luzribeiro: (Default)
[personal profile] luzribeiro
What traditionally liberal-progressive issues do you feel are getting shorted in the Democratic primary? What would you like to hear more of?

For me: I'm surprised civil liberties and police reform is getting as much air as they are. I'd prefer it as a central plank, but if wishes were dollars and all that...

Also, I'd really have to say science funding. Flip that MAGA script. America is the country that put people on the Moon, ffs. Now other nations are building the big science machines and taking the lead. Promise to make the US #1 in science and engineering again. Isn't that part of making it great again overall?

Aside from all that )
airiefairie: (Default)
[personal profile] airiefairie

Thousands of exulted young supporters meet her everywhere she goes to deliver a speech: be it in the Bronx where she was born, or Kansas, Michigan, or any other place around the US. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fills both town-halls and people's hearts to the full. She is a real star: beautiful, smart, fiery, and with an impressing biography. She grew up in a family of workers in one of New York's poorest neighbourhoods. Her family originates in Puerto Rico but she was sent to a mostly white school. Then she studied economics in Boston and simultaneously worked to fund her studies. At 22 she launched a publishing firm, and at 28 (just a couple of months ago) we saw her as the victor in a primary where she was pitched against no other but the local Democrat titan, Joe Crowley.

Read more... )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
The inevitable is about to happen (some have falsely reported that it has happened already), and Bernie is going to endorse Hillary, in order to, as he vowed, defeat Trump at any cost. So some of his supporters are now turning the "bern" on him. And in quite a hostile way:

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/some-bernie-sanders-supporters-now-turning-on-him/

Reading some of those posts, I see people who seem to have wrapped their whole identity in their unrealistic ideal of who Sanders is and what he stands for - or even how politics and the world is supposed to work. It's no different than reading the thoughts of cult members. Their magical thinking goes beyond support for a political candidate and feels more like desperate people seeking some kind of personal meaning and validation. It's also emotionally and intellectually immature. I feel for these people - they'll never find any person or any cause pure enough to fix whatever they need to be repaired within them. It's the only thing I can think of that would account for such absolute blind rage and feelings of betrayal.

A nation so divided, even within the same political camp that is supposed to seek unity and work together towards a common goal, should not expect anything good in the future.
[identity profile] airiefairie.livejournal.com
I liked Fareed Zakaria's take on Justin Trudeau's electoral victory in Canada. In essence, he argues that you do not need to be negative in order to win an election. He also provided examples with previous progressive presidents in the US who have always won whenever they have run a positive campaign focused on the future rather than the flaws of the past. Angry populists like Sanders, he argues, do have some appeal, but only to a certain point - and they never win major elections, because ultimately, people tend to identify with hope rather than anger.

Here is a more detailed look on the matter:

Justin Trudeau shows you don’t have to be angry to succeed in politics

There is also the argument that no matter how much political stability and economic development a government brings to a society, it inevitably tends to lose its appeal throughout the populace, once roughly a decade has passed. This may have been the case with Canada, where Harper was largely seen as naturally intelligent and politically savvy, but never had the appeal and charisma that people tend to seek in a leader.

Read more... )
[identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com

Aus PM Kevin Rudd pro-GLBT rights_cropped

First, let's start with a speech given by (sadly) former Australia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

Read more... )

[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
Fun time! I got to receive two very different posts on two very different topics today in the same Friend's Feed. Trouble is, they aren't "different" at all.

The first comes to us from our Friends at Faux News.



Oh, a surf bum who eats well on the taxpayer dime! The horrors! I haven't heard about this since . . . the 1970s. Lobster-eating food stamp recipients were a common trope back then, too.

Next, compare poor Jason's chosen fate to that of others, like you and I, perhaps. Jesus, Perry, down what rat hole are you scurrying now? )
[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
Over two years ago, I read Thomas Geoghegan's Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?, a somewhat rambling collection of observations about the differences between the United States and Germany. In it, he noted that, quite unlike the American experience, German broadsheet newspapers were thriving. Yes, in a country that also has the intertubes, newspapers were being read. Of course, there were other differences in German life that led to that thriving newspaper business. The important question to ask is which differences should we in the States emulate?

Don't care about news? Don't click. )
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com

July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012



Bobby Kennedy once called him the most decent man in the Senate, but I’d go farther than that. I doubt there’s ever been a more decent human being in politics than George Stanley McGovern.

George McGovern was a FDR-styled liberal in the Democratic party that had been split by the Vietnam War and civil rights issues since the mid 1960s, Richard Nixon took advantage of that split coalition to eek out a very very narrow victory in the 1968 election against the Democratic candidate Vice President Hubert Humphrey. In 1968, Nixon had promised a secret peace plan to get the United States out of Vietnam (but would never reveal the details), and the Nixon campaign may have leaked information the press to have prevent a real settlement immediately prior to the 1968 election. Having been in the Senate since 1963, McGovern had fought against United States military involvement in Vietnam for years and sponsored legislation against it (including the current War Powers Act, which requires the President to give notification to Congress after 60 days when American military forces are engaged). McGovern favored amnesty to be extended to draft dodgers who had fled to Canada, to avoid serving in the war. McGovern fought for an much more open and fairer primary system for nominating candidates within the Democratic Party, and encouraged minority participation and involvement. McGovern fought for the ending of poverty and hunger within the United States, both as a Senator from the agricultural state of South Dakota and and later in his private life, after leaving public service (Prior to being elected to the Senate, McGovern served as director to President Kennedy's "Food for Peace" program, and would eventually serve as United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, and 2000 started the George McGovern–Robert Dole International Food for Education and Nutrition Program, which served 22 million meals to children in 41 countries over the next eight years. President Bush reappointed McGovern to his position at the UN.

I remember the promise of McGovern's campaign and his crushing loss in the 1972 election, which heralded the start of the horrible label, even within the Democratic Party "A liberal Democrat." As the Republican party became more conservative, to be electable, the Democratic party did too. Senator Ted Kennedy would chide Bill Clinton some twenty two years later, telling him "The last thing this country needs are two Republican parties." I couldn't imagine a President McGovern agreeing to American citizens being assassinated overseas, or agreeing to drone attacks that go horribly wrong and killing innocent civilians. I wished there were a lot more liberal and real progressives in our political system now. We will miss George McGovern.




In fact, McGovern warned President Obama about the risks of going down the rabbit-hole of war and "national security issues" sapping the philosophical life out of a president's administration.

MSNBC correspondent Steve Kornacki's eloquent and moving tribute for George McGovern:


That thing Douglas MacArthur said about old soldiers can be just as true when it comes to old politicians: “They don’t die– they just fade away.” One day they’re in the thick of the action, then they exit the stage, years pass, and we forget they’re still around… until one day while thumbing through the newspaper we happen upon a brief obituary and we say: “Oh yeah, him.” Or oh “Yeah, her.” Maybe it was one of the good ones, so we’ll shake our heads. “That’s too bad.” Or maybe it was one of the not-so good ones and we’ll shrug our shoulders. Either way, we turn the page in a minute or two, and that’s that. But the script doesn’t always go that way and sometimes it shouldn’t.

George McGovern is 90 years old and he doesn’t have much time left. He’s gone home to South Dakota and entered hospice care, and his daughter said Monday that her father is “nearing the end of his life.” Nearing the end, yes– but not there yet. For the moment, he’s still alive. And thank God for that, because it gives all of us a chance to remind ourselves who exactly this man is and to let him know how much his life has mattered to this nation.

Bobby Kennedy once called him the most decent man in the Senate, but I’d go farther than that. I doubt there’s ever been a more decent human being in politics than George Stanley McGovern. He was– he is– a liberal Democrat, but you needn’t be a fellow traveler to tip your cap. What he really is is an unusually honest man from unusually humble roots whose heart is always with the underdog.

He grew up in the worst of Dust Bowl poverty, the son of a Methodist minister, even became a clergyman himself for a few years. He’s a patriot. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he quit school, enlisted, and flew bombing missions over Germany in a plane called The Dakota Queen. The experiences shaped him and he entered politics with a mission– fighting poverty, to end hunger, stop war, and always, always look out for the little guy– even, or especially, when no one else is.

History says McGovern lost one of the worst landslides ever in the 1972 presidential race. He only carried one state, Massachusetts, and didn’t even crack 40 percent of the vote. But history forgets the promise his campaign began with: a coalition of young voters who didn’t want anymore of their brothers, or cousins or friends or classmates dying in Vietnam, and of blue collar voters who didn’t wanted a fair chance to get ahead. Together, they would have been an unstoppable force, but Richard Nixon saw to it that they were divided. McGovern, the preacher’s son, was the candidate of amnesty, acid and abortion, he told his “silent majority,” and they believed him.

It was a horribly unfair caricature, but McGovern was philosophical. “There are worse things than losing,” he said years later. “That landslide, victorious team of ’72 spent a total of 180 years in prison, and the president resigned in disgrace.” This country’s politics were better with George McGovern a part of them, and this country is a better place because of his life. I’m glad I can look into this camera today and tell him that. And if he means anything at all to you, I hope you’ll find a way to let him know too.



Resources:

Senator McGovern wrote several books on a variety of subjects, including world hunger.
George McGovern on Wikipedia.
Senator McGovern's concession speech after losing the 1972 presidential election.
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


Bill Maher's season finale of 'New Rules' ended with a commentary on GOP/Republican values including self-reliance as understood by all of the current Republican candidates. It's interesting to me that when you look at their policies (including far right Libertarian ones as well), the people that espouse them really resent being called out for uncaring, or lacking compassion; A charge that obviously bothered George Bush, who promised a new type of conservatism-- "with compassion." But that was over a decade ago: today's current body of Republican candidates are running a primary race to the right that will leave their eventual nominee in a nearly impossible situation for winning. Mr. Maher captures the essence of several policy proposals of the current slate of Republicans, policy proposals so radical even Ebeneezer Scrooge would blanch; and I have to agree with his assessment.

Video behind cut )
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com



A pair of San Franciscans has given a pointed word picture to support the Occupy Wall Street protests in the form of Occupy George, five graphic stamps placed on $1 bills. The differing red overlay graphics use stats—and even pie charts!—to vividly explain how America’s wealthiest 1% dominate the country’s financial landscape. As the Occupy Wall Street protests continue, this new movement aims to occupy American currency one dollar at a time. Already about a week old, Occupy George supporters have been working around the clock to trade run-of-the-mill bills with a bored looking George Washington for Occupy George bills with printings. The newly minted Occupy George bills then get exchanged at the Occupy Wall Street site for a fresh set of plain greenbacks.


This reminds me of a silent protest gay activists used in the 1980s and 1990s: by stamping currency with a pink triangle or the lambda symbol to show their presence in the economy to end discrimination, and the consequences of potential boycotts of businesses that supported bigotry. I think Occupy George is a great way to spread the message and show support for the OWS movement in a peaceful way and educate some folks who otherwise wouldn't know some specific details about inequality in the United States. There are no legal ramifications (i.e. defacing currency) according to a U.S. Treasury official:"...the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing says currency defacement only happens if a person mutilates a bill to the point it can’t be reused, whether by cutting or disfiguring. These printed graphics don’t amount to that extreme, as they are careful to leave the serial numbers intact..." [1]

The Occupy George website shows you how you can participate; and it gives sources for all the information printed on the money. For example: here is the source for the information on the above sample.

[1.] Time (October 18, 2011): "Occupy George Gives the Dollar Bill a Protest-Friendly Look"
[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
AKA "What my prior post has to do with actual politics".

I have a very low opinion of progressive/left-wing ideology. Please note that this is not the same thing as having a low opinion of progressives as people.

Now I understand that upon reading the above sentence some people will feel compelled to stop reading and bombard the comments section with macros and napalm. However I feel that in order to have a constructive, adult, conversation about an ideology one must first try to understand the underlying assumptions of the person holding it. This was my reasoning behind posting yesterday's piece of exposition.

The question on lips of those progressives/leftists who are still reading is probably something like "How can Sandwich' (and conservatives in general) be such a horrible person(people)? Doesn't he understand that we are trying to make the world a better place?"

I will do my best to answer.

As illustrated in yesterday's story I believe that changing one's circumstances is largely a matter of outlook and applied will. By extension I believe that people have free will. (some may beg to differ that's a topic for another post)

The left side of my brain understands that this is largely a conceit designed to give life meaning and justify a sense of self worth depite being nothing but a random scrap of biological material in a ultimately doomed universe, but the right side of my brain says that as conceits go it's not bad, or particularly uncommon, so just go with it.

That's Great, but what does it have to do with politics? )
Hat tip to panookah whose journal and comments I raided for provided inspiration.
[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
...now that I have your attention allow me to explain.

The average tea-partier will probably be as offended by suggestion that they have anything in common politically with Marx, and the most strident Marxists would likely agree. However if you take a closer look the parrels are intriguing.

First there are the obvious differenses, the Tea-party is a predominantly "Right-wing" movement and Marx has been traditionally associated with the "Left". Likewise, the Tea-Party does not advocate Communism, an ideology that historically has proven to be incredibly destructive. That said, they do represent "the awakening of the Proletariat" that Marx predicted.

Read more... )
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com

They don't look like a bunch of hippies to me

Ken Burn's special on Prohibition is absolutely fascinating on its own merits with great production values and interviews with historians along with what you expect from a great documentary producer. One of the things I never knew prior to seeing this was the "Temperance" movement being connected in such a big way with women's rights along with abolitionists and voting rights for women. The movement was big on protests that initially started off very peaceful, with women sitting outside a saloon praying, and blocking men entering (at the time women NEVER drank in public and certainly didn't go to saloon). But things got violent, when saloon owners would spray the women with beer and fire depts would hose them down with water canons (sound familiar eh?). The documentary details how within nearly 60 years, what started out as what many considered an impossible task was ultimately responsible for ending Slavery, gave women voting rights, and made the United States a completely dry country, and created organized crime in the United States. All of it started with a group of women who protested outside saloons.

So what? )
[identity profile] enders-shadow.livejournal.com
According to some whackadoodles, I am a cancer upon society--because I am a progressive. I believe in a progressive income tax and the social safety net. I believe government can do good things for folks (that it can do bad things is also obvious)

I hear the conservatives decry when the liberals talk about class warfare. So let me just ask, in really simple terms:

Do you believe that class warfare is currently going on?

Who's side are you on?

My answers are:

yes, obviously
and
the workers

Workers of the world UNITE!

--
EDIT:
I believe class warfare exists in the US.

"The typical example of class conflict described is class conflict within capitalism. This class conflict is seen to occur primarily between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and takes the form of conflict over hours of work, value of wages, cost of consumer goods, the culture at work, control over parliament or bureaucracy, and economic inequality." - wiki

Why not start with: 'The culture at work'

I know someone who works at Citarella. He cannot tell his coworkers what he gets paid. If he is discovered by management to be doing this he will be fired. (let's call him Bob, if you want to refer to him in your comments)

This is an example modern class warfare.

Who's side are you on?
[identity profile] green-man-2010.livejournal.com
Take a look at the link, please.

Someone sent me a Bill Maher clip in response to my last OP.

And it seems to be saying something that jives with the UK as well as the US.
"The centrists have moved over to the right, the centtre-right has gone over further to make room for them, and there is nobody on the left arguing for and defending a progresssive agenda that is straight up about gun control, gay marraige, universal healthcare, legalising pot , and so forth..."

Yeah, that was Bill Maher talking, and I make him right. We have the same thing happening over here in l'il ol' England, too, BTW. Well, we did till Caroline Lucas got in - she is about the only progressive person in Westminster, if you discount Tory and labour rebels prepared to defy the party whips.

So, I ask if this take on American politics seems about right to you -
" they call Obama a socialist - he's not even a Liberal" Says Maher. But the clip is not all, the presented goes on to discuss the situation himself. Read more... )
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
Last Friday, Chris Rock was interviewed on Bill Maher's show Real Time, and the subject of health care reform came up.

When Maher asked if he saw health care reform the prism of race and as a civil rights issue, Rock said no. He sees health reform as a “people rights issue.” Rock also recounted his family’s experience with the health care system – first when he was poor compared to when he was rich. “I had my father get sick when I was 22. And I was poor, alright. And my father had an ulcer, and it exploded and you know all these toxins get in your blood. And basically, my father died, whatever, 50 days after his ulcer. So I had a father get sick while I was poor,” the comedian recalled.

“My mother got sick when I was rich. And my mother, you know… I don’t really want to get into it, but my mother was sicker than my father. And my mother’s alive. My mother’s fine, OK? I remember going to the hospital to see my mother and wondering, ‘Was I in the right place?’ Like, this was a hotel, like it had a concierge, man. “… if the average person really knew the discrepancy in the health care system, there would be riots in the streets, OK? They would burn this motherf**ker down!”





large post behind this cut tag! )
[identity profile] futurebird.livejournal.com
Some of the time I feel like things like "net neutrality" and issues of freedom of expression and surveillance take center-stage in our progressive communities and issues like public housing, welfare, min. wage, work safety, don't get much attention at all. If your main concern is addressing poverty and inequality things like "net neutrality" might seem hopelessly abstract. In the same way, I think that some progressives just don't get a lot of issues that are related to poverty and ongoing racism.

"Progressives" need to do a better job of getting to know organizations that work with poor and minority communities. More cross-pollination. There's this gap-- and, frankly, the people with the most resources should do the most reaching to bridge it.

In NYC I've seen good progressive ideas fail since a large number of working class and poor Democrats just don't "get" what the progressives are talking about. It's really easy for whatever lobby it is that benefits from the legislation not getting passed to use some populist BS to piss off these Democrats and get them to pressure the elected officials for the dumbest things.  And who can blame them?  Progressives rush in at the last moment breathlessly explaining their pet policies. I think some of the organizations who focus on class, gender and race issues just say "where were you when we needed your help?" But in the end everyone loses.

When I have tried to talk about this in the past suddenly EVERYONE who is a self-identified progressive is also suddenly so very "working class" --and they get in a huge huff since they think I'm calling them a bunch of latte-drinkers.

Well, goddammit, a lot of progressives do drink lattes and we (yes, I said "we") don't know enough about the issues that matter to poor and working class Democrats or what the hell we can do to address these issues. In addition, a lot of self-identified progressives don't really 'get' issues that involve race or gender that well either.

ACORN should still be around. 
So, who's next? The far Right was successful in taking this organization down. And this isn't abstract, it's serious. I have seen the positive impact that they had and it will leave a huge gaping hole.  So, since it worked, you can bet the Right is going to do it again. If we let some of our people end up isolated as ACORN was they won't be able to fight back-- I don't think ACORN spent any money on PR people, they wanted every penny to go to the work. That's idealism, and they were eaten alive becuase of it. It doesn't have to be this way, though, if enough people step up to the plate to protect the people who are doing the good work-- maybe we'll get to know each other better and be a more powerful because of it.
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
January 20

Progressives = Nazi War Criminals!

I’m going to be like the Israeli Nazi hunters. I’m telling you, I’m going to find these big progressives, and to the day I die, I’m going to be a progressive hunter. I’m going to find the people who have done this to our, to our country, and expose them! I don’t care if they’re in nursing homes. I’m going to expose what they have done and make sure that the people understand…


Read more )
[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/olbermanns-special-comment-freedom-speech-destroyed/

Evidently the Left is capable of being as much a bunch of slimy douchebags as the right can be.

And evidently Keith Olbermann believes American slavery must not be such a big deal after all, as this:

"Finally tonight, as promised, a special comment on the Supreme Court`s ruling today in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

Is evidently equal to this:

"But good news tonight, Roger B. Taney is off the hook. Today, the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott v. Sanford, declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate beings spend their money on political advertising are unconstitutional."

"In short, the First Amendment, free speech for persons, which went into effect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections. None."

Evidently Progressivism completely lacks billionaires to support it such as Sean Penn, Al Gore, or Tom Cruise. Evidently there is no such thing as a rich progressive. And evidently also slavery is so trivial a matter that rich people loaning money to their favorite candidates is somehow equal to one of the longest-running civilizational ills of all time that treats human beings as effectively walking, talking farm equipment. If Olbermann makes a stink about what the Right says about the Nazis and Healthcare next time, his credibility has been shot. It's not fair, but it's not like the Progressives don't have an abundance of affluent supporters of their own.

And Mr. Olbermann, you are not a free agent, you work for a company owned by General Electric. You can only talk like this if you're self-employed. It's like watching Bizarroland Glenn Beck here with the trivialization of social atrocities, the comparison of minor realities to full-blown authoritarianism (like the death panels, evidently the Man gonna shut up the Man), suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is worthy of the utmost contempt as an infidel dog of Shai'tan, and hysteria.

Er......I'll let Nelson say the laconic version of this:

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"The NATO charter clearly says that any attack on a NATO member shall be treated, by all members, as an attack against all. So that means that, if we attack Greenland, we'll be obligated to go to war against ... ourselves! Gee, that's scary. You really don't want to go to war with the United States. They're insane!"

February 2026

M T W T F S S
       1
23 45 678
9101112 131415
16 171819 202122
23 2425262728