Mediaboss Marketing

The American people support more federal spending on infrastructure such as roads, buildings and waterways 75 percent are in favor, according to a year-old Gallup poll. And so President Donald Trumps call for a 10-year, $1 trillion national rebuilding plan was one of the few parts of his address to Congress on Tuesday that might have been the same if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders had won.

Depending on the details, many Democrats will support a Trump-backed infrastructure bill, in the name of boosting short-term job creation and long-term economic productivity.

Theres just one catch: Many of the same people who tell pollsters they want to unleash the bulldozers will sing a different tune when those machines approach their communities. And Americas responsive, democratic political system, with its decentralized institutions and multiple veto points, will heed the cry of NIMBY not in my back yard.

Two consecutive California governors dreamed of a high-speed rail system like Japans. Nearly a decade after voters approved the California bond issue, the project has barely started. Residents of Silicon Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in Californias central agricultural region filed lawsuits. Property owners along the route have refused to sell land. San Fernando, a small city in Los Angeles County, balks at being sliced in two by the tracks.

To be sure, Californias high-speed rail is new infrastructure and, as such, inherently more disruptive. Maybe Americans will be less wary of merely upgrading existing installations.

Well, a $120 billion federal plan to improve the ancient but vital Northeast Corridor rail line, thus slicing Amtrak travel times between New York and Boston, faces resistance from the 7,500 denizens of Old Lyme, Connecticut. It would mean tunneling under their downtown.

Its fashionable and, to some extent, merited to denounce NIMBYism. We dont want a few selfish holdouts to block manifestly urgent and beneficial projects. On the other hand, its hard to prove the necessity and utility of any given bridge or highway. A just-completed $1.6 billion expansion of Los Angeles 405 freeway accomplished next to nothing in terms of its stated goal reducing traffic congestion according to the New York Times. Anybody else notice that Trump hasnt identified a specific new road or hospital that the nation absolutely, undeniably must have?

Yes, the jewel of American infrastructure the interstate highway system knit this great land together. In the process, it tore through many an old downtown or established neighborhood (often inhabited by relatively powerless minority groups). In fact, backlash against the interstates is one reason that we have environmental-impact statements today, and the pesky delays that come with them.

Few recall that history now, but it puts into perspective a lot of todays simplistic thinking about infrastructure. The United States failure to enact a massive program to repair our crumbling infrastructure reflects not stupidity, or weak national will, but a genuine, inescapable collective-action problem. Infrastructures benefits are diffuse, long term and, to some degree, speculative; its costs are focused, immediate and palpable.

Approaches to this conundrum vary around the world. In China, a one-party state shoves whole villages aside to make way for dams and airports. As that extreme example demonstrates, there is always a tension between grand schemes of national rebuilding and, well, democracy.

By all means, the United States should try to mitigate NIMBYism. But we should also reflect on the real reasons its so difficult to take billions in infrastructure money, and throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks, as Trump adviser Stephen Bannon has recommended.

Under our system, the government has to consult with the people before irreversibly damming our rivers or excavating our towns. This can be maddening as heck, but also, when you think about it, one of the things that makes America great.

Charles Lane is an editorial writer for the Washington Post.

Published March 5, 2017, midnight in: bridges, California, infrastructure, NIMBYism, rail, roads

See original here:
Charles Lane: Democracy a roadblock to rebuilding - The Spokesman-Review

Terrorism has succeeded in feeding fear and anger into Americans, not only harming the Arab worlds transition into democracy, but also shaking the core principles of the American democracy, which was once a leading model of freedom and inclusivity to the rest of the world.

The uprising of multiple countries in the Arab world against dictatorship in 2011 has awed the world. These Muslim majority countries, as they are usually referred to by the U.S. government and foreign affairs agencies, have struck people with their passion for freedom, their will for survival and their thirst for democracy. Following an era of dictatorship and misportrayal, these Muslims have proved to the world that they are as equally human and wanting of democracy as Americans.

Syria is the fourth country to have been inspired by the rebellions success in Tunisia, the first Arab country to stand against dictatorship, and to start its own demonstrations. Fearless of oppression and unwilling to give in to violence and hatred, Syrians marched to the streets with their voices, signs and their countrys flowers. While trying to welcome a new era of democracy, they were instead welcomed by their governments most hideous forms of brutality and coercion. In efforts to stop the uprisings, women were raped, men were tortured and children were killed. According to Amnesty International, nearly 4 million Syrians are now displaced as refugees and thousands are nowhere to be found. Refusing to give up on reaching democracy, the people of Syria watched members of their families and friends disappear one after the other while their homes were being torn apart. Yet, they did not give up and continued to march down the streets demanding freedom, equality and prosperity: the traits with which they saw that their Muslim and Arab identities could flourish.

Following their usual mission for spreading peace and democracy across the world, the government of the United States of America has come to the rescue of Syria as conflicts escalated. The destructively resistant violence used by dictators to suppress the movements of their people alarmed international forces to interfere and stop the conflict. However, the massacre of Libyas president in 2012 by NATO and the inability to reach a compromise in Syria among the rebels and the government have led to nothing but the increase of instability. Institutions were destroyed, anarchy reigned and the war between dictators and civilians remained. Peoples hopes for democracy shattered as did their hopes for the prosperity of their country, which went in flames as conflicts arose. This war, however, is not the first barrier to democracy that Syrians have faced as Arab Muslims.

Al Qaeda represented the first struggle for Muslims in reaching democracy. After the terrifying events in 2001 in the U.S., Muslims across the globe were discriminated. The identification of this terrorist group with Islam fed into peoples fears and made them unleash their stereotypes and misconceptions, associating all Muslims with terrorism. This categorization has been the first cultural and ideological division of the U.S. and countries with Muslim majority populations. Therefore, ideals like democracy, freedom and equality, being culturally tied to the U.S. (as it has long exported them to the Arab world), became regarded as evil. Holding such values meant, in the Arab world, pertaining to a discriminatory culture where Muslims are feared and treated as inferior. Therefore, movements for democracy in the beginning of the 21st century in the Arab world were mainly led by an elite driven by postcolonial ideals and incapable of attracting ordinary civilians who, at that time, boycotted the values of a nation that dehumanized them.

After such separation, it took the Arab world almost 10 years to digest this cultural animosity and dissociate democracy from imperialism and islamophobia. Tunisia, the first country to rebel against dictatorship, set the example for the rest of the Arab world, starting what became known in the U.S. as The Arab Spring. However, this spring, followed by the instability that the U.S. and other nations interference in the Arab world contributed to increasing gave rise to ISIS: the second biggest obstacle to democracy.

ISIS not only brought back the American rhetoric of islamophobia as it has also associated itself with Islam, but has hindered the dreams of Arab Muslims of reaching democracy. What many people tend to forget when talking about ISIS is that Muslims were the number one victims of this terrorist group. The people who join ISIS are mostly Arab radicalized youth and most people who died because of ISIS attacks are Syrian, Iraqi and Libyan Arab Muslims. Therefore, the fight of Muslims to reach democracy was transformed by ISIS into a fight for mere survival. Once again, the path for Muslims to freedom was blocked. However, when it comes to democracy, ISIS was able to affect Arabs and Americans alike (with the exception of Tunisia which continues to appear as the only free country in the Arab world).

In 2016, the U.S. electoral college elected president Donald Trump to office. Trumps election rhetoric, filled with racism, sexism, islamophobia and xenophobia enabled him to successfully reach office. His appeal to Americans fear of terrorism and Muslims was a good enough reason for Trump supporters to choose him over Hillary Clinton.

In his first week of holding office, Trump indeed proved his attachment to his election decisions as he issued an executive order banning nationals of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and Somalia from entering the U.S. Instantly, hundreds of people with legal visas were detained at airports, thousands of refugees were derived from reuniting with their families and over 160 million people were stripped away from their rights to free travel. Among these people are university students unable to continue their education, wives unable to see their husbands, mothers unable to reunite with their kids and most importantly refugees unable to escape a war that the U.S. contributed to escalating.

The day of the order, thousands of Americans rose to protest, responding to this inhumane and undemocratic decision. However, besides this orders contribution to decaying the American democracy, not a lot has changed so far. The U.S., once looking down at the Arab worlds political climate by showing off its democracy and its protection of freedoms, suddenly lost its glory. The unconsciously fearful drive of certain Americans has oriented the country towards a path where it lost the values it was founded upon. In one day, millions of Muslims were labeled and treated as terrorists because of their nationality and religion: a discriminatory process no different from the one that labeled black people as inferior because of the color of their skin. Decades after the civil war, the American democratic institutions, the founding fathers constitution and the free people of America stood helpless in front of practices thought to have long been abandoned. The fear and anger of many Americans was capable of bringing back oppression. And, when oppression appears, democracy disappears.

Fear is the enemy of democracy. If Tunisians, Syrians, Libyans feared the future, they would not have made it this far in their journeys of emancipation, despite the hurdles that come in the way. Anger is the enemy of democracy. If Tunisians focused on their anger towards dictatorship, they would not have been able to reach freedom. Instead, they protested peacefully, using their love for emancipation, not their hate for oppression.

The anger and fear of Americans has, for so long, harmed the American democracy as well as the Arab Muslims transitions into democracy. What is interesting about the recent election in the U.S. is not the rise of a racist to power as much as it is the impact that this event had in waking people up. Sadly, not even the Syrian war was capable of attracting this much world attention to the issue of protecting world democracy and human rights as Trumps executive orders.

Finally, the current comparison of the American and Tunisian democracies proves that democracy is neither culturally inherent as many Americans think it is, nor is it incompatible with the Arab Muslim world. Democracy can be applied through a variety of models and not a single one of them needs to be idealized or exported. Democracy is a process that should not be taken for granted and needs to be sustained, protected and, most importantly, continually sought.

See more here:
No hate, no fear: This is what democracy looks like - DU Clarion

One winter morning when I was 7 or 8 years old, walking to school, swinging my Robin Hood lunch box by my side, I saw a bunch of kids playing King of the Mountain on a huge snow pile. I ran over to join the game.

It was the usual teams, Arctic Cat versus Ski Doo. I started up the hill, climbing on hands and knees, until I was just about to the top. A kid I recognized looked down at me. What team? he challenged. Ski Doo, I said. Arctic Cat! he shouted, and kicked me in the shoulder, sending me head over heels down the hill, my lunch box bouncing along behind. After a couple more unsuccessful attempts to gain the peak, a bell rang, and we all dusted off and headed inside to our classrooms.

When I sat down for lunch that day, I noticed milk leaking from the corner of the lunchbox. I opened it up and saw that my glass-lined Robin Hood thermos, a gift from my grandma, had broken, and everything inside was soaked in milk. I had nothing to eat, and I felt sick at the thought of telling Grandma what happened.

But then all the kids at the table, even the ones who had been kicking me down the mountain a few hours before, began handing me portions of their lunches: half of a peanut butter sandwich, a hardboiled egg, a slice of pickle, a chocolate chip cookie. It was the best lunch I ever had.

I learned something that day about the nature of politics, that sometimes the price of playing the game is declaring loyalty to one side or the other. But as soon as we do that, we lose sight of our shared humanity. We are at our best when we sit down with one another and address common concerns without first taking sides.

Thats not easy to do. There are some people who see every issue in terms of opposition.

A few years ago I was attending a town hall meeting in western Wisconsin. The topic of discussion was political issues affecting rural communities. The evening started out well, with genuine, thoughtful conversation about challenges faced by small farms, families and businesses. Suddenly a group of people came through the door and attempted to take over the meeting. They were loud, rude and passionate. They had only one thing on their minds: the pro-life agenda.

One of the organizers of the event tried to point out that the purpose of the town hall was to discuss rural economic policies, conservation issues and agriculture. But the leader of the protesters was undeterred: There is no other issue she insisted; either you are pro-life or you are anti-life.

It is hard to stand in the center, because those on the extremes see it as refusing to take a position, as being wishy-washy, indecisive, even cowardly. They accuse anyone who doesnt agree with them of enabling the enemy. They see politics as a matter of defeating the opponent rather than as an effort to find solutions to common problems.

The political centrist believes in ethical persuasion as the primary means of achieving lasting societal health and stability. That means being completely committed to truth-telling, fairness and transparency in negotiating. For the centrist, political strategies like voter suppression, gerrymandering, backdoor dealing and closed meetings are anathema. Such tactics may be intended to achieve some particular good result, but they always come at the cost of the common good.

What does centrist political speech sound like? It is civil and employs respectful forms of address. It is mindful of the dignity of all people. It is honest, neither hiding the truth nor manipulating the evidence. It is passionate but never angry or spiteful. It is often cheerful, and capable of being serious without being solemn. It is impersonal, not adversarial, always focused on the common good. It is questioning, expressing a desire to deepen understanding. It is more reflective than reactive, determined but not stubborn.

What does extremist speech sound like? Its takes the form of either shouts or whispers, domineering among its opponents and conspiratorial among its fellows. When opposed, it becomes by turns hostile or defensive. It frequently employs personal attacks to discredit the other side and distract from the issue at hand. It sets up false dilemmas, insisting on only two options the good and the bad without considering other possibilities. It is incapable of humor in any form other than ridicule. It does not have to ask questions because it already has all the answers.

I try to be a political centrist, because that is the only place where ethical persuasion functions. On the two extremes there is no reasonableness, only reaction. There is no place on the extremes for calm reflection, for gathering information, for thinking things through, for honest debate. There is only kicking. On the extremes, words are not used to persuade, they are only used to declare sides, to determine who should be kicked.

It is important at all times, but especially now, for centrists to speak up, if only to keep the extremists in their place, to let them know that even though they may be loud, and arrogant, and full of bluster, they are not kings of the mountain.

In our country, in our communities, democracy is still king as long as enough people continue to believe in it and use their voices to defend it.

Richard Kyte is the director of the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University. He also is a member of the Tribunes editorial board.

Go here to read the rest:
Richard Kyte: Despite turmoil, democracy is still king - La Crosse Tribune

Fundamentals of democratic process are being eroded before our very eyesThere is one simple answer, and that is the fear of an accusation of racism, bigotry and xenophobia

While monitoring the behaviour of our Liberal government thus far in its tenure, a common theme unifies the assessment: democracy sure isnt what it used to be.

Indeed, the concept of a government for the people, by the people has long since vanished from our political environment. Incrementally, in a most discreet manner, our nation has become an entity whereby the only remaining vestige of true democratic process is to be found in electoral democracy the method by which our politicians are voted into office.

Beyond this, the desires of the general public are very much on the back-burner. That is, unless you happen to be a new arrival to our country by way of Canadas immigration and refugee policies.

How exactly did this inversion of government priorities come about? Why would government provide special, elevated status to new arrivals rather than long term, tax-paying Canadian-born citizens?

One point we can state with confidence is that the general population of Canada did not ask for such a thing. Why would they, when the phenomenon is counter-productive to the well being of generational Canadians and their families? The answer, therefore, lies elsewhere.

A good place to begin would be with what can today be referred to as the Trudeau Dynasty. It was Pierre Trudeau, three term Liberal prime minister, who ushered in this social inversion with his single- handed proclamation that bi-cultural English and French Canadian identity was finished. In its stead came multiculturalism a legislated policy intent upon elevating the status of our minority communities. The piece Trudeau Sr. failed to consider was what would occur once these minorities were no longer minor. Today, under the auspices of son Justin Trudeau, Canadians are witnessing the impact of Trudeaus lack of foresight, as Statistics Canada informs us our Anglo-Canadian communities are headed for minority status within our major urban centres.

Diversity is king. Multiculturalism is sacrosanct, and to question itor heaven forbid oppose it is blaspheme. A similar dynamic applies to immigration policy. No one understands why, as politically correct forces have deemed themselves above offering any logical explanation.

In our day and age, it is amazing to witness the power of social media. One tweet from Prime Minister Trudeau stating all refugees impacted by Donald Trumps ban on immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries are welcome in Canada, and all pandemonium breaks loose. Our border security is in jeopardy now that hundreds of border-jumpers and more than likely thousands once spring arrives are headed to the Great White North to find a permanent home. Did the Canadian public as in those who will foot the bill through their tax dollars have a say in the matter? Was any form of public consent provided, or solicitation to see if Canadians are in favour of such generous hospitality?

We all know the answer to this one. There was nothingjust as there was no approval or public consent for the cancellation of our national identity, or the advent of mass third world immigration.

To quote from a political treatise entitled The Laws Of Government: Legal Foundations Of Canadian Democracy, we find this profound statement:

In a democracy, a government of the people, for the people should govern for the greatest good of the greatest number. Public officials should resist creating policy to suit narrow special interests seeking a disproportionate benefit from government not in the interests of the broader public.

Cue Justin Trudeau. Obviously, he was out-of-town or more likely not even born when this little tidbit was interjected into public consciousness. Basically, PM Trudeau does not adhere to this philosophy. Better yet, it is reasonable to state that both Justin, like his father before him, advances a political agenda antithetical to this fundamental of democracy.

Should Canadians be surprised? Of course not, as the Trudeau Dynasty has cared little about democracy since Pierre took office in the 1960s. Rather, it was good friend Fidel Castros socialist brand of leadership Trudeau Sr. most admired with Chairman Maos communist ideology running a close second.

Recently, our Liberal government put forth a motion to condemn Islamophobia and other forms of racism. One problem among several is that the motion is devoid of an actual definition of Islamophobia. When one was requested, nothing was offered up. Such is the degree of privilege the Liberals and their minions have bestowed upon themselves.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental of Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, within Justin Trudeaus Canada, the concept is on the wane every bit as much as democracy itself is infringed upon. The irony of the situation is inescapable. Inexplicably, M103 contains not a word regarding Sharia Law, an Islamic doctrine which outlines all aspects of social behaviour for devout Muslims. Contained within are modes of behaviour which explicitly violate the Charter yet not a single reference to this fact has been included in government or media narrative regarding M103.

It is abundantly clear the fundamentals of democratic process are being eroded before our very eyes yet no one lifts a finger to stop it. Why? There is one simple answer, and that is the fear of an accusation of racism, bigotry and xenophobia. Indeed, these are the properties now controlling the destiny of our nation. In a most subtle fashion in order that the general public do not catch wind of it our government has brought into being a form of pseudo- socialist governance unprecedented in the history of our nation. In the meantime. Canadians watch Hockey Night in Canada.

See the original post:
Feigning Democracy: Liberalism In Justin Trudeau's Canada - Canada Free Press

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

GLENDALE-- Every seat was filled during a town hall with U.S. Representative Gwen Moore, she fielded questions at the North Shore Library Saturday afternoon, March 4th.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

Topics ran the gamut from immigration to education, Planned Parenthood, Russia, concealed carry -- but U.S. Representative Gwen Moore says the number one issue for her right now is retaining affordable health care.

One attendee, hoping to keep her doctor and medicare benefits -- another saying don't replace the ACA unless the next plan up covers more people.

Representative Moore hopes to keep the coverage components of the Affordable Care Act. She attended a "Congressional Cafe" discussion on Saturday.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

"Those components of the Affordable Care Act have meant so much. Not just to the 20 million people who had no health care coverage at all, but those folks with preexisting conditions," said Moore.

The standing room crowd was friendly, but weary at the same time on how the current administration is navigating topics like immigration.

"We've got to get this right. I want you guys to knowthat there is a clear distinction between having safe borders and being inhumane," Moore said.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

The topic of Russia came up as well.

Gwen Moore

"Right now, I'm goingto tell you this as a Democrat, I am really relying on people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham in the Senate. Our democracy is really being tested," said Moore.

Representative Moore is planning two more Congressional Cafe's on March 18th.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

Read the original here:
Our democracy is really being tested: US Representative Gwen Moore attends 'Congressional Cafe' - fox6now.com