Mediaboss Marketing

By Moira Walsh on January 28, 2017

The war on drugs has always been a war on people. Mostly poor people of color, like many of my constituents.

As Richard Nixons aide John Ehrlichman admitted, the war on drugs was originally launched to target anti-war leftists and black communities. The disproportionate enforcement of drug laws against poor communities of color continues today. Plenty of my constituents are held back by a minor marijuana offense on their record. And the data backs this up. The ACLU reports that people of color in Rhode Island are almost three times more likely to be arrested for drugs.

With the opportunity to legalize marijuana this year, Rhode Island stands on the verge of knocking down one of the central pillars of the war on drugs in our state. But well need progressives to fight for it in order to win. Some assume that marijuana will legalize itself, because its inevitable. Im here to tell you, its not inevitable. Just like every other important political issue, we have to fight for it.

We need progressives in the trenches this year not only to ensure the legislation is passed, but also to make sure its done the right way. Marijuana in the underground market is a vital source of income for some people, mostly people who are young and poor with few other economic opportunities. Its up to progressives to ensure that we end the war on marijuana in a way that doesnt leave those vulnerable communities behind.

Fortunately, the primary sponsors of the legislation seem to understand this. Although there are some ways to strengthen the legislation in its current form, the bill proposed by Rep. Slater and Sen. Miller contains provisions that seek to promote diversity and inclusion of people of color within the legal marijuana economy.

But when the bill moves forward, there will be an amendment process. This will present an opportunity to propose even more progressive provisions, but it is also a chance for opponents to eliminate the good ones already there. Progressives need to get behind the bill to ensure the final product is just and fair. If we sit on the sidelines, either the bill will not pass and the war on marijuana will continue or the bill may pass in a way that prevents people of color from participating in the newly formed marijuana economy.

Legalizing marijuana is clearly a winning issue for progressives. What is risky is allowing low-hanging fruit to go unpicked. Its very clear that in this moment of resistance our constituents want their elected leaders to stand up and fight for issues they care about. Failing to support an issue that is so commonsense and so popular will only reinforce the idea that Democrats are weak and spineless.

So this is a call to my fellow Democrats and progressives: join me and fight to end the war on marijuana in Rhode Island this year. Help me ensure that we undo a major piece of the war on drugs, and help me do it in a way that does not reproduce racial discrimination in the legal marijuana market. Be part of the process to ensure that justice is achieved. We can do this together.

VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Posted in Featured, Marijuana, State House | Tagged cannabis, marijuana |

Read more:
Progressives must mobilize to end the war on cannabis - RI Future

Imagine if President Trump announced that he wanted to oust California from the United States. If it weren't for us, after all, Trump would have won the popular vote he so lusts after by 1.4 million. Blue America would lose its biggest source of electoral votes in all future elections. The Senate would have two fewer Democrats. The House of Representatives would lose 38 Democrats and just 14 Republicans. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, among the most liberal in the nation, would be changed irrevocably. And the U.S. as a whole would suddenly be a lot less ethnically diverse than it is today.

For those reasons, Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Republicans with White House ambitions, opponents of legalizing marijuana, advocates of criminalizing abortion and various white nationalist groups might all conclude for different reasons that they would benefit politically from a separation, even as liberals and progressives across America would correctly see it as a catastrophe.

So it makes sense that the leader of the Yes California Independence Campaign, Marcus Ruiz Evans, was contrary to popular assumptions a registered Republican when he formed the separatist group two years ago, according to the San Jose Mercury News. He briefly hosted conservative talk radio shows in Fresno, and would not tell the newspaper if he voted for Trump.

And yet hes pitching independence to Golden State progressives. In a Mercury News op-ed article, Evans announced that his organization will soon start circulating a petition for a Calexit vote and thus begin the long, multi-step process for withdrawal from the United States. Californians are better educated, wealthier, more liberal, and value healthcare and education more than the rest of the country, he argued. Our views on education, science, immigration, taxation and healthcare are different.

The Yes California Independence website, moreover, is clearly addressed to Trump-haters, some of whom tweeted out support for a Calexit after election day. If Trumps enemies go down this road, he doesnt need friends.

At a moment of great urgency, as a subset of those who govern us veer toward authoritarianism, Yes California Independence is sucking up attention on a gambit that is highly unlikely to succeed, and that existentially threatens Democrats if it does. The 2018 midterms could change the course of U.S. history. They will determine whether Trump will continue to govern without meaningful restraint from congressional Republicans who've abandoned conservative principles to exploit his populism or face a newly invigorated opposition party willing to investigate his conflicts of interest.

Theres a huge downside to the Calexit movement, and no real upside.

For decades California has exerted more influence on American politics and culture than vice versa. Secession would not improve our values. But it would practically ensure that the rest of the U.S. would drift farther away from our laid-back tolerance and easygoing diversity. And they'd still be our neighbors, geographic reality unchanged by political independence.

It reminds me of the old joke about a libertarian complaining to a conservative about civil liberties violations in America. "Bah! Love it or leave it," the conservative scolds. "What," the libertarian retorts, "and subject myself to its abusive foreign policy?"

Many of the arguments offered by the Yes California Independence Committee dont even pass a sniff test. "California has some of the best universities," one talking point begins, "but in various ways, our schools are among the worst in the country." If most other states are outperforming us in education, why would secession be necessary for improvement?

"California is a global leader on environmental issues," another item begins. "However, as long as the other states continue debating whether or not climate change is real, they will continue holding up real efforts to reduce carbon emissions." But if the United States minus California continues to do little or nothing nothing to combat climate change, Californians along with the rest of the world will suffer.

Evans acknowledged some of the dangers that secession invites in his newspaper op-ed article, though he naively dismissed all of them. "No one is going to pull money out of California if it secedes," he wrote, apparently oblivious to the fact that several major companies have already pulled out of the state and moved to cheaper ones even without the costs secession would impose.

"If the banks are too big to fail," he declared, "then a top 10 economy is too." But the banks did fail! And the odds of a Washington bailout would be rather slim once we cut ties. We'd be more like Greece to its Germany nicer weather, sure, but that ain't everything.

And did I mention Colorado River water?

The main benefit of a California exit would be psychic. There is a subset of people here, mostly from the privileged classes, who feel sullied by their political affiliation with Red America. Secession would boost their sense of personal virtue.

The Calexit movement is trying to exploit that.

But satisfying the urge for ideological purity would come at a very dear cost: a worse life for many millions of Californians and tens of millions of Americans.

Conor Friedersdorf is a contributing writer to Opinion, a staff writer at the Atlantic and founding editor of the Best of Journalism, a newsletter that curates exceptional nonfiction.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionorFacebook

MORE FROM OPINION

What happens to democracy when the experts cant be both factual and balanced?

See the rest here:
'Calexit' would be a disaster for progressive values - Los Angeles Times

Whenever someones candidate does not win an election, theres a period of disappointment that follows, which turns into acceptance before everyone, for the most part, moves on.

Stories of people waking up the day after the November election with feelings of distress and despair were not uncommon for chunks of communities across the United States. But as that despair turned, progressives found a way, a means to channel their energy and theyre taking the example of an unlikely group that did a similar effort years ago, the Tea Party.

At first, those now involved in these efforts deal with thoughts and emotions stemming from the results of the election.

After the election, we were all in the doldrums and bummed out, said Mike Balay of Newtown Square. He turned off the news, focused on family during the holidays and then, on Jan. 4, he saw a segment on Rachel Maddow that resonated with him.

Advertisement

It was the first time he heard of the Indivisible Guide, a website and document written by former congressional staffers that analyzed the tactics that were effectively used by the Tea Party and could be used in deflecting policies in this administration.

Balay said he recalled thinking, I can deal with this. This makes sense to me.

That weekend, he was gathering with friends at Lisa Goldsteins home in Radnor as part of a reunion for those who worked to get out the vote for Hillary Clinton in the Marple/Newtown area.

Despite the snow, 40 people attended.

At that meeting, 15 or 20 people signed up to actively volunteer, Goldstein said.

That initial gathering has become what is now the Indivisible Main Line South group, covering Newtown, Marple, Edgmont and parts of Radnor. Dozens of others have sprouted up throughout the Delaware Valley region.

The thing that really appealed to me about this approach to things is this notion of a community of people with common values and common interests, Balay said. Its not political, per se. Its not about party politics. Its about a local community working together very inclusive, very diverse and basically focusing on issues. The concept of Indivisible is to bring us all together.

Goldstein agreed.

Indivisible captured in its very name that we needed to not be divided, we needed to be united in our resistance, she said.

That is being energized by the actions of the president.

The back-handed benefit of what Donald Trump has done is hes created kind of a lightning rod to drum energy into this community of people who say Ive got to do something, Balay said.

When she was participating in the Womens March on Washington, Goldstein saw the words of Martin Luther King Jr. on signs and they reverberated with her. One was, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

And, she also thought of Elie Wiesel when he said, We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

Balay and Goldstein explained how it works.

He said his group has a leadership team of himself, Abu Rahman, Ed Goss and Sarah Dunn with about 120 people, broken into areas of interest. Their main focus at this time is engaging their federal legislators, U.S. Sens. Robert Casey, D-Pa., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-7, of Chadds Ford.

Its our job to hold them accountable and to be representative of all their constituents, whatever their political leanings are, they still have a responsibility to represent all of their constituents, Balay said. Were basically holding their feet to the fire literally every day somebodys calling, somebodys logging onto the website, somebody is showing up at their office or were demonstrating.

Goldstein said, We believe in talking the talk and walking the walk. Its making a phone call to your rep. Show up at their office. Show up at an event.

Balay added, It really is to resist the parts of the Trump and Republican agenda that are racist, they are non-democratic and impinge upon equal rights for all communities. Things that impact, in my own view, and undermine the pillars of our democracy.

Both said interest continues to grow, and Balay said he receives two or three requests every day from those wanting to get involved.

Goldstein said, I talk about it in the supermarket, I talk about it everywhere I go.

Balay said it doesnt take much.

It doesnt have to be a full-time job, he said. It shouldnt be a full-time job. If you think you can commit a few hours a week or a few hours every couple weeks, you could constructively be part of this group.

Much of this approach was taken from the example of the Tea Party, although the Indivisibles say there are differences.

I dont agree with what the Tea Party stood for or many of their tactics, but they were effective, Goldstein said. They were effective. Look where we are eight years later. It worked.

However, Balay said, The one thing were not like the Tea Party is were respectful to our representatives, were respectful to the supporters of our representatives, even the Trumpers. Were respectful and when we bring issues to our representatives and to the public, its based on facts.

Goldstein agreed, saying, I dont want to get out there and scream and yell. I want to do something that works.

And, she continued she wants to build community and have a mechanism by which Americans can learn to have varying perspectives in a respectful way.

Somewhere along the way, the principles our democracy have been founded on have been lost on being able to disagree and get along with each other, she said.

And, they hope it expands in its inclusiveness and encourages civic engagement in civil ways.

The Tea Party was very effective with a small number of people, Balay said. But if we can keep focused then the group is going to grow a lot bigger and its going to last a long time. As long as we can stay focused, I think were going to be far more powerful than the Tea Party.

To get involved with the Indivisible Main Line South group, email mb@indivisiblemls7thpa.org. For more information on any of the groups, visit indivisibleguide.com.

See original here:
Alt-Left? Progressives in Delco & across U.S. mobilize, taking page ... - The Delaware County Daily Times

News Release Vermont Progressive Party January 27th, 2017

Contact: Josh Wronsk Executive Director, Vermont Progressive Party 802-229-0800

Montpelier, VT The Vermont Progressive Party issued a response on Friday to Republican claims of partisan overreach by Democrats and Progressives. The claims were made in response to a decision by the House Committee on Government Operations to move forward with conducting a second recount of the Orange-1 House race. Susan Hatch Davis narrowly lost her election on November 8th, but problems with the way absentee ballots were handled and the subsequent recount led her to petition the Vermont State House of Representatives to investigate.

Hatch Davis stated that I want to make sure that all ballots that were properly submitted and are legal and valid are counted. At this point, there are still questions around how absentee ballots were treated and the way the recount was conducted. This is not about changing the results of the election, but about ensuring that the voters of my district have an accurate vote count and the integrity of our election system is upheld

The Progressive Party created a fact sheet to break down and respond to Republican claims. For example:

Claim: Susan Hatch Davis requested a judge order a second recount, this time by hand versus a machine count. The judge rejected this request.

FACTS: There were many issues raised during the hearing regarding the conduct of the election and recount. The judge determined that she did not have the authority to rule on the serious claim that absentee ballots were treated differently from town to town resulting in properly submitted ballots being rejected. The Judge ruled that only the Vermont State House of Representatives may rule on the conduct of the election. Following this decision, Susan Hatch Davis filed a motion with the Secretary of State to investigate the conduct of the election to ensure that all votes that were properly submitted are counted.

Find the fact sheet at: progressiveparty.org/factcheck/

See the original post:
Progressives Respond to Republican Recount Claims - vtdigger.org

People take part in the Million Woman March one day after the inauguration of Donald Trump in Washington, D.C.Stephen J. BoitanoLightRocket/Getty Images

Put aside for a moment the Inauguration of President Donald Trump . Together, the Women's March on Jan. 21 and the March for Life on Jan. 27 highlight a reality that isn't going away: forty-four years after Roe v. Wade , the politics of abortion in America is more polarized and divisive than ever. Why?

Consider the about-face by the Women's March . No event in our time has been heralded as more diverse and inclusive of women everywhere until an antiabortion group called New Wave Feminists took the marchers at their word and tried to join ranks. They got the boot. "The Women's March's platform is pro-choice, and that has been our stance from day one," the excluders explained.

Which means that now, in 2017, support for abortion has become so central and nonnegotiable to today's feminism and progressivism that some women's groups aren't allowed to officially join a women's march that's supposed to be for all women. And that's just one instance of the extremes now dictated by new absolutism.

Consider the legacy of President Barack Obama. For two terms, his Administration gave teeth to the Democratic Party's support of abortion rights. It made a priority of using existing regulations to penalize demonstrators outside abortion clinics. The contraception mandate arguably covering abortifacient drugs gave rise to hundreds of lawsuits, including by indigent nuns: witness the Little Sisters of the Poor , who became part of the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Capping off his record, on one of his last days in office, Obama finalized a rule that banned states from withholding Title X federal money from health clinics that provide abortion.

Like-minded absolutism has led groups like the ACLU to sue Catholic hospitals and otherwise work against charitable Christian organizations. Emergency pregnancy centers run by antiabortion groups where women can get free medical advice and other help, as well as more prosaic aid like diapers and baby furniture have also become targets of progressives. The ACLU has sued the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over its work on the southern border. The Catholic Church is instrumental in alleviating humanitarian need there, but these days defending abortion trumps helping refugees.

This is a sea change for progressivism. Until the 1990s or so, nationally respected Democrats like Sargent Shriver and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania enjoyed good standing in the party without having to recant their pro-life stances. Other progressive leaders, both before and after Roe , could also oppose abortion, and did among them Jesse Jackson (who later switched). Civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, who died in January, argued for a connection between civil liberties and the unborn. Reaching further back, many suffragists and early feminists also believed that abortion does women and children wrong with Dorothy Day and Charlotte Lozier among them. If these champions for women were alive today, they would have been barred as formal partners in the Women's March too.

Similarly, even yesterday's champions of abortion rights weren't nearly as uncompromisingly dogmatic as they've become. During the 2008 campaign, the recent Democratic standard bearer, Hillary Clinton , could call for making abortion "safe, legal and rare ." Such careful rhetoric was in keeping with reality. Yet by 2016, with its declaration of newly "unequivocal" support, the Democratic Party platform was agreed by all sides to be the most "progressive" in history more supportive of abortion rights than ever before.

Until just a few years ago, progressives had a choice between their opinions on abortion and their opinions about everything else. Now they don't. Will this choiceless stance prove acceptable to all people of the left, beyond coastal elites? Will today's abortion-rights absolutism help the Democratic Party that progressivism calls home or cleave it? Tomorrow's elections may hinge in part on answers to just those questions.

Eberstadt is an essayist and the author of several books, including It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies and How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization ; earlier books include Adam and Eve After the Pill, Home-Alone America and the satire The Loser Letters .

Read more:
How the Abortion Debate Rocked Progressivism - TIME