FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

OCCUPY BERNIE SANDERS

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Core Democratic Party Principles And Commitments

Daily Kos

Core Democratic Party Principles And Commitments By Lolligolli and HoundDog


We believe our noble Democratic Party has strong core principles, values, and historic commitments to highly valued constituent voters such as woman, people of color, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, retired, those without basic health care, veterans, and underdogs in our political system such as immigrants, and the gay, lesbian, transgendered communities.

The Democratic and Republican parties have been locked and a five decades long battle between what rights are sacrosanct to the individual -- and what powers can be exercised by the state. And what is the role of the Government in protecting individual rights and the common good.

The Democratic party has staked out the moral high ground in our commitments to the constitutionally based principles of the separation of church and state, the right to privacy, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the principles of full equality and protections of individual rights.

Our Proud Democratic History

We are pround of our party's consistent efforts to protect the individual and the minority underdogs against our society's tendency to concentrate both economic and political power in the hands of a few, and in the abstractions and unconsciousness of the majority not yet always aware of certain injustices that might incur to the disadvantage through traditional but sometimes prejudicial ways of thinking.

Our struggles have revolved around our consistent interpretation of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and more specifically, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in favor of protecting the sacrosanct respect our Constitution places on the rights of the individual.

Also, although not directly mentioned in the constitution, the Democratic party has been a champion of the working man, fair wages, fair trade agreements that protect America jobs, worker safety, OSHA protections, environmental protection, and the respect for international law and the Geneva conventions in foreign policy, as well as respect for the multi-lateral rights of other nations, Just War theory and a more cautious approach to unilateral military interventions in the affairs of other nations.

Core Democratic Principles

Let's first focus on the origins and foundations for what many of us call the "progressive social issues" or agenda. We have banded together to fight and win on these issues and changed the definition of our party by remembering the advice of our founders "We either hang together or hang separately."

For woman, people of color, the disabled, gays, lesbians, the bisexual, transgendered, religious and ethnic minorities, and others who were inspired by the great words of Martin Luther King Jr., solidarity around these issues in the face of oppression became a matter of survival. And our winning formula and strategy for almost five decades of elections.

These principles and associated political philosophies define what it means to be a Democrat and what our party stands for. These principles and truths we hold to be self evident, noble, and still inspire the aspirations of people around the world.

There is no going back now.

Looking Forward and Looking Backwards

Republicans are the party of the past. Their backwards looking vision does not inspire the aspirations of others around the world yearning for freedom, equality, and democracy. This is the source of the terms regressive and progressive. Because progressives believe in progress that will lead to a better future for all individuals. By overcoming superstition, prejudice, discrimination, and injustice implied in unexamined assumptions of the past.

It is the progressive principled Democrats who represent the ideals and hopes of the future. Because we committed ourselves to stands on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments that have proven to be the historically correct. Now the rest of society is catching up with us. And the Republicans who bet on the wrong side of these historic charges are in collapse and disarray.

Perhaps, there is a lesson here? When in doubt, going with the wonderful Constitution of the United States of America is our safest bet. But now after an incredible, noble, painful, bloody, and expensive series of battles, and bets on the future that we got right, it would be unwise and tragically sad, to throw out our hard won badges of honor. And betraying our core and loyal constituent voting blocks, would be an insult the memories of the many who like Martin Luther King Jr.,died and paid with their lives to put us where we are today.

We Stand On the Shoulders of Giants

We should be proud and honored that our Democratic Party has taken such noble, courageous, and principled stands on these challenging issues. But we must not become frightened our distracted and return our gaze the past. But need to keeping facing forward.

Let us continue to lead the way to a brighter future for all Americans and people around the world. Many whom have still not yet tasted the fruits of Martin Luther Kings Jr's inspiring dream.

Support for 14th Amendment Rights of full Equality and Individual Rights For All Americans

I think most might agree that full support for civil rights and equality for woman and people of color is a such a party commitment. And a fortunate one, although we paid a big price in the short term for driving the George Wallace "Democrats" out of the party. The sexism and racism that were common and tolerated just decades ago are now anathema

But does our unqualified support of the 14th amendment rights of equal protection extend to full equality and rights for the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community with regard to marriage equality and civil unions? I believe it should. And it would be philosophically inconsistent and even hypocritical if we did not carry out the logical conclusions to "The Dream."

Our Right To Privacy

The constitutional right to privacy that is the basis for Roe versus Wade, protects a woman's right to choose. And contrary to what we hear from Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), the Supreme Court of the United States keeps re-affirming this right. Most recently in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence versus Texas (2003), The SCOTUS struck down all remaining state laws banning sodomy that were the basis of making homosexuality illegal in many states. Anton Scalia wrote the minority decision and is strongly opposed to this right.

But even many Democrats are strongly and even religiously opposed to abortion at a personal level. This is okay and not inconsistent with our party's philosophy. What unites the Democratic party is the Constitutional principle, that this decision belongs to the individual woman. It is every American woman's right to control her own body in whatever consultation she wishes to make with her doctor, family, and religious advisors. And it is our proposition that this support for a woman's right to choose has become a minimum irrevocable commitment for all future Democratic Presidential candidates regardless of their personal opinions. And is a valid criteria for discussing the suitability of all future nominations to the Supreme Court.

The Rule of Law Not Of Men Versus Right Makes Right

We propose that another core element of our commonly held Democratic beliefs is the respect for the rule of law, both at home and abroad. Just about the exact opposite of all the basic principles of the Neocons, who were explicitly trying to lead our nation away from our relatively successful and traditional Democratic foreign policy positions, as advocated by John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry.

So our respect for our signatures on the Geneva Conventions, and the 1945 United Nations Charter should not require "focus groups" or poll approvals for support from most Democrats.

The Neocon Philosophy Of Might Makes Right, and the Preemptive- Unilateral, Projection of Military Power Is Opposite Of the Democratic Philosophy Which Favors Respect For International Law, Multi-lateralism, and the Use Of War And Military Power Only As A Last Resort

The Neocon's led the Republicans over the cliffs of short term political opportunism, by advocating unilateral projection of US Imperial Military power as a first choice in opposition to the Democratic principle of respect for international law, multi-lateralism, and Just War theory which allows initiating war only as a last resort, and negotiation among regional powers to settle disputes.

We must continue our support for the international rule of law, Geneva Conventions, 1945 U.N. Charter, Just War Theory, and opposition of the Neocon philosophy of pre-emptive first strike, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Muslim populations.

Progressives and other Democrats Need To Reunite And Defend Our Principles

The Democratic party cannot start treating loyalty to our foundational commitments as sort an optional Constitutional smorgasbord. If we do this, no one can feel safe. If we stand by, without protest, as one minority group after another is thrown overboard in the "triangulation theory of the day," it will only be a matter time, before we have lost every victory we have fought so hard and so consistently to achieve over the last 5 decades. And now, we face new encroachments from a creeping Patriot Act and President Bush's attempts to bypass FISA courts and Congressional Oversight.

The principles of separation of church and state, the right of privacy, protection against warrantless search and seizure as well as warrantless wiretaps which is in effect search and seizure as well as violations of our right to privacy or our personal information, support for full equality (equal protection under the law) and support full individual rights for all citizens are no longer optional for Democrats.

And supporters of this indivisible set of core Democratic principles and this holistic and integrated political philosophy are not examples of single issue extremists.

We are the mainstream of the progressive Democrats. And represent the trend of American mainstream values. And we are going to reunite, in vigorous and loud support for continuation of the 5 decades long coalition that has successfully got us here today and advanced our society in the right direction on what are now considered modern American centrist values.

Conclusion

The Democratic Party is committed to a powerful and noble set of progressive principles and a political philosophy that distinguishes us from the Republicans.

This philosophy, and these principles and values, form one set of interconnected and indivisible foundational principles that recognize and uphold the sanctity of the individual as the cornerstone of American society. We have successfully united a broad coalition of voters to gain power against the Republicans.

Only by basing our party's definition on real progressive principles, and standing on the shoulders of our founding mothers and fathers, and all the great visionary leaders supporting the sanctity and primacy of individual rights and our voluntary social contract to use government to affect our common good, will we continue to build a powerful party for the future. And by re-committing ourselves to our noble Democratic traditions we will have the staying power to revitalize and sustain our great and historic party into this next century.

So the good news, for those asking if our Democratic Party should have common core principles, is that the answer is yes, and many of these principles have already been chosen and are well known, noble, and correct. True much work and discussion will always remain ahead of us, particularly with regard now to the challenging topics of immigration, and free versus fair trade, and fiscal and budgetary responsibility.

And it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge the vast gap that remains between knowing what the principles are and being able to figure out how to implement them in specific real time circumstances. For example, the time that knowing that we believe in international law would have been most helpful was before we got involved in the Iraq war. It its not immediately clear how this helps us achieve graceful and effective exit from Iraq. Although, the principles of respect and negotiation between all the regional stakeholders can still yield opportunities for improvement.

Our purpose here as not been to advance a basket of abstractions too oversimplified to be useful, but rather to argue that the glass is half full not half empty. We have greater foundations of commonality to be proud of. And here "we" means not just progressives and all Democrats, but also all Americans, and increasingly in the future, all of our citizens of the world.

We believe as just one example, that Former Vice-President Al Gore is just one example, of a current day Democratic leader, who seems to us, to understand and exemplify all aspects of this Democratic Party ideal and integrated philosophy. And represents a new generation of American politician who can be as comfortable and potentialy respected at home or abroad. Al Gore fluency in global issues as well environmental issues, represents a fine example of all of these values, and Al Gore is an example of the kind of politician who is capable of successfully unifying a broad coalition of key loyal voters. Without leaving anyone out.

We believe many other progressive leaders such as Senators Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, General Wesley Clark, and many others embody these committments as well. We just want to offer these few examples, so as not to leave the impression that we are speaking of abstract impossible to acheive ideals, but the reality of out core party leaders and constituents.

We just have to continue to turn our heads from the past, and remove them from the dark places, and look forward into the light. And recommit ourselves to understand our historic progressive principles and require that our leaders understand and remain committed to them as well.

PostScript: We intend this essay as more an invitation to open more discussion towards the development of a broader consensus within our party rather than as a statement of any particular unique political insight. We are both relative newcomers to the world of blogging about the Democratic Party and progressive issues. So this common post is meant to be more of a progress report on our first year of blogging that arose out of a dinner conversation about lessons learned so far. And thought others may be curious to what these issues look like from the point of view of folks like ourselves. So we look forward to other different viewpoints with the same spirit of open mindedness and tolerance for diverse viewpoints as we hope this essay will be received.

And we have been tremendously encouraged and excited about the opportunity to join such a thoughtful and passionate community of progressive Democratics here at Daily Kos. We apologize in advance for any error of understanding or proposition we may have introduced into the discussion. And hope we have proven our willingness to here, respond to and incorporate appreciatively all opportunities for learning and improvement.

We are looking forward to doing every thing we can to help the Democratic party win as many seats in the House and Senate in 2006, and win back the White House in 2008. And we remain committed to supporting all of our Democratic candidates in all of these races whomever they should be.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

What Are the Opportunities In Wisconsin



February 23, 2011 at 23:12:57

What Are the Opportunities In Wisconsin





By Rob Kall (about the author)

opednews.com


There is chaos. There is danger. There is risk. There is much courageous, much bravado, much hubris. There is foolishness and arrogance and the possibility of success of failure.

Wisconsin could be a game changer. Let's make it one that falls our way.

Governor Walker is not looking good. He's looking like some of history's most malevolent people. So are Kasich, Scott and the other right wing Governors looking to fly when the election gave them room to walk.

There are immense opportunities here to trip these Republican governors up, to punk them and prank them and frame them so they look as bad as they are, only they look that way to independents and moderate republicans.

We can do this. Today, Walker was pranked by someone who pretended he was one of the Koch billionaire brothers-- the troglodytes at the stirring up the bottom of the right wing cesspool.

Wisconsin offers the left an opportunity to show the big middle how ugly, stupid and meanspirited the right is.

Wisconsin offers progressives an opportunity to show the real differences between populism and plutocratism.

We need to identify language, framing, memes, stories, narratives, new victims, new heroes who further the story of the ugly Republicans... or whatever language is used to paint them as undesirable.

Please talk about your ideas for language, framing, memes, stories, narratives, new victims, new heroes.

Let's crowdsource this.

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Building Progressive Message Amplification, Part 2



February 17, 2011 at 19:34:20

Building Progressive Message Amplification, Part 2

By Beth Becker (about the author)

opednews.com


Three weeks ago, I posted this diary outlining the first steps toward the goal of building a long-needed "Progressive Echo Chamber". Since then, I'm thrilled to report, efforts have begun to crystallize and a path forward is taking shape. That path will combine effective framing for message creation with a carefully planned system of message delivery

In that first diary, I laid out a vision for creating message unity within the Progressive Community. Progressives in Washington are making an effort work together to craft messaging and build a community to work with to push forward a progressive agenda. Intrinsic to their vision is that this message must reach beyond the hill and beyond the Beltway; this is where you and I come in. So I often get emails from people I work with telling me I can share some of the messaging with others, which I do.

Today I'd like to focus on the blogosphere: What role do bloggers play in the Echo Chamber? And specifically, how can bloggers get involved?

Of all of the pieces of the Echo Chamber puzzle, bloggers have the most eyes that can then digest and further amplify the common messaging. Daily Kos alone gets millions of page views per month. A typical regional blog may get hundreds of thousands of page views per month and an individual local blog may get thousands. Those page views translate into people reading the message, hopefully from multiple bloggers, and then, in turn, writing and talking with that same message. That chain of message amplifcation is invaluable to our Progressive Community.

The second crucial role of bloggers is in message expansion. Let's face it, there are some things that an elected official just can't say. Bloggers, on the other hand, don't have those same constraints. So while a US Representative may take the messaging of say "the no jobs agenda of the GOP" and carefully couch their delivery to be powerful yet tactful, we bloggers can call individual members of the opposition out with more force. We can take a hashtag like #nojobs on Twitter and dominate it... if we do such things together.

So how do bloggers become involved in this Echo Chamber? First: join our email list. Do this by sending a request to me at progressiveechochamber at gmail dot com asking to be put added to the Echo Chamber list. When you receive those emails you can then take the messaging offered and use it in your conversations about the issues at hand. Most importantly, you can use that messaging as you blog about those issues.

Second: you can join us in the Daily Kos Progressive Messaging group. In that group we will be talking about how to best frame the messaging we are being told about and we will exchange ideas about how we can best expand and amplify Progressive messaging.

Third: when you have ideas about messaging, drop me a note that I can then forward to those involved in message creation.

Last: tell everyone you know what we're doing and invite them to become involved. The more people echoing each other, the louder we get.

In the past, we as progressives have not been known for our messaging unity and strength. Now is the time to show that things have changed...that we as a Progressive Community have changed.

This diary is a part of my new series on Progressive Messaging. Please note that my company, Progressive PST, works for Rep. Grijalva's legislative office as an independant consultant, assisting them with netroots outreach and social media strategy. I'm happy to say they understand the importance of this echo chamber building and are working to help unify our messaging but these diaries and my efforts are independent of anything they are doing.

http://www.progressivepst.com

I work as a social media strategist for campaigns and legislative offices. When I blog often I blog what I call "fluff" in an attempt to build community but I am now turning my writing efforts to an attempt to help unify Progressive messaging. I'm (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

The Shrinking Market for Progressive Groups and Websites



February 12, 2011 at 14:08:40

The Market for Progressive Groups and Websites


By Don Smith
(about the author)

opednews.com


Recent news items got me thinking about progressive media.

The sale of HuffPost to AOL raises questions about corporate ownership of progressive infrastructure.

House Republicans' efforts to defund NPR and CPB further threaten the Left's ability to get its message out.

Progressive Democrats of America plans to build a community communication website for progressives.

OpenLeft has closed down, due to lack of financial support.

So I ask:


How can the left build an effective media and political infrastructure outside the market system?

Progressives believe that markets are not the best and only way to provide services. For example, progressives believe in a strong public sector. Markets should be regulated and limited, and the People should join together, both nationally and locally, to cooperate on shared initiatives funded via taxation. Progressives believe that government can provide certain goods and services more efficiently and more equitably than can the private market system. Hence, progressives support public health care, public education, public pensions (Social Security), public transportation, public news media, and an ample safety net for the elderly, the poor, and the sick.

Government is the ultimate form of cooperative endeavor. But political parties and advocacy groups and blogs and even unions and corporations use cooperation to further shared goals.

But it's rather ironic: despite progressives' ambivalence towards markets, and despite their support of cooperation, there's an intense competitive market for progressive groups and websites. Progressive groups and websites compete for market share, struggling to gain funding, viewership, and support.

In contrast, the Right seems more united and better at cooperating. Perhaps that's because they share an immediate economic interest in avoiding taxes and regulation.

Can progressives and other leftists agree to support a common lefty advocacy group or political party? Or is progressivism doomed by the competitive conflict of egos and interests? In other words, will market competition doom progressives to powerlessness?

Ideally, the government, or at least, say, the Democratic Party, would represent the People's interests and would advocate progressive ideas. Since that's not the case, there's a market for progressive groups and websites. (Jim Dean of Democracy for America once made a similar point.) In fact, there are hundreds of national progressive groups: MoveOn, Common Cause, PDA, Bold Progressives, DFA, anti-war groups, health care groups, media reform groups, civil rights groups, environmental groups, women's rights groups, gun control groups, ... the list goes on and on. I can't keep track of all the emails in my inbox from lefty groups soliciting funds and signatures.

I sometimes wonder if the Left would be better off if all these lefty advocacy groups would dissolve and if all the activists would instead devote their energies to taking over the Democratic Party and pushing it leftwards -- the way religious conservatives and Tea Party activists took over the Republican Party and pushed it to the right.

But the Democratic Party is so compromised by "corporate interests" that many progressives feel that it's beyond redemption. Hence the proliferation of lefty advocacy groups.

These various groups compete for market share. To some extent this is natural and healthy. Even in a progressive society, you still want the skilled and effective people to lead. And you want to guard against concentration of power in unresponsive and unrepresentative groups and individuals. So you want a meritocracy and a democracy: a market system of ideas and people and services that compete for democratic support. And that's what progressive groups provide: a service. If you support us and donate money to us, we'll represent your interests: the progressive ideals you hold dear.

But because of the competition among advocacy groups, the Left is weak and inefficient. Nationally, corporations and the rich have effectively taken over the reins of power. On the left, power is too diffuse to be effective. There's duplication of infrastructure (e.g., websites), There's competition for funding. There's competition for readership at blogs and websites.

There's a trade-off between effectiveness and egalitarianism. A highly egalitarian movement is diffuse, with multiple foci of power. It's less corruptible, and people feel they have a say. Such a movement is likely to lack direction and leadership.

Sure, you don't want too much concentration of power in the hands of any one group. But you want some coordination and leadership. Likewise, nothing much gets done without charismatic leaders.

One often hears it said that organizing progressives is like herding cats -- that progressives are hesitant to follow leaders. But it's also true that progressives are looking for a strong leader. In 2008, Barack Obama filled the role of the charismatic leader (a pied piper) who inspired progressives with his talk of change. In 2004 it was Howard Dean that provided that leadership. In 2000 maybe it was Ralph Nader.

So progressives are like cats but they are also like sheep. They will follow effective, inspiring leaders.

Perhaps the Left should agree to concentrate power in fewer groups, even if this means that the movement is less democratic and more vulnerable to power-grabbing by the few.


Alternatively, perhaps leftists should encourage closer coordination among existing groups, so that they can be more effective and less dependent on corporations and on wealthy benefactors to fund their endeavors. (Consider the sale of HuffPost to AOL, which many progressives suspect is a sell-out analogous to the sellout-by Dick Gephardt.)

With concentrated power, there needs to be some form of democratic decision making. MoveOn, for example, polls its members to decide supposedly on which issues to work on. When groups get as large and as centralized as MoveOn, it's difficult to feel that one has much say, and often one finds oneself frustrated by the inaccessibility of the leadership.

PDA recently announced its intention to build a community website for lefties (See this article.). "We want to elevate the site so it becomes a community bulletin board for the entire progressive community." Good luck, one thinks. Every group wants to own the web. Websites such as OpEdNews, TruthOut, TruthDig, DailyKos, and HuffPost cross-post many articles but also compete for market share. And I see competition among lefty groups locally, as described here.

In short, my aim in this article has been to suggest an alternative to market-based progressive activism. I'm suggesting that out of self-interest, the left will come together and better organize and coordinate its (online) infrastructure. It needn't mean ceding power to a monolithic national organization. It just means to share links and some content. Everyone wants to own the web. That's not the way progressives should do things. They should cooperate. This is hard to do nationally, but perhaps it's easier to do locally. Hence my proposal for organizing Washington State leftists: How the Left can better market its message.

The key is that people need to be willing to share power and editorial control.

If things get bad enough, maybe people on the left will come together, out of necessity.

Perhaps this is all a quixotic fantasy and progressivism is doomed. Even if the Left coordinates better, will it ever be anything more than an echo chamber? And if it does gain market share and affect the wider public, as Huff Post did, perhaps it will end up being sold to a corporate interest.

DFA organizer, Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, writer, and programmer. My op-ed pieces have appeared in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and elsewhere. See http://TruthSite.org for my writing, my musical creations, and my (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.