Mediaboss Marketing

By Maria Corina Machado By Maria Corina Machado May 31 at 7:00 AM

Maria Corina Machado (@MariaCorinaYA) is a leader of the opposition, head of the Vente Venezuela party and a former member of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

Venezuela is suffering a political, economic, social and moral nightmare that has turned our country into a failed state in the hands of criminals. Though there is a formula for halting and reversing this tragedy, time is clearly working against us. The cost of overcoming the crisis is immense, but not confronting it decisively, as we have already begun to do so, will have unbearable consequences.

It is urgent that we set out along this path.

With his latest dictatorial action of illegally convening a Constituent Assembly, Nicols Maduro has shut the door on Venezuelas last opportunity for a purely electoral solution. All institutional channels for demanding change such as a presidential recall referendum and regional elections had already been blocked by a regime that systematically violates civil liberties and human rights in order to remain in power.

Having no other recourse through which to assert our will, Venezuelans have poured onto the streets in protest for over 50 straight days, in an epic quest for the recovery of our democracy. Our resolve is irreversible, despite the regimes brutal response to our plight.

Fifty-seven citizens, most of them in their early twenties, have been killed. Thousands have been injured. And over 2,500 have been detained arbitrarily, some being summarily tried and sentenced by military courts, all for having exercised their constitutional right to peaceful protest.

Maduros regime can no longer hide its dictatorial nature from the world. International support for the democratic cause is overwhelming and internal support for the regime is eroding with every passing day. Former government loyalists, such as the Prosecutor General and justices of the Supreme Tribunal, have wisely chosen to stand by the Constitution and not by those who flagrantly violate it. Eighty percent of Venezuelas population demands a change in government. Faced with this inescapable fact, and no longer able to silence it, the small ruling clique has had no choice but to radicalize its repressive, murderous agenda even further.

The immediate course of action for change is clear and tangible. The following sequence of events will allow us to forge ahead:

Out on the streets, as Venezuelans, we will continue to escalate pressure by means of firm and peaceful protests, a fundamental right that is enshrined in our Constitution.

The armed forces must obey and enforce our Constitution. Soldiers must stop aiming their weapons at a defenseless citizenry fighting for their freedom. We expect that they will soon begin disobeying orders that require them to do so.

The international community must continue to remind the Venezuelan armed forces, and everyone in the chain of command, that crimes against humanity committed by the regimes repressors have no statute of limitations and will not go unpunished.

The National Assembly, elected through the votes of 14 million Venezuelans in December 2015, shall be recognized as the only branch of government with sufficient legitimacy of origin, attributes and capabilities necessary to safeguard an orderly process of transition to democracy.

The countrys political leadership is urgently committed to establishing a broad National Accord that will encompass all sectors of society, including all sympathizers of the current government who are willing to take part in a pluralistic framework and to adhere to the tenets of liberty, democracy, justice and universal human rights.

This National Accord, based on the undeniable legitimacy of the National Assembly, will give way to a transitional government of democratic unity, tasked with the mission of reestablishing the rule of law and sanity in Venezuela.

This process will prioritize the provision of humanitarian aid needed to put an end to our countrys health and hunger crisis, while addressing the internal security risks that stem from armed paramilitary elements threatening stability and governance. It will also enact measures aimed at immediate stabilization of the economy, as well as the crucial institutional recovery of our justice system and electoral branch. All political prisoners will be released.

Once the rule of law has been affirmed, the transitional government will be under the obligation to call for presidential elections, in a reasonable and prompt time frame. It is through free, universal, transparent and internationally observed elections that citizens will elect a new legitimate government and usher in a sovereign Venezuela.

Today, Venezuela is paying with the dear blood of our youth for the deliberate impoverishment of an entire nation, carried out by a corrupt elite through obscene, complicit deception. Rest assured that lessons have been learned. Dignity should not be mistaken for naivete. These are the final days of a brutish, mafia-style dictatorship, and we must maintain our guard as it prepares its final, desperate blows.

Now that we have understood our power in the path to freedom, Venezuela is more united than ever. We have arrived at the point where victory is palpable. Freedom is finally within our reach.

More:
Venezuela's epic quest to recover its democracy - The Washington ... - Washington Post

The New American Leaders Project targets community leaders who are rooted in movement building and ready to champion an inclusive democracy.

Sayu Bhojwani speaks at an event for The New American Leaders Project, an organization whose aim is to prepare first- and second-generation immigrants to run for public office. (Photo courtesy of the New American Leaders Project)

I was only 13 when I first felt like a political outsider. I stood on my familys balcony, overlooking the central commercial square in Belize City, and watched rioters loot businesses and disrupt the rhythm of life in our otherwise sleepy and idyllic Caribbean home. It was 1981, and Belize was in the final months of its independence struggle. Some were happy with negotiations between Belize and Guatemala, which had long made territorial claims over Belize; others were not.During those weeks of turmoil, I discovered how fragile my parents felt in a country they had made their home. The feeling of not quite belonging is the blessing and burden of millions of immigrants no matter where we are. Its shaped not only my personal journey, but also my professional life over the last four decades.

The feeling of not quite belonging is the blessing and burden of millions of immigrants no matter where we are.

My family emigrated from India to Belize in 1971, when I was 4 years old. We had left a city with a population of nearly 6 million people for a city with 125,000 residents, a country where we were in the majority for a new home in which we were a conspicuous minority. A year after we moved, my parents heard of the sometimes violent expulsion of Indians from Uganda by Idi Amin. They lived with caution in their new homeland, fearing a similar fate.

Initially, my parents hoped to build an economic cushion and return to India. But in 1975, when then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India, they settled in for the long haul. My father joined the Lions Club, my mother gave birth to her fourth child, and together they built our familys retail business.

In 1981, when Belize won independence after decades of struggle, the British government gave Belizeans the option of retaining their British passports or obtaining new, Belizean ones. My parents chose the latter, in a show of loyalty and maybe even in an expression of fear.

I grew up in this way clunky in our patriotism and tentative in our political engagement.When I made my way to America, I brought that baggage with me but also felt the freedom of being a second-generation immigrant. With that freedom, a sense of entitlement overshadows a sense of hesitation.I still often feel like an outsider, but unlike my parents, who accept that as the price of their minority status, I fight it.Not just on my own behalf, but also on behalf of other immigrants like me, for whom America is their chosen home.

Ylenia Aguilar, who recently became a US citizen, was elected to the school board in Osborn School District in Phoenix, Arizona in 2016. (Photo courtesy of The New American Leaders Project)

Those early years of my life created the foundation for the work I do now helping to prepare first- and second-generation Americans to run for public office. This work is rooted in my personal journey of negotiating identity and navigating power. This parallel path is the heart of the immigrant narrative, isnt it? Understanding, loving, being who we are while learning, challenging, exploring how that makes us both powerless and powerful.

In my work at The New American Leaders Project, I search for these answers while attempting to help others find them. I am on the same journey as those we train leaning into our stories, our power, while recognizing that our fellow citizens are not all ready for these stories, this power.Our signature training targets community leaders who are rooted in movement building, self-aware and ready to be champions for an inclusive democracy.

Over a weekend, we teach three things, rooted in the values of authenticity, inclusivity and accountability. First and foremost, we help them explore their leadership journey, and how it has been informed by their own or their familys immigration story. With that as a foundation, they are able to craft an authentic stump speech based on the core values that motivate them to run for office.

Arizona State Rep. Athena Salman (Photo courtesy of The New American Leaders Project)

Second, our training encourages participants to think about how our current political system favors those who always vote instead of opening democracy up to new or low-efficacy voters. Often, these are immigrants or people of color who have not been invited to participate, and by reaching out to them, candidates can be far more inclusive.

Finally, we push back against the message that immigrants are takers, not makers. We suggest that our communities can and should be stakeholders in democracy by contributing to campaigns. This helps ensure that elected officials are accountable to the community, as voters and donors. At its core, our training is about creating a democracy that is stronger because everyone participates.

We know this model works because even in 2016, one of the most hate-filled election cycles in recent memory, 67 percent of our 39 alumni won their races for local and state office in Arizona, California, New York and Michigan. Now, these leaders from the newcomer communities most under attack in our society today American Muslims, the formerly undocumented, children of refugees are serving on school boards, city councils and state legislatures.

Among them are Ylenia-Aguilar, who is now a member of the school board in Osborn School District in Phoenix, Arizona. The election that brought Ylenia to the school board also happens to be the only election in which shes ever voted. Formerly undocumented, Ylenia, the parent of two boys who attend schools in the district she serves, had only recently become a citizen. She and her boys campaigned by knocking on doors and sharing her vision for schools with the districts residents. She was the top vote-getter in her election.

Lan Diep, the son of political refugees from Vietnam, was elected to the San Jose City Council in 2016. (Photo courtesy of The New American Leaders Project).

She is exceptional, but shouldnt be an exception. Today, she joins the under 2 percent of local and state elected officials who are Asian American and Latino, the two fastest growing immigrant groups in the country.

America is woefully unprepared for the diversity of its current residents and its future citizens.Our newish nation was designed for the benefit of white men, not to guarantee power and representation to a multiracial polity.Our democratic destiny is far from our demographic destiny. We need to change that.

Our democracy is stronger when everyone participates. No one knows that better than San Jose City Council Member Lan Diep, the son of political refugees from Vietnam, who lost his first election by 13 votes, ran the following year, and won by 12 votes.

Our policy is better when it reflects the needs of all Americans.Thats why Arizona State Rep. Athena Salman, another one of our graduates, read a humanist prayer on the House floor, asserting that We come from a variety of backgrounds and interests, but the passion that ignites us; the fire that burns within us; is similar.

Stephanie Chang is the first Asian-American woman elected to the Michigan House of Representatives. (Photo courtesy of The New American Leaders Project)

Our legislatures are more effective when they represent diverse perspectives.Stephanie Chang, the first Asian-American woman in the Michigan House of Representatives, brings her multiple identities as a Taiwanese American, a woman, a mother, and a District 6 resident to the table. Thats why she got 71 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary.

Even with Lan, Athena and Stephanie, were nowhere close to where we need to be for a representative multiracial democracy. That could be daunting for some people. For me, its motivating.

When I do this work, I am that girl on that balcony in that small country that my parents chose to bring me to, wishing I had a political voice. Like Maria Cruz Lee, a recent participant in our program, who never thought shed say, One day, Id vote for myself, I stand on the shoulders of my ancestors who felt silenced by fear. Our journey has been long, and there is a ways to go. But we are fueled by what New York City Council Member Carlos Menchaca calls our immigrant heart. A heart that is strong, open and unstoppable. A heart as American as any other.

The rest is here:
Former NYC Commissioner Is Helping Immigrants Run for Office - BillMoyers.com

President Trump wants to siphon billions of dollars from public schools to fund private and religious school vouchers. Its an idea thats bad for kids, public education and our democracy.

Today, vouchers are used by less than 1% of the nations students. Trump and his Education secretary, Betsy DeVos, want to change that. Trumps new budget proposal would make historic cuts to federal education spending, while diverting $1 billion into voucher programs a down payment on his oft-repeated $20-billion voucher pledge. We believe the presidents plan would deal a terrible blow to public schools and to the 90% of Americas children who attend them, while doing almost nothing to benefit children who receive vouchers.

Although our organizations have sparred and disagreed over the years, such is the danger to public schooling posed by Trumps embrace of vouchers that we are speaking out together on this issue. The Trump-DeVos effort to push vouchers, or something equivalent through tax credits, threatens the promise and purpose of Americas great equalizer, public education.

At a time when low-income children make up the majority of public school students, we as a country must do more to support families, teachers, administrators and public schools. Trumps plan would do the opposite.

Public schools have never fully recovered from the Great Recession. Research, common sense and our collective experiences working with children, families and schools tell us that we must invest in, not cut back, public education. That means providing high-quality preschool for kids, and the social, health and mental health services they need. It means making sure students are reading at grade level by the end of third grade; that they have powerful learning opportunities, including career and technical training that can prepare them for college and work; and that they are guided by well-supported teachers and other education specialists. It means addressing the federal governments deep underfunding of special education and building a culture of collaboration among teachers, administrators, parents and communities.

The Trump-DeVos budget and voucher plans, while still lacking in details, would eliminate more than 20 education initiatives, including after-school and summer programs, career and technical education, teacher professional development and funding to lower class size. Public money would go instead to schools that lack the accountability and civil rights protections of public schools. DeVos alarmingly fueled these concerns during a congressional hearing last week, when she repeatedly declined to say the Department of Education would withhold vouchers from schools that discriminate, including against LGBT students or students with disabilities. She similarly sidestepped questions about accountability.

We believe taxpayer money should support schools that are accountable to voters, open to all, nondenominational and transparent about students progress. Such schools district and charter public schools are part of what unites us as a country.

Champions of an essentially unregulated, free-market approach to K-12 education, including DeVos, counter that theirs is a better path to helping students in need. But the facts show that where vouchers have been put into practice on a meaningful scale, they hurt student learning.

In April, the research arm of the Department of Education released a study of the federally mandated voucher program in Washington. It showed voucher students did worse in math than similar public school students, and it adds to a growing body of education research that concludes that vouchers may harm rather than help student achievement. In fact, the results of voucher tests, compared with other reforms, are the worst in the history of the field, according to Kevin Carey, education policy director at New America.

Administration officials have suggested what amounts to a back door way to increase the reach of vouchers: tax credits for corporations and the rich who contribute to third-party voucher funds. The nations School Superintendents Assn. looked at states where such credits are already in place and found that, in some cases, the donors have been able to make a profit off the backs of taxpayers and ultimately kids. And what Carey calls the shell game of moving money through these funds makes it difficult to account for how the money is spent.

The Trump administrations perverse priorities are increasingly clear: Impose the biggest cuts to federal education funding in memory and slash support to poor children and families by cutting Medicaid, food stamps and other programs, all while cutting taxes for the rich. It is an agenda that betrays millions of families seeking a better life, and one at odds with what this country stands for. Public schools are a fundamental engine of opportunity in this country. We will stand together to defend them.

Jonah Edelman is chief executive of Stand for Children, which advocates for quality public education. Randi Weingarten is president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

View original post here:
School vouchers don't just undermine public schools, they ... - Los Angeles Times

The United States may soon be backing away from one of the world's most ambitious efforts to fight climate change. President Donald Trump is expected to announce this week his final decision on whether the US will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

But whatever the decision, and whatever the fallout, the mere suggestion of pulling out has raised a difficult question: How can we build sustainable, long-term climate change policy when every democracy around the world changes leaders, and ideology, every few years? There are a few options, and broad deals like the Paris Agreement might actually be the antidote.

"It's one of the reasons that problems like nuclear arms control and like climate change are so challenging, because of this characteristic of democracy of changing government at regular intervals," said John Holdren, a former senior science advisor to President Barack Obama and a professor at Harvard University. "Our preferred political systemwhich I continue to think is better than the othershas drawbacks and this is one of them."

Experts have said that the US choosing to withdraw from the Paris Agreementa process that could take up to four yearsdoesn't mean a death knell for the deal globally. But it would have consequences, and would also mean a shift in priorities domestically. Without an international treaty to hold us to account, and with climate change not a priority for the current administration, the US could regress on environmental policy.

"This is not the only time this has happened."

Holdren and other experts I spoke to said this is an issue that climate change experts have long identified, and the US isn't the only nation that struggles with creative lasting policy changes under a government that is constantly changing hands. Canada spent nearly a decade dragging its feet on climate change policy under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Australia has seen climate change alternate between a top priority and an afterthought as different parties cycled through power. It's a common refrain.

But hearty, multinational treaties like the Paris Agreement may actually be a good example of how to protect our effort to stop climate change from the whims of domestic politics.

"The Paris Agreement anticipated the very possibility that we're seeing now," said John O. Niles, a climate policy expert and the director of the Carbon Institute, a research group that promotes carbon management. "It's a rock and that rock can't be broken by a single government withdrawing. It was designed that way."

Read more: Are We All Screwed If the U.S. Leaves the Paris Climate Agreement?

Niles, who helped coordinate scientific strategy for more than a dozen nations leading up to the Paris Agreement, told me that this kind of broad, multinational treaty is an example of policy that can withstand the ebb and flow of changing leaders.

Polls have also shown that the majority of Americans, including most Republicans, do not want to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. This grassroots support could have great influence even if our current administration ignores it, according to David Victor, a global policy expert at the University of California San Diego and the author of "Global Warming Gridlock," which looks at roadblocks to diplomatic progress on climate change.

"This is not the only time this has happened," Victor told me. "When the federal government is inactive on a politically-important topic, it becomes politically very popular to focus on it in the states. They swing in the opposite direction."

Victor said state and local governments may very well double-down on climate change policy to mitigate the fallout from the feds, and pointed to California Governor Jerry Brown, who is heading to China next week to discuss climate change policy. Other nations could end up reacting in a similar manner, either stepping up to take the US' place as a global leader, or putting diplomatic pressure on the US if Trump pulls the plug.

Having a congress that is willing to pass strict laws on climate change would make a lot of headway, too (it's not very simple to just overturn a law), and Holdren said voters will have this in mind during the midterms.

None of these strategies are a silver bullet and Victor told me most economists believe the planet overall is going to "under-mitigate and over-adapt," to climate changemeaning we will make some progress, but not enough, and will end up having to deal with the consequences.

"One should hope that on major issues of international collaboration and agreement that the consensus would be maintained from administration to administration," Holdren told me. "But as we all know, that's not necessarily true."

Ultimately, democracy's greatest asset is that it is up to the people to choose our own fate. If the people don't care about climate change, this is where we end up.

Excerpt from:
Is Climate Change Policy Incompatible with Democracy? - Motherboard

Mayor Bailey prepares to answer a residents question.

On Wednesday evening, May 30, Coronado residents Casey and Kathryn Blitt, along with Gregg and Cathy Anderson, sponsored a community forum in the Nautilus Room of the Coronado Community Center.The purpose of this meeting was to increase understanding about the use of a historic local home as a transitional home for women who are transitioning out of a recovery home for sex-trafficked women.

A previous community meeting was held on March 1st in the Winn Room at the Coronado Library,but peoplewere turned away that night because the Winn Room was filled to capacity.

Former Mayor Casey Tanaka deftly moderated this secondforum. He opened the meeting by welcoming all, introducing a panel that included Mayor Richard Bailey, GenerateHope Chief Executive Officer Dan DeSaegher, GenerateHope Founder and Director of Services, Susan Munsey, a representative from Tony Atkins office (Coronados state senator, who represents Coronado in Sacramento), and a representative from Todd Glorias office (Mr. Gloria represents Coronado in Sacramento as our state assembly member.)

Tanaka noted that GenerateHope would not be making a presentation as they did at the March forum, but were available to clarify informationand answer questions.

I conducted an informal poll before the meeting started. I asked people in the audience if they arrived in support, opposition, or undecided. This random sampling included 52 of the approximately 130 people in attendance. The number of people in support or curious was essentially equal to the number of people in opposition. Of those in opposition, five of those were vocally frustrated by what they perceived as a lack of transparency by Coronado City Council.

It should be noted that one of the questions posed during the forum asked for a show of hands as to how many in the audience were actual residents of Coronado. Easily 90% of the audience raised their hands. This brought comments of Okay, well thats good, by those sitting next to me who had indicated opposition.

Mr. Tanaka invited audience members to come to the podium to ask their questions within a 30 second time period. If their questions would take longer than 30 seconds, Mr. Tanaka encouraged them to get back in line for another turn.

For the next hour and a half, at least ten people were lined-up at the podium at any given time. Some of those in opposition to the concept had done plenty of research; three in particular came up to the podium three or more times.

There were many people who spoke in support of the concept and applause was often heard as people expressed their reasons for supporting GenerateHopes efforts.

At times, the forum teetered into the emotional. DeSaegher and Munsey both had moments where their compassion for thevictims was evident. Responding to such concerns such as if the girls might needed translators, could they dress themselves, they would be inherently more promiscuous than others, the GenerateHope executives struggled with how to answer.

In response to one such comment, Munsey said, that was below the belt to characterize these victimized women that way. DeSaegher reminded the audience that most of the girls could look like our own daughters (more sex-traffickedgirls are of Caucasian descent than any other ethnicity).

Emotions ran high on the other side as well. At one point, a friend of a resident who is strongly against the concept, suggested that this resident was getting a little feisty. In response, F them! was clearly heard. It was uncertain who was the them being spokenabout.

The main concerns of the opposition were:

The main points of those in support:

We live in a democracy and these three Constitutional concepts come into play on this issue:

Federalism is the concept written into our Constitution that separates the power of the Federal government and the State government.

Under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Federal Law supersedes State and Local law. The Federal Government trumps the state and local government.Mayor Bailey noted this fact during the questioning.

For example, the equal protection clause would stop racial segregation in a city, even if the majority of the residents wanted racial segregation, because the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1954, in Brownv.The Board of Education, that separate is inherently unequal.

Finally, we have a system of checks and balances. A law was passed allowing transitional housing at the Federal level. Our California state and local Coronado governments (the legislative branch) brought their housing laws in line with the Federal Governments statute.

The executive branch of our state government, the governor, signed this bill into law.

The judicial branch of California has heard challenges to this law. Indeed, other California cities have challenged this law all the way to the California Supreme Court. These challenges have not been successful.

We have active, engaged citizens in Coronado; and for the most part, Wednesday evenings forum was civil, yet vibrant. Did everyone feel satisfied? No. Will Coronado remain an example of democracy? Yes.

See the rest here:
Democracy in Action: Transitional Housing Use Questions Aired at Community Forum - Coronado Times Newspaper