Mediaboss Marketing

Just about every week, I contact my State Delegate, begging him to a) speak out and do everything in his power to oppose the pipelines, and b) refuse to take money from Dominion Power. And yet, he hasnt agreed to do either. Its frustrating and disheartening sometimes. Many of my friends know my arguments (heck, my 8 year old son can explain it): these pipelines are bad for our environment, bad for our water quality, dont help anywhere near the numbers of people they claim to help, and most importantly to me, they use eminent domain laws to strip historic land from African American families whove owned it since they were freed from slavery. Its a heartbreaking issue, and one that is very important to me.

So, will I not vote for my Delegate this year then?

Oh, is that where you thought this was going? You couldnt be farther from the truth! I absolutely adore my Delegate, and he knows it! He has my vote for as long as he runs. If a Republican challenged him, Id be the first person out campaigning my tail off for him. Id give him my time, my money, and my energy. In fact, and I had to think about this one for a minute, if he were primaried by a Democrateven if that Democrat opposed the pipelines and refused Dominion moneyI would still not change my vote.

Does that mean the pipelines arent really that important to me? No, they really are one of the most important issues being decided right now. And this is not a single issueit cuts across economic justice, environmentalism, economics, social justice.

So why will I still vote for my Delegate? For one thing, because hes outstanding on so many other issues. He had the worst batting average of anyone in the House last year, and given that progressives are in a very small minority there, I consider that a badge of honor. Second, he works his tail off, all year round, serving my town, and Virginia. Theres rarely a minute outside of his real job (the one that almost all of our legislators still have to hold down, because we dont actually pay legislators a living wage, since its technically a part-year job) that he isnt meeting with constituents or attending events or speaking truth to power all over social media.

But the most important reason I would still walk through walls for my Delegate is that every week I contact him about this pipeline/Dominion issue that matters so much to me. And every week, he genuinely listens to me. He doesnt patronize me or attempt to diminish my strong views on this. The fact that we can have this back and forth dialogue about issues we differ on is exactly how democracy SHOULD work. Its up to us as representees to convince representers.

So, where does that leave me with Ralph Northam? Well, he has my vote, for reason number one above. Thats been true since the minute he won the primary. But for me to get from there to walk through walls? Well, theres a little ways to go on that for me, more of that number three reason needs to happen. Its not about some purity test; its about him being my representative, my voice, and to do that he needs to listen.

Northam made a start a week ago, attending an energy discussion in Arlington where he stayed and took questionsmostly about the pipelinesfor an hour. And sure enough, I found myself just a couple days later, arguing online with someone (a Democrat) about why they should vote for him. It turns out its not that hard to inspire people and turn out your baseyou just have to be willing to listen to them!

Read more from the original source:
Pipeline Voting for Progressives - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

This article originally appeared on AlterNet

The worlds most pervasive form of exploitation, along with its resultant environmental harm, cant be laid at the feet of Republicans, conservatives or those we define as bigots in our society. Thats because both sides of the aisle participate in the needless consumption of animals.

Consumers are increasingly made aware that countless sentient beings, just like companion dogs and cats, are abused and slaughtered for products we dont really need. Marketers convince the public that animal exploitation is necessary to sustain human life. But its not true.

This profiteering is a byproduct of unchecked capitalism, producing food products thatcausecancer, contribute to obesity and exacerbate the diabetes crisis.

Public consciousness is sorely lagging on the issue. Standing against the exploitation of sentient beings outside our own species is often considered superfluous by progressives who embrace radical thought in other areas. Its not uncommon to hear a supposed liberal accuse vegans of not caring enough about humans.

The evasive rhetoric is familiar: a class of beings is rendered invisible by others who view their bodies as a means to an end. This is the same thinking that propagated a system of human slavery in the U.S., a system thatcontinuestoday as mass incarceration. In fact, the economy of animal agriculture runs directly parallel to the prison-industrial complex. Sentient life is commodified, stripped of personhood and traded as property for a ruling class.

The exploitation of animals by humans is a stunning example of progressive deference to the normalcy of oppression. Even staunch conservative Charles Krauthammer isahead of most progressiveson animal rights. We need a consumption revolution.

Some progressives are starting to take notice and acknowledge that the systemic exploitation of billions of animals a year for profit is a disgraceful problem. A Saloneditorial by Steven Stankeviciusoutlinedthe reasons New Atheists are engaging in overt hypocrisy when they knowingly contribute to atrocity while decrying the beliefs of others as contributors to this atrocity.

Dr. Melanie Joy, a social psychologist and author who serves as a professor at University of Massachusetts Boston, developed ahypothesisto explain why humans seem to hit a moral brick wall when confronted with their treatment of other species. Joy compares the normalization of animal exploitation to patriarchy; both represent ideologies that arent often recognized because theyre so dominant. This comparison should probably be credited to Carol Adams, whose groundbreaking 1990 book The Sexual Politics of Meat remains an influential text of both feminist and animal rights literature.

A study released by Lancaster University confirms the observations made by Joy and Adams. The collaborative efforts of U.S. and Australian researchersfoundthat people who consume animals are more likely to support social inequality.

Many well-meaning people believe that giving up meat addresses the entire issue. But the treatment of animals as property for any reason is the real problem.

Some of the most egregious animal welfare violations occur in the production of dairy products and eggs. Our consumption of dairy milk requires a cycle of brutality in which the cow is repeatedly forcibly impregnated, her calves taken from her, and eventually, when her milk production dwindles, she suffers a violent death. Chickens farmed for eggs are among themost abused animalson the planet.

Beyond the animal abuses associated with the production of food, clothing and other products, animal agriculture, including the resources used to sustain it, is aleading causeof global climate change. The atmosphere doesnt distinguish between meat, dairy or leather. Farmed animals increase greenhouse gas emissions just by being bred into existence.

The United Nations is finally conceding that what started as an ethical problem has metastasized into an existential threat to human beings. A U.N.reportstates that moving away from animal consumption is imperative to avoid the worst-case scenario for global poverty, hunger and climate change-related impacts.

We progressives are faced with a choice between living our stated ideology or upholding the status quo each time we sit down to a meal. A serious anti-oppression movement cant have the bodies and byproducts of exploited beings on its plate while claiming moral superiority. If we continue to exploit animals while protesting oppression, then the conservatives are right about us were a movement of hypocrites.

Visit link:
If we can't defend animal rights, we don't deserve to call ourselves progressives - Salon

The events in Charlottesville have rocked the nation in a way it hasn't seen in years, maybe decades. If anything it should motivate the public to take a step back. Yes, a step back in every sense of the word. Step back in terms of national identity, generational progress, and perceived equality. It's hard to admit that, as a nation, we cannot simply plow ahead. Most people know what is right, just, peaceful, and equal, but it's about what to do next. A step back provides a perspective on the next two steps, and the first of the two may need to be a step to the side.

The concept of Conservatism, in my view, has three basic positions: throw society back to a previous time completely, keep society as it is right now, and preserve the core values of society while letting inefficient or ugly offshoot values go. Most conservative thought resides in the latter two with a significant lean towards the third. In this mindset the conservative voice must be careful from moving too quickly. It is cautious of change because history shows that not all change is speaking to the core values of humanity. And so, there must be a constant revision of how those values shine in society at large.

Of course this does not operate in a vacuum, yet in the pull of the opposing side. The United States is a two party system, which operates a check on one another. Conservatives generally want to slow the cart down not knowing if there is a cliff up ahead, and progressives warn if the cart is not moving fast enough it will get stuck in the mud. As this tug of war happens, progressives will see a need for change and find the shortest route to pull the cart. At the same time, being cautious of change, conservatives would like to consult a map. Either position when taken alone is unwise. It can lead to the wrong turn having the cart facing the wrong way, or it spends time with an outdated point of view that stops the cart while ignoring looming disaster. Essentially, progressives can't pull the cart out of the mud without conservatives, and conservatives can't follow a safe path without progressives.

In recent events, there should be no question in which way the cart should move. Hate is not a core value. It doesn't take deep revision of American history or American values to see that fascism, in particular Nazism, is nothing to conserve. It doesn't take deep revision to see that a confederate flag is not simply a symbol of counter mainstream identity. Many communities are revising symbols of their values for today, tomorrow, and the next generation. It doesn't mean they are changing history, but coming to terms with history. It doesn't mean they are they are smashing culture, but conserving a more accurate map of culture.

Conservative revision is progressive in power rather than amount. It must constantly restate the values it believes and check them over and over again. Some are doing this better than others apparent in how the latest adversity revealed their character. Violence is not the answer, but violence will happen if we don't move the cart to clearer skies and safer ground. Conserve our values by taking a step back so we can find a sure path forward. Rather than add dead weight, a leader should denounce evil and move the country out of the mud.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more from the original source:
Conservatives are Powerful Progressives - HuffPost

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) / Getty Images

BY: Cameron Cawthorne August 18, 2017 8:46 am

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.)told activists at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend that progressives are the"heart and soul" of the Democratic Party, but moderate Democrats are pushing back against Warren's claim.

Several Democratic strategists, donors, and political organizers from across the country criticized Warren for her claim about a liberal takeover and said that Democrats can't win in swing states with progressive candidates, according to TheHill:

The clash is further proof of the divide in the party after 2016s disappointment. Even as they face a Republican Party torn over how to deal with President Trump, Democrats are still trying to figure out what kind of a party they are.

The Obama and Clinton supporters say they have grown tired of having to deal with fighting over progressivism and 1990s-era battles over former President Bill Clintons work on welfare and criminal justice reform, which were campaign issues last year and subjects of criticism by Warren just last week.

"We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states," former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D., Calif.) said.

Tauscher, the leader of the"Fight Back California" super PAC aimed at winningback seven House seats in California, said that welfare and criminal justice reform is a "tired, old debate."

"And it's certainly not going to help us win," she said. "Our party should be looking to expand the tent. If we divide ourselves, we're doing our opponents' jobs for them."

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D., Nev.) strategist Jim Manley said several progressive issues have become popular in the party, but he said that the party is in a rebuilding process.

"I don't think we as a party can be casting too many people aside," Manley said. "We need to figure out how to grow and bring everybody together. I realize that's happy talk but that's the reality. When you start talking about purity tests, that's a little problematic."

Following Warren's speech at Netroots, the New York Timespublished an article about Warren taking aim at moderates,which said that she "sent an unambiguous message that she believes the Clinton effort to push Democrats toward the political center should be relegated to history."

Warren's spokeswoman Kristen Orthman pushed back against this narrative by pointing to a part in Warren's speech where she talks about Democrats not"wast[ing] energy arguing about whose issue matters most or who in our alliance should be voted off the island," the Hill reported.

Democratic strategist Brad Bannon defended Warren's comments by saying that progressives "are the dominant voice in the party."

"She definitely will inherit the Sanders vote," Bannon said. "And I think a candidate who is willing to speak their mind and talk like Warren does have a better chance than a centrist who is calculating about everything he or she says. I don't think the electorate wants someone calculating They had cool and calculating with Hillary Clinton."

A Gallup poll earlier this week shows that 6 in 10 liberal respondents have favorable views of Warren, but the poll also shows that Americans are split in their support for her. 34 percent of Americans view her positively compared to 31 percent whoview her negatively.

Warren is fighting to preserve herself as the progressive voice for the Democratic Party in a potential 2020 presidential bid.

"Shes fighting not only for her own space but shes fighting to win the argument, and I have no problem with that," Manley said. "Thats what this party is all about."

Excerpt from:
Moderate Democrats Push Back Against Warren's Claim That Progressives are 'Heart and Soul' of Party - Washington Free Beacon

All statues must goeven ones erected to the president who led the effort to abolish slavery through the 13th Amendment. The president who kept this country together during one of the most turbulent time in our history. Hes our greatest president full stop. And yet, someone decided to vandalize Abraham Lincoln in Chicago (via NBC Chicago):

An Abraham Lincoln was damaged and burned in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood late Wednesday, Ald. Ray Lopez said.

The statue was found burned near 69th Street and Wolcott, authorities said.

"What an absolute disgraceful act of vandalism," Lopez wrote on Facebook along with an image of the charred structure. He encouraged anyone who has information on what happened to contact police or his office "immediately."

The statue, a bust of Lincoln, was erected by Phil Bloomquist on Aug. 31, 1926.

It is one of many that have been vandalized across the country in wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia and the president's comments that followed.

On Tuesday, someone vandalized the Lincoln Memorial, writing "F--- law" in red spray paint on a pillar at the monument.

Was because people didnt care? People who dont know history? It really doesnt matter. At the same time, liberals do have a penchant for forgetting history, or using it for political purposes when it suits their aims. In this case, everyone just realized that Confederate statues were bad, bad things, despite them being in plain view of the public for decades. Its a way to paint President Trump and Republicans as racist. In other ways, its just another day that ends in y. It also shows that not even Lincoln is safe from this insanity.

View original post here:
Progressives Gone Wild? Abraham Lincoln Statue Vandalized in Chicago - Townhall