Mediaboss Marketing

Tick-tock, the clock is running down and the day of reckoning approaches. Labour inches forward tantalisingly in the polls, but can it cut the Tory lead to below that crucial 7% mark, stopping an outright majority? Extreme agitation grows, anticipating the exit poll results, seconds after 10pm on election night. One thing is certain: Labour will not win a majority. Whether you yearn for it or dread it, the party is as likely to have its HQ hit by a meteorite on 12 December as win outright. (Happy to eat a hundred hats if Im wrong.)

What is all too possible is a blue wave sweeping all before it to wipe out all that tactical nuancing of each seat. In that instant our Brexit doom will be sealed and Boris Johnson will be off the leash with the BBC, NHS, and safety, food and work regulations all in peril. As his partys manifesto suggests, we will be out of the European convention on human rights, and he will be free to do anything that takes his populist fancy (alone with Belarus, no place for minorities or journalists). Whether throwing away keys, reintroducing capital punishment, banishing foreigners, stamping on scroungers or cracking down on Gypsies and Travellers, now that hes replaced Tory liberal lawyers with cohorts of Priti Patel, he will be able to use any means to bind his ex-Labour Brexit seats to Torydom.

Thats the nightmare: Britain joining the right-wing authoritarians to break Europes civilised democratic values

Thats the nightmare: Britain joining the rightwing authoritarians to break Europes civilised democratic values. Johnson has discovered that truth and rules are for little people. He finds there is no authority to stop his rule by yobs with posh accents, if only they can grab those Labour votes. Look at that peevish threat to review Channel 4s licence for empty-chairing him.

Theres only one alternative but its a good one. This deeply divided country needs a parliament to reflect itself and block the blue menace. The only balm is a parliament of compromise that blends progressive manifestos and sends the Brexit decision back to the voters, because nothing else can settle it.

Heres another certainty: a majority will not have voted for Johnson. An even bigger majority will not have voted for Jeremy Corbyn. Call it what they like a confidence and supply agreement, a vote by vote pact but Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, Greens and Plaid Cymru together have the makings of a very good government. Never mind the nominal leader: its priorities, taxing and spending would be set together as all are agreed on ending austerity; electoral reform would be the glue.

Can Labour stop a blue victory? We who travel about asking at bus queues, pubs and school gates, or knocking on doors, glean little more than those perusing unreliable polls. You sniff the air and hope to catch prevailing breezes. You hear pain, irritation with politics and ever more uncertainty. Sharp vignettes illuminate family lives framed in doorways. And some dottiness makes your head spin.

I was listening in the Wakefield constituency, which voted 63% in favour of Brexit, making it one of the weak bricks in Labours so-called red wall. Mary Creagh defends a 2,176-vote majority. If she falls, she leaves 14 years of landmarks: she fought for a new performing arts Brit school of the north, flood defences saving the city so far, a new hospital and more. She would be a loss to the green cause: the Environmental Audit Committee she chaired was instrumental in the ban on microbeads, and it won a single-use plastic bottle return law. Now it is in the midst of a fight over tons of fast-fashion waste. Good and bad MPs are swept along by election tides.

In Ossett, Creaghs most Brexit-supporting ward, she talks of austerity 11 Sure Start centres lost, 69m school cuts, food banks, a homeless man found dead last week. But theres a Fuck off! from a man in paint-splashed overalls. Im for Farage, he says, for sending back immigrants. Youve got a clown for a leader. Creagh usually tells Corbyn doubters, You might not like the manager but you still back the team. Thats no use here.

A mother murmurs, yes, shes Labour. Her autistic son cant leave the house, four years out of school but he can only find three hours a week tutoring. Sure Start was great when he was little, she says. Im sorry it went. Im for remain, Im really worried what Brexit will do. Will her husband vote Labour? She looks nervous and whispers, Youll have to ask. We dont talk about it. I dont know. Inside, he says brusquely: I was Labour, but no more. Im for Farage, got his feet on the ground. We voted out, so its out!

Many do greet Creagh warmly: firm Labour supporters, talking of cuts and remembering the time she got their personal independence payments (Pip) restored, the bedroom tax sorted, a universal credit payment challenged or the books she got for an empty school library. But theres that other wild card: one mum outside the school gates stomps past, hissing, Im voting Corbyn, not for you, Blairite!, a sign of another upcoming battle.

Heres Brenda Trenam to cheer the day with her home full of animals and birds. She voted leave but regrets it now. Changed my mind, I never expected disruption, she says. Its bad for our childrens future and for food prices. Labour? We always are. Shes a housekeeper for a cystic fibrosis ward. I see the nurses stress getting worse. I should be retired, but they took away my pension. Will Labour really give it back? But shes stunned when her husband Leslie says, Im uncertain. Im Brexit and Boris says hell get us out. Ive been Tory a few years. Oh no he hasnt! Brenda says, outraged.

Lisa Dodd is another leave regretter. We use the NHS a lot, my husband broke his neck, I had cancer, my mum was sick, so that 350m on the bus for the NHS swayed me. Now I worry what Brexit will do for our children and I want to vote again. Shes out posting Labour leaflets. But what do you say to the mother who tells me her whole family is moving to Spain unless they get Brexit? Or to a nurse wasting a vote here on no-hope Lib Dems?

Out of all that, the thwack of firm government forcing a non-consensual Brexit, with only minority support, would break politics as we know it. Roll on a progressive concordance of the reasonable that would let voters fix the Brexit mess.

Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

This article was amended in two respects on 3 December 2019. The proportion of referendum voters in the constituency of Wakefield who favoured leaving the EU was corrected to 63%. The previously quoted figure (66%) referred to the area covered by Wakefield council. Secondly, the Environmental Audit Committee helped the passage of a return law for single-use plastic, rather than glass, bottles.

Here is the original post:
To hold back the Tory wave, progressives will have to join forces - The Guardian

By Ray Lesniak

So much is written and heard about the inability of progressives and conservatives to come together and address the issues that divide our society. Yet New Jersey is on the verge of bridging that divide - on criminal justice reform.

Legislation I have championed for five years, Earn Your Way Out, is the most significant criminal justice reform proposal in America and has support from progressives and conservatives. It has passed the state Senate and Assembly and just needs Senate concurrence in Assembly amendments and Gov. Phil Murphys signature to become law.

Earn Your Way Out will give inmates an opportunity to become better persons when they leave prison than when they entered - by beginning a reentry program upon entry into prison that will give them a day off their sentence for every six days an inmate participates in education, job training, therapy and community service programs.

Its a program that will save millions of tax dollars and, at the same time, better prepare inmates for a successful law-abiding reentry into society. America has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prison population and three of 10 released from prison return to prison in three years. These numbers not only reflect upon the prisoner, but directly affect the prisoners family and community, in addition to costing taxpayers over $60,000 a year to incarcerate and individual.

Earn Your Way Out also includes presumptive parole, which grants parole on presumptive parole dates to inmates who have not had serious offenses while in prison. Violent prisoners with No Early Release Date Sentences will still be held to their original sentences and be subject to review by the Parole Board before being eligible for release from prison.

With Presumptive Parole, New Jerseys bloated Parole Board with 13 full-time members who benefit from political patronage appointments -- and work just three-to-five hours many days for salaries of $116,000 to $123,000 a year, plus cars, four weeks vacation and full health and pension benefits --- will have its workload reduced by 75%, hopefully persuading the Legislature and governor to likewise reduce its size and use the tax dollars more effectively by hiring full-time professional parole officers to supervise ex-offenders and help them lead law abiding lives.

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group in the United States funded by David Koch and Charles Koch agree. As the Koch brothers primary political advocacy group, it is one of the most influential American conservative organizations. At a recent Assembly Appropriations Committee meeting, Tyler Koteskey, criminal justice policy analyst at Americans for Prosperity, said, Earn Your Way Out would give inmates with a track record of good behavior and a desire for rehabilitation additional opportunities to accrue compliance credits against their sentence and a pathway to a streamlined administrative parole release.

While New Jerseyans who commit crimes should be held accountable, they dont benefit from policies that incarcerate those ready to re enter their communities longer than is necessary. And at per-inmate incarceration costs of over $60,000 per year, neither do New Jersey taxpayers. By allowing administrative parole for lower level, well-behaved offenders who have sought out rehabilitative programming, Earn Your Way Out will give more New Jerseyans in the correctional system the opportunity to turn their lives around, contribute to their communities, and reunite with their families.

Earn Your Way Out also tasks the state Department of Corrections with creating a Division of Reentry Services, which will help inmates prepare for release and connect them with resources tailored to a variety of potential individual needs, such as mental health, substance abuse, employment, or education. Connecting inmates with these individualized services will go a long way in improving New Jerseys recidivism rate and continuing to reduce taxpayer burdens. By ensuring New Jersey sentencing is more proportional to offenders individual circumstances, we can avoid these drawbacks and make our state a more just place."

Koteskey said, "I applaud Earn Your Way Outs effort to provide earlier second chances. Its an important step forward for New Jersey that stands to benefit both reentering citizens and taxpayers alike.

Conservative Americans For Prosperity and New Jerseys progressive sponsors of Earn Your Way Out, Senator Sandra Cunningham and Assemblywoman Savada Sumpter, have united progressives and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, a rare occurrence these days. Earn Your Way Out has brought both political philosophies together. It should occur more frequently.

Raymond (Ray) Lesniak served in the State Senate from 1983 to 2018 and in the General Assembly from 1978 to 1983.

The Star-Ledger/NJ.com encourages submissions of opinion. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.coms newsletters.

View original post here:
Lesniak: Both conservatives and progressives agree on this criminal justice reform - NJ.com

DECEMBER 1, 2019

WHEN I WAS a seventh grader in Queens, New York, an entire unit of social studies class was devoted to Israel. I remember reverently tracing the map of the young Jewish state. Its creation story was inspiring: the Jewish nation rose like a phoenix from the ashes of genocide. I had recently learned from my parents that these ashes included their families, killed in Treblinka and Auschwitz.

The year was 1960. I was 13, a transplant to America from the Displaced Persons camp in Germany in which I was born and that served as home for my first four years. Israel was the antidote to my familys history of despair. Zionists were the visionaries and pioneers who gave birth to the Land of Milk and Honey and made the desert bloom noble warriors who fought and won the battle for Israel against its surrounding enemies.

Sixty years later, this narrative has been largely erased and replaced. Zionism has become a dirty word synonymous with racism, apartheid, and oppression; the white Europeans who established an outpost of Western colonialism in a land belonging exclusively to dark-skinned Arabs. Jewish settlers in Palestine have been cast as imperialists in a land to which they have no moral claim.

How did this story change so drastically? In a word: occupation. Six million dead in the Holocaust made Jews the worlds greatest victims, deserving of their own state as an antidote to a history of genocidal persecution. But as the memory of the Holocaust faded, and especially after the 1967 War of self-defense resulting in the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, this story flipped. The victims became the victors. Palestinians languishing in refugee camps drew the worlds sympathies.

The occupation has been a disaster for Palestinians. The relentless expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, balkanization of Palestinian land, denial of water rights, and daily indignities suffered by Palestinians have made their struggle a legitimate cause for justice-seeking progressives. Over the years, Israel has continued to expand its settlements with an eye toward geographical growth and border security. Like the Arab and Muslim nations that could not tolerate a Jewish state in their midst in 1948, Israels current leadership can no longer tolerate the idea of a truly independent Palestinian state.

At the same time, the occupation, for many progressives today, refers not to 1967 but to 1948. The demonization of Israel has gathered steam over the years and is the backbone of the PC brand of antisemitic anti-Zionism that flourishes today, in which the ancient animosity toward Jews as a race has been transposed to Israel as a nation.

Hence, an important question for leftists. In the context of Israeli military domination and West Bank expansionism, can a legitimate case be made for a progressive Zionism?

For anyone who believes that Jewish nationalism is as defensible as any other nationalism, the answer is yes, but a complicated yes. Defending Zionism without condemning the occupation and supporting a Palestinian state is untenable. But so too is supporting the Palestinian struggle for statehood without condemning the antisemitic elements of Nazi-influenced Arab nationalism and its existential threat to Israel.

Extremists on both sides have a lot in common. Just as extremist Israel supporters deny the validity of any criticism of Israel and dub it antisemitic, so extremist Palestinian supporters deny the validity of any support for Israel and call it racist. In the either/or framework of these partisans, there is no room for a viewpoint that is sympathetic to both Jews and Arabs. One must choose sides in a zero-sum game.

Whats been lost in all the heat on this subject is the simple truth that Zionism is a nationalist movement for Jewish liberation crossing a wide swath of other ideologies. Some of the first pioneers were socialists, for whom the dream of a Jewish state was synonymous with an end to all forms of economic and racial exploitation and oppression. Some were Jewish fundamentalists who believed that Eretz Yisrael had been promised to the ancient Israelites by God. Most were adamantly secular, insisting that Jews must reject their traditional Old Country passivity, arm themselves in their own country, and never again allow themselves to be rounded up for mass murder.

All agreed that if Jews had a nation of their own, where they werent subject to the laws and traditions of entrenched European antisemitism, they would be safe to live their lives as Jews. The Zionist aim was the ingathering of threatened diaspora Jews to the land in which they had a continuous presence from antiquity, a return to a cherished homeland.

It is this fundamental Zionist idea that many progressives have discredited and that should now be defended with the same passion as it was in 1948.

Given the alarming rise of antisemitism on the right, the left, and in Muslim immigrant communities in the United States and Europe, the defense of the original Zionist vision of Israel as a safe haven for the worlds Jews is more urgent now than at any time since the Holocaust era.

A neutral description of the 100-year clash between Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine is that of a war of competing nationalisms. A landless people persecuted, scapegoated, and expelled in their host countries, Jews were propelled to Zionism as a solution to the problem of antisemitism. Palestinians, in their own nationalist struggle against the British Empire, saw Jewish settlers as an alien European force in cahoots with the British, no different from any other white colonialists (a painful historical irony, considering that Jews were not considered white by the Nazis, most Jews in Israel are black Middle Eastern Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, and, far from being indistinguishable from the white British colonizers of the region, European Jews were also fighting the British for their own independent state).

Three wars, two intifadas, several failed attempts at peacemaking brokered by the United States, hundreds of attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and suicide bombers and retaliatory attacks by the Israel military, six decades of the expanding occupation and of an ideological rumble that takes no prisoners none of these events have succeeded in substantially altering this long war.

Israel is the military victor, for now. But Palestinians have been the winner of the ongoing propaganda war. In social justice movements in the United States and Europe, the BDS movement to dismantle Israel and erect a binational state has become an article of faith. Some go so far as to declare that you cant be a real feminist, anti-racist, or progressive of any kind if you dont support the mutation of Israel. For Jews like me, the call to rub out the only Jewish nation in the world resounds with terrible echoes from the past.

Jewish nationalism or Palestinian nationalism which do you legitimize and which do you invalidate? Decades of vitriolic verbal war between partisans on both sides indicate that the answer often hinges on the unstated passions, prejudices, and fears that dictate a compulsive, non-empathic emotional attachment to our side. The more important question, not asked by extremists on either side, is: Why must this be an either/or choice?

Jewish nationalism is as legitimate as Palestinian or any other nationalism no more and no less. When all countries founded on the displacement of ethnic, religious, tribal, or native groups renounce their right to exist, Israel should be among them. Until then, the struggle for human rights must include the support for Jewish national survival alongside a Palestinian state not a binational state that would nullify Israel and invite a war of ethnic cleansing on both sides. Progressives should be able to call themselves Zionist without being shamed, shunned, attacked, and vilified, as they are on American campuses and in progressive circles here and abroad.For a vivid description of the latter, see The New York Times op-ed written by a Jewish student at George Washington University, On the Frontlines of Progressive Anti-Semitism.

While there may be disagreements over strategy, progressive Zionism is a both/and perspective that calls for an end to West Bank expansionism and Palestinian terrorism. To be a progressive Zionist is to have the courage to challenge Israel to clean its house of racist policies toward Palestinians while also calling on anti-Zionists to clean up their antisemitism. It condemns both the racist leadership of Netanyahu as well as the incitements to anti-Israel violence from Hamas. It envisions Jerusalem as a shared capital of two nations.In a recent article in Jewish Currents, How to Fight Antisemitism, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders rejects the idea that there is an inherent contradiction between supporting both Israel and Palestinian independence.

This opens the door to coalitions of progressive Palestinians and Israelis as well as black, Muslim, and Jewish social activists that conjointly resist prejudice in all forms a badly needed antidote to the identity wars dividing the left and the nation. Progressive Zionists know that antisemitism and racism together are the core of white supremacist ideology. These connected bigotries split progressive forces, thereby feeding the rise of fascism here and abroad.

Progressive Zionists have persisted since the creation of Israel. I remember the rancorous struggles of 1970s New Leftists between those of us who demanded two states for two peoples, and those who wanted Israel to disappear. Today organizations like J Street, a progressive alternative to AIPAC in the Jewish community that is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, Tikkun magazine and its Network of Spiritual Progressives, and a host of other groups supporting Israeli/Palestinian unity have been continuous voices for sanity, solidarity, and peace.

A hopeful recent development began with the 2017 launch of Zioness, a group of feminist activists that spoke out against antisemitism in the Womens March leadership and other left demonstrations. Its mission is to empower Jews to be activists in the struggle to advance social, racial, economic, and gender justice in the United States without trying to hide their Jewishness or their Zionism. Its slogan sums it all up: Unabashedly Progressive. Unapologetically Zionist. You can indeed be both.

Miriam Greenspan is the author of A New Approach to Women and Therapy and Healing Through the Dark Emotions: The Wisdom of Grief, Fear, and Despair.

Banner image: Jerusalem Temple Mount view from Mount of Olives by brionv is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

See the article here:
The Case for Progressive Zionism - lareviewofbooks

Leading Democrats are feeling the heat from black and Latino parents as the party's establishment and 2020 candidates turn their backs on charter schools, the New York Times reported.

"These are folks that should be champions of black children and allies of black educators," said Richard Buery to the Times.

Buery, who is the chief of policy at KIPP, the nation's largest charter network, described the Democrats' shift on the issue as "a reflection more broadly of the lack of respect for black voters in the party."

The concerns from parents and educators come as presidential candidates, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have pledged to cut school choice options that are popular in minority communities. As the Times noted, former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg omit the schools in their education platforms and have expressed concerns with them. In 2019, House Democrats voted to cut funding for school choice.

Democrats favored charter schools during Bill Clinton's presidency in the 1990s. Their current about-face on the issue is driven by the growing influence of progressives within the party and candidates seeking endorsements from influential teachers unions who oppose them.

This is pitting white progressive Democrats, who are increasingly skeptical of school choice, against minority voters who support them. Several recent polls demonstrate the sharp racial divisions on the issue among Democrats.

Similarly, a poll from commissioned by Education Next found that among black and Hispanic Democrats' "support for charter schools held steady from 2016 to 2018," while "approval tanked" among white Democrats, dropping from 43 to 27 percent.

Minority voters are speaking out against Democrats' growing opposition to school choice options for low-income families.

Sonia Tyler told the Times, "As a single mom with two jobs and five hustles, I'm just feeling kind of desperate." Adding: "They're brilliant; they're curious. It's not fair. Why shouldn't I have a choice?"

Several weeks ago, a group of concerned black parents heckled Warren at a campaign event in Atlanta. Warren later spoke to one of the protestors who told her they only want the same opportunity the presidential candidate enjoyed of sending her children to private schools. The presidential candidate then falsely claimed her children only attended public schools.

School choice has also become a major issue in local and state races. In2018, progressive Democrat Andrew Gillum ran for governor of Florida opposed to charter programs with heavy backing from teachers unions. An analysis in the Wall Street Journal later concluded the issue may have tipped the race in favor of his rival, Republican Ron DeSantis.

As school choice advocate William Mattox noted, "Believe it or not, Republican Ron DeSantis owes his victory in the Florida gubernatorial election to about 100,000 African-American women who unexpectedly chose him over the black Democratic candidate, Andrew Gillum."

See the original post here:
Minority parents rip Dems as they side with white progressives against charter schools - TheBlaze

Some have more dollars than sense, they say, so even companies that have no revenue, no profit, and a record of falling short, can easily find investors. And in their study titled Who Falls Prey to the Wolf of Wall Street? Leuz et. al. found that it is quite common for investors to lose money by buying into pump and dump schemes.

In contrast to all that, I prefer to spend time on companies like Progressive (NYSE:PGR), which has not only revenues, but also profits. Now, Im not saying that the stock is necessarily undervalued today; but I cant shake an appreciation for the profitability of the business itself. Loss-making companies are always racing against time to reach financial sustainability, but time is often a friend of the profitable company, especially if it is growing.

Check out our latest analysis for Progressive

If you believe that markets are even vaguely efficient, then over the long term youd expect a companys share price to follow its earnings per share (EPS). Its no surprise, then, that I like to invest in companies with EPS growth. I, for one, am blown away by the fact that Progressive has grown EPS by 47% per year, over the last three years. Growth that fast may well be fleeting, but like a lotus blooming from a murky pond, it sparks joy for the wary stock pickers.

Careful consideration of revenue growth and earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) margins can help inform a view on the sustainability of the recent profit growth. Progressive maintained stable EBIT margins over the last year, all while growing revenue 17% to US$36b. Thats progress.

The chart below shows how the companys bottom and top lines have progressed over time.

Fortunately, weve got access to analyst forecasts of Progressives future profits. You can do your own forecasts without looking, or you can take a peek at what the professionals are predicting.

We would not expect to see insiders owning a large percentage of a US$43b company like Progressive. But we do take comfort from the fact that they are investors in the company. Indeed, they have a glittering mountain of wealth invested in it, currently valued at US$140m. I would find that kind of skin in the game quite encouraging, if I owned shares, since it would ensure that the leaders of the company would also experience my success, or failure, with the stock.

Progressives earnings per share growth have been levitating higher, like a mountain goat scaling the Alps. That EPS growth certainly has my attention, and the large insider ownership only serves to further stoke my interest. At times fast EPS growth is a sign the business has reached an inflection point; and I do like those. So yes, on this short analysis I do think its worth considering Progressive for a spot on your watchlist. Now, you could try to make up your mind on Progressive by focusing on just these factors, or you could also consider how its price-to-earnings ratio compares to other companies in its industry.

You can invest in any company you want. But if you prefer to focus on stocks that have demonstrated insider buying, here is a list of companies with insider buying in the last three months.

Please note the insider transactions discussed in this article refer to reportable transactions in the relevant jurisdiction

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.

View post:
I Built A List Of Growing Companies And Progressive (NYSE:PGR) Made The Cut - Simply Wall St