can be seen in the success of the political strategies of nonviolent resistance conceived of by Thoreau and applied by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, the potency of nonviolent resistance to bring about meaningful social change can now be recognized as a significant moral legacy of postmodern consciousness". (p.57)

    Anyway David, just a few thoughts for tonight, gotta run, but I appreciate the time to work through some of these finer points, obviously this is a good time in history to do it. :)

    On that note, one last article on the global unrest at the moment:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/as-scorn-for-vote-grows-protests-surge-around-globe.html?_r=2

  • Comment Link David Monday, 03 October 2011 23:48 posted by David

    Trevor, great comments, and thanks for the links. I think it is quite stunning when we compare the coverage the tea party protests got and the coverage this is getting.

    For the record--I am now FOR the protests. :)

    In the very beginning, I think I picked up on something destructive or anarchistic from a couple of organizers, but either that aspect of it was thwarted by police or it was just some kind of a rallying cry.

    In any case, it seems to me that these protests could play an important role for the reasons Matt Taibbi mentioned, that they could help encourage systemic reform.

    It's good to see something like this because elected officials seem to get much more interested when the crowd speaks up. They want to get reelected, of course. This could turn out to be a significant protest. It is apparently spreading to some other cities now.

    To be really effective, I think this sort of thing needs to be integrated with specific policy initiatives. Hopefully, that will follow.

    McIntosh: "Postmodern consciousness finds its advantage over modernism in its unique ability to bring about change through nonviolent political action and moral strength. Examples of this can be seen in the success of the political strategies of nonviolent resistance conceived of by Thoreau and applied by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, the potency of nonviolent resistance to bring about meaningful social change can now be recognized as a significant moral legacy of postmodern consciousness."

    That's an interesting quote. I think it also takes at least a modern society for such a strategy to work. Wilber has made the point that the only countries where such movements have succeeded are the U.S. and Great Britain.

    Apart from policy reform, it could also change the corporate culture and awaken the conscience of people a little as well. In the end, that will have to be an important part of the solution. I don't think all of it can be changed with just policy reform.

  • Comment Link Philip Corkill Thursday, 13 October 2011 22:29 posted by Philip Corkill

    Hi, David. Nice to meet you too by the way.

    Though being born fully enlightened, at the age of seven, in a lotus flower, isn't a realistic option for me any more, I do wonder if some sort of collective couldn't match the outlandish heights of Padmasambava TOGETHER and convert the five big monsters to protectors of the flourishing of all. After all they are our creations gone wild.

    If even the term "profit" could be utterly redefined into something that everybody (including animals and plants) considered benign and sustainable then "profit maximisation" wouldn't be such a dirty term. And big organisations focussed on that wouldn't be so bad.

    But Padmasambhava new what he was doing and how. I don't know what exactly I'm doing and I don't know how to realign a corporation. And I scared of those monsters.

    I have a vague sense that there is an illusion at play here. That the real power is always already with the people. That corporate and political power is borrowed but we've forgotten the contract. That servants can become tyrants only if we perpetually unconsciously lend them the house keys, car keys and credit card, and most importantly the remote TV control (the power).

    So for me our walk up the mountain has a lot to do with bringing to light and ending the leases on our power. Tuning in to and asserting the world that we need, want and hope to live in and setting the servants to work. How can five big bullies or one president honestly be looked to as so powerful that they can tyrannise or save 7 billion? It's got to be an illusion. But that's very vague.

    What would your subjugation processes look like?

    Really enjoyed the nuanced discussion between you and Trevor here.

    I wanted to go back the state of democracy in the US from the piece. By this account democracy has effectively been sold. And maybe some fundamental flaws of democracy are just coming to light or fruition here. Maybe it was never such a wise system.

    "Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried..." Churchill quoting someone else here.

    So my question to you both (all) is, is there a better evil than democracy? What are those forms that will be tried. Isn't it time to design or, if it has been designed, to implement a better system of government. Perhaps one where everybody has a say about something but nobody has control over everything?

    Looking at Chris' thread on the GOP candidature had me thinking the same.

    This is not a wise or intelligent system at all! Two guys, two parties, all the expectations. Five big players running the show from behind the scenes. Those five big players with financial profit maximisation as their only required skill. How can this be serving us?

    At least in Germany we have a green party that has a say in some states. But still it's pretty much the same lowly business.

    Isn't there a wiser way?

Login to post comments

Search Beams

Most Popular Discussions