Mediaboss Marketing

I recently wrote a letter to the editor, which the Daily Sun published on Sunday, January 29th (We Won't 'Just Get Over It'). I accessed the Daily Sun website, and noted that there were eight online responses. All but one were very negative, nasty, personal attacks. One person even told me to "Watch my health," which sounds very much like a threat to me.

It's a sad day for this country when people feel free to threaten someone for simply voicing his or her opinion. This is America, which means that everyone has a constitutional right to express their opinion, and no one has the right to suppress the opinions of those who don't agree with them. You have every right to disagree with me or anyone else, but when you attack and/or threaten people, you are doing grave damage to the fabric of democracy in America.

Read this article:
Incivility threatens democracy - Arizona Daily Sun

Economic hardship like the ones that gave birth to democracy in America, Great Britain, France and the European Union is knocking at Liberias door. Widespread poverty under Harvard Economist, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf forced hundreds of Liberian traders to desert their businesses and organize a three-day strike demanding lower taxes and tariffs. If the marketers aim at terminating the source of the economic hardships and not the symptoms, they are the leaders and mothers who will go down in history as the ones who give birth to true democracy in Liberia.

I whole heartedly support the Liberian business community. However, their petition and solution seeking only lowering of taxes and tariffs cannot cure the cancer that created the problem. In fact, the excessive salaries and benefits of Liberian politicians are clearly the problem because they rob citizens in the poverty-stricken country. The high tariffs and taxes are only the symptoms.

The system of governance in Liberia is broken and corrupt to the core because politicians enter public service only to enrich themselves, not to serve the public.

Every mansion our representatives and ministers build robs Liberian youths of libraries and better schools. The thousands of dollars they consume in allowances to travel overseas rob nurses of life saving medical equipment, thus forcing our Lawmakers to seek medical care in Ghana. Their 500-gallon gas slips and new cars have robbed people in Lofa, Nimba and southeastern Liberia of paved roads for 170 years. Its not just the marketers problems.

To fix this problem, Liberia doesnt need to wait for elections in October or a new politician to steer the corrupt system designed by the political elites to get rich. Liberia needs a new system designed by ordinary people like the marketers from Red Light.

With the current broken and corrupt system, elections cannot change Liberia. 170 years of elections in Liberias corrupt system yielded nothing. For nearly 12 years, a very smart president with an economics degree from one of the best universities in the world decided to fix Liberia. She employed the best educated politicians and paid them more money than salaries of public servants in America, the richest nation on earth. Her team fielded three competing currencies in the market. They raised taxes, increased tariffs on imported goods, demanded US dollars from citizens who earn Liberian dollars and arbitrarily changed 25 percent of US dollars from struggling families. Still, people are crying from hardships.

Without democracy, we can lower taxes, lower tariffs and the problem continues unabated because the cancer of the old corrupt and broken system is still intact:

Without democracy, politicians elected to serve the public will continue to build their mansions with public funds. With a $555 million budget, they make higher salaries than American congressmen and even the President of the United States of America, with $4.2 trillion-dollar FY-2017 budget.

The international partners will continue to give foreign aid and loans to Liberian politicians who will continue to build more mansions at home and abroad, leaving huge debts that crush future generations.

Elections will continue to be won just as it has been since 1847. Politicians who have enriched themselves in the past as senators and vice presidents will continue to rule.

The Liberian marketers action is similar to how democracy was born when ordinary Americans demanded freedom from higher taxes imposed by the King; French citizens demanded freedom after higher taxes were imposed on June 29, 1789; the European Union in November 1993.

Still, some may argue that Liberian marketers are not educated enough to lead democratic change. The truth is democracy is about the will of a human being, not about ones grade sheet. If the rule of highly educated people from Europe and America brought democratic solutions, colonialism would have solved Africas problems. European imperialists like Rhodes were highly educated even so, colonialism failed.

The Liberian business community must escalate their demands from the symptoms of high taxes to a demand for participatory democracy, where the voters who elect also set the salaries of their public servants. All Liberian citizens must join the peaceful actions until the political elites yield to democracy.

The marketers, not the AU, EU or USA took the first bold step toward sustainable development and democracy.

Article I of the Liberian Constitution is clear on who is the master and the servant.

If the political elites were smart, they wouldnt have waited for marketers to tell them what to do. They are servants. Jesus said. The servants cannot be greater than the master. If citizens do not join the marketers to treat elected officials as servants, these servants wont know what to do with our country.

Finally, the prophecy of Fredrick Douglass is the best reason for all Liberians to join the marketers: Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

See the original post:
Let's All Join the True Democratic Leaders - Liberian Daily Observer

Robert Bridge, an American writer and journalist based in Moscow, Russia, is the author of the book on corporate power, Midnight in the American Empire, released in 2013.

The Left's non-stop temper tantrum since Trump's election win is revealing an ugly underbelly of the Democratic Party - think Rosie O'Donnell mud-wrestling with a pig - where a rogues gallery of provocateurs aims to delegitimize conservative rule.

First, some necessary background: for 15 uninterrupted years of US militaryescapades abroad, eight of those years on Obama's watch, the Liberal Left could not be awakened from its somnambulist slumber, not even to hold a meaningful antiwar protest in the spirit of their Vietnam-era forebears.

University students, for example, no longer concerned about conscription since the US military became a professional fighting force in 1973, rarely speak out against the plight of foreign civilians trapped in US-made wars Americas mostlucrative export industry bar none. Sadly and tellingly, these demonstration dropouts would be at pains to name a single modern anti-war song to match thehundreds of comparable tracks heard around the nation during the Vietnam War.

For eight carefree years under Obamas tedious tutelage, these precious snowflakes threw their collective damp mass behind radical cultural experiments, likelegalizing marijuana,institutionalizing same-sex marriages andopening the door to transgender bathrooms from sea to shining sea. Americas Founding Fathers must have been watching over these solemn, patriotic endeavors in God's Country with tremendous pride and equanimity.

However, when a Republican real estate mogul named Trump crashed the impossible party, Liberalshit the streets running and screaming. Suddenly, the Left had found common cause to get out of the house and smash stuff, as they did when Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-leaning editor at Breitbart News, wasforced to cancel an appearance at UC-Berkeley - ironically the home of theFree Speech Movement - after protesters broke campus windows, burned trees and hurled projectiles at police.

The underlining message from these social justice warriors is that Liberals love the idea of other individuals freely expressing their thoughts, but only if those thoughts support the basis of their own thoughts. I may be mistaken, but that sounds disturbingly close to the rationale behind Nazi book-burning events and other such historical smashups.

At the same time American universities were erecting virtual walls around their campuses, not to mention their minds, a dazzling array of Hollywood celebrities (here,here and here), aging and youthful rockers (here,here andhere) and painfully overrated comedians (here andhere) quickly discovered in Donald Trump a convenient bogeyman for resuscitating flagging careers with dramatic and dim-witted political performances.

First, it should be emphasized that not every Hollywood superstar is against Trump. Many dosupport his ambitious political vision to "Make America Great Again." That was plain to see by the painful expressions on some of the famous faces in attendance at the 2017 Golden Globe Awards as Meryl Streep delivered an antiTrumpdiatribe during her acceptance speech.

The sheer hypocrisy of Streep's lecture was not lost on many listeners in light of America's long string of military misadventures under Obama the Democrat.

As fellow RT contributor Danielle Ryan asked, "Where was Streep as the Nobel Peace Prize winner bombed not one, two or three but seven different countries? To be fair to Streep, she probably didnt notice because the principled press didnt seem to either. Funny thing about that too, since Streep and her friends are worried about Trumps apparent disdain for foreigners: All of the countries bombed by the Obama administration were Muslim countries."

Susan Sarandon, meanwhile, one of those rare Hollywood luminaries who manage to sound intelligent and knowledgeable when elucidating upon politics, bravely spoke her mind in an industry that is notoriously cliquish.

In aninterview with The Young Turks, Sarandon said she believed Clinton was more dangerous than Trump because - wait for it - the media failed to adequately cover the less glorious moments from her political past.

She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things, and very callously, I dont know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is, Sarandon said, adding, I think well be in Iran in two seconds.

However, Sarandon's thoughtful views, which were quickly buried, would never be confused as orthodox thinking in the film business. In fact, Hollywood's fiery condemnation of the Republican leader, who won convincingly in a legitimate election, often pushes the boundaries of respectability among people who should really know better.

Robert De Niro and Jay Leno, for example, are just two examples of Hollywood personalities who have actually suggested physical violence against Donald Trump. Considering the sway these two stars enjoy, that is sending a very disturbing public message. Take a moment and conduct a thought experiment and imagine how it would have gone for right-leaning Clint Eastwood, for example, had he said he wanted to punch Barack Obama in the face, as De Niro said he'd like to do to Trump.

However, the best was yet to come, but I am sure even this latest incredible outburst will be bested soon enough. Just this week, the potty-mouthed actress/comedian Sarah Silverman ratcheted up the manic meter several notches when she called for the violent overthrow of the "mad king" in an all-caps Tweet.

Silverman's stupid stunt came just days after aging 'material girl' Madonnatold a crowd at the Women's March on Washington that she's "thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House".

"It took this horrific moment of darkness to wake us the f**k up," she said."It seems as though we had all slipped into a false sense of comfort, that justice would prevail and that good would win in the end."

She then proceeded to belt out some bawdy R-rated lyrics that clashed with the atmosphere of the demonstration.

Are these prima donnas so far detached from reality that they believe they are above the law? Like untouchables, they believe they can spew whatever dangerous nonsense that creeps into their muddled minds with total impunity. Personally, I'm betting that one of these misguided madonnas will sooner or later find themselves sporting cuffs for pushing the boundaries of free speech too far, even for them.

It seems a big part of the problem for these publicity-seeking celebrities is that watching the real-life saga of Donald Trump evolve in real-time against the backdrop of their staged, ego-centered personae is simply too painful and, well, real; their only recourse is to strike out against this genuine force of nature, this very real political animal, with every drop of energy left in their waxen figures.

However, many of these deluded personalities could blame their intellectually-challenged political positions on a severely biased media for putting out a 24/7 message of hate and fear against Donald Trump.

Just consider the shockingnews pieceCNN put out just two days before Trump's inauguration, which asked"who would be incharge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice-president, and Congressional leaders just asthe transfer ofpower is underway."

"According tothe Constitution," CNN contributor Brian Todd said, "if the president and vice president are killed or incapacitated, next inline is the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tempore ofthe Senate."

Read more

Although such unsavory questions must be given due consideration, to have publicly addressed them at that particular moment, when hushed talk of an assassination attempt hung in the air, came off as simply bizarre. Or worse.

The leading comment in the YouTube comment thread, posted by one Imma Wake, read: "Everybody flag this video for inciting violence."

Similar advice could be given to many Liberals across the political spectrum who are doing a tremendous disservice to American democracy by not giving Donald Trump the same courtesy that was extended to his predecessor on behalf of the voters, not all of whom, by the way, enthusiastically supported Barack Obama's election: the fair chance to govern in the hope of making America a better place.

There might not be another chance.

@Robert_Bridge

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Go here to read the rest:
Liberal lynch mob trolling Trump could bring down US democracy - RT

Democracy is under threat everywhere. Growing numbers of citizens prefer authoritarian ideas, and politicians nurturing those wishes are on the rise in Hungary, Poland, France, Turkey, Germany, and the United Statesto mention only the most salient examples. By now pundits everywhere have expressed concern about populism and the cementation of illiberal or defected democracies. Populist politicians all stress that they speak for the people and articulate demands that are suppressed by a dominating elitethat is, by a minority. Whereas Viktor Orbn and Recep Erdoan mobilize large majorities, this is certainly not true for Marine Le Pen or Donald Trump. While these distinctions are important, they do not affect the main point at issue.

What makes the discussions complicated is the fact that democracy is threatened by democratic means: When citizens prefer authoritarian ideas, shouldnt democracy meet these demands?

Equating democracy and majority rule is unproblematic only in societies without permanent social conflicts and rifts. If the chances of belonging to a majority are more or less evenly distributed across the population, supporting majority decisions makes sense because, in the long run, we will all belong to majorities more often than we will find ourselves among minorities. But in reality, these chances are not evenly distributed. Seven decades of empirical research on political involvement show that participation is always biased against the less privileged.

Each major expansion of the ways citizens try to influence politicsprotests in the 1970s, social movements in the 1980s, voluntarism in the 1990s, political consumerism and new social media in the 2000shas been accompanied by the claim of improving equality. None of these movements have accomplished this. Political activism remains relatively low among lower socio-economic groups. Men are still politically more engaged than women (with the dubious exception of political consumerism). Young people, especially, avoid institutionalized modes of participation. Not even the spread of social media has changed these continuous distortions of democracys ideal of equal voices. Those who could gain the most from political participation are the least activepermanent losers dont like democracy.

To be frank, the empirical record of participation research is depressing. Hardly any program, project, or policy has been able to mobilize less politically active populations effectively.

More than twenty years ago, Sidney Verba and his colleagues succinctly enumerated the main reasons why people do not participate politically: because they cant, because they dont want to; or because nobody asked.

Much has changed since, but not the relevance of these three causes. Only recently did the first signs of what might be a changing political climate become visible: growing dissatisfaction with the causes and consequences of socio-economic hardship (financial crises, austerity politics, globalization, migration) seems to counteract Verbas second reason. The rise of populist politicians and parties effectively takes care of the third. Theoretically, grievance theories gain renewed relevance mainly through their explanation of protest against austerity politics. For the first time since democracy started to encourage mass-participation, voices of the losers can be heard more clearly. Not all these voices support liberal democracy unconditionally. This can only be a surprise for people who are content with the extended participation of privileged groups in existing democracies.

If the weather vanes of political change are read correctly, we are approaching the end of a long period of biased participation. But neither the vanes nor their popular readings seem to be unproblematic. First, a crisis of democracy requires more than the election of some populist politician or the surprising outcome of a referendum. What seems to be refuted is the optimistic but rather nave idea that all political development is a long march towards democracy.

The second issue is that even in established democracies, parts of the population have always supported authoritarian ideas. Empirical political science scrutinized this phenomenon as early as the 1950s. Recent populism largely overlaps with this old-fashioned authoritarianism.

Third, democratic participation is not disappearing but remains increasingly popular, especially among critical citizens. By now, the repertoire of participation is virtually infinite and includes actions ranging from voting, to posting blogs, and buying fair-trade products.

So might we conclude, there is nothing new under the sun and defenders of democracy can sleep well tonight? Curing the most serious failure of liberal democracyits enduring inability to involve permanent losersis a reason for contentment. Yet the often xenophobic, intolerant, and ignorant nature of the present remedies cant be neglected.

This brings us back to the equation of democracy and majority rule as the cardinal sin. Under majority rule, it is stupid for permanent losers to plea for democracy. But it is perhaps even more stupid for defenders of democracy to advocate their case when dealing with people who want to change the rules of the game only because they are long-time, politically absent losers. Democracyunderstood as a value in and for itselfis open for both winners and losers, and not for picky authoritarians who want majority rule only.

Featured image credit: Meeting 1er mai 2012 Front National by Blandine Le Cain. CC BY-SA 2.0via Flickr.

See the article here:
Democracy for losers - OUPblog (blog)

Last November, as the presidential campaign season wound down, President Barack Obama, speaking at a rally for Hillary Clinton, found himself confronted by a man peacefully holding up a sign promoting Donald Trump. When the crowd heckled the man, Obama calmed and then admonished the crowd, defending the protesters right to free speech in America. He urged the crowd, not to boo, but to vote, to actually partake in democracy.

Donald Trumps treatment of protesters at his rallies, you may recall, stood in stark contrast to Obamas encouragement of democratic process. He infamously incited his supporters to remove protesters, violently if necessary, offering to pay their legal fees if sued.

The bottom-line policy for Trump? Dissent is not allowed and must be suppressed by any means necessary.

This behavior on the campaign trail certainly prefigured his administrations modus operandi, as evidenced by the series of unfortunate events of the last week.

For example, as disconcerting, if not horrifying, as Trumps effective Muslim ban was, equally troubling was the administrations reaction to conventional expressions of disagreement carefully and intentionally enabled, encouraged, and protected in the structures of our democratic government.

As Sean Colarossi reported in the pages of PoliticusUsa.com, when hundreds of diplomats from the U.S. State Department collectively signed on to a letter expressing dismay and dissent to the executive order, Trumps press secretary Sean Spicer chillingly told the press, These career bureaucrats have a problem with it? They should either get with the program or they can go.

Get with the program or go?!? Sound familiar? Its the refrain from Trumps campaign rallies, encouraging that any act or expression of dissentbehaviors vital to democracybe met with violent suppression.

It is important to note, too, that the State Department has actually established specific procedures to allow and protect the expression of dissent among its ranksthat is, to institutionalize democracy. The procedure entails filing an official form which cannot be submitted anonymously, and the process offers strenuous assurances against reprisal.

Why is this process in place? As any American citizen who truly respects our institutions and country should know, our founders established a system with checks and balances so we would have a deliberative democracy, one in which enormous decisions impacting the lives of our multitudes would be subject to robust discussion and careful consideration that entailed taking into account a full range of perspectives, especially dissenting ones. Hence, Thomas Jefferson declared dissent to be the highest form of patriotism.

Last week, though, we saw Trump had little, or no, respect for Americas hallowed system of checks and balances; and he certainly demonstrated he has no intention of refraining from seeking reprisal against those who dissent.

His Apprentice-like firing of Attorney General Sally Yates made that point loudly and clearly.

And what did Sally Yates do? She did her job within our democracy to provide a check and a balance to an authoritarian imposition of an unlawful policy. She expressed this understanding quite clearly when she explained her position in the governmental process of the executive branch:

. . . [I]n litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institutions solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

But Trump shows no interest in honoring or adhering to the sacred system our founders carefully crafted as an alternative to and safeguard against authoritarian rule. Theres not a new sheriff in the capital. Theres a new CEO trying to run a business, not govern a democratic polity with rules.

Even Republicans, intent on repealing the Affordable Care Act against what polls show is the will of the people, have fumed over Trumps refusal to consult them and key committees and agencies before issuing the executive order banning refugees from seven countries with largely Muslim populations.

And, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, the Trump administrations willingness to entertain and give voice to the possibility of implementing a 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for the infamous wall, underscored the administrations flouting and complete ignorance of rules and treaties already in place and established through negotiation and deliberation nationally and internationally. Krugman explains,

International trade policy is governed by rules originally the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], now folded into the WTO [World Trade Organization]. A key part of these rules is that countries agree NOT to just impose new tariffs or import quotas unilaterally. So if the US just goes ahead and imposes a 20 percent tariff on Mexico, it has in effect repudiated the whole system (which it built!).

Trump simply shows no regard for rules or decisions arrived at through collective and diplomatic deliberation. We are seeing in full force the problems of Trumps temperament raised in the campaign. It threatens deliberative democracy itself.

When James Madison penned Federalist Paper No. 10, he underscored the importance of representatives who would act at some distance from the passions of the people and thus be capable of enacting a deliberative democracy. For Madison, the representatives should be able to withstand the temporary delusion to give time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.

Unfortunately, it is now the people who need protection from the delusions and impulsive passions of its chief representative, President Trump.

When Obama declared last October that Democracy is on the ballot, he wasnt kidding. A minority of Americans voted in a President who wants to destroy it. It is one of the few things he wants to do deliberately.

Barack Obama, Deliberative Democracy, department of justice, dissent, Donald Trump, Federalist Papers, James Madison, Mulsim Ban, Paul Krugman, Sally Yates, sean spicer, State Department, thomas jefferson

Excerpt from:
Dissent, Democracy, and Deliberation Are on Trump's Chopping Block - PoliticusUSA