Mediaboss Marketing

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read the original post:
Commentary: Progressives are behind the wrong policies | Opinion - The Bulletin

Four years ago, Mike Schmidt handily won the election to be the top prosecutor in the Portland, Ore., area, expanding the ranks of progressives looking to remake the criminal justice system from the inside.

But he faces a daunting re-election bid from one of his deputies at the Multnomah County District Attorneys Office. His rival, Nathan Vasquez, a deputy district attorney, has blamed Mr. Schmidt for Portlands recent problems with drugs and crime.

Many residents have said they are fed up with the citys troubles a sentiment shared by big-city residents across the country since the pandemic, but one that is perhaps more acute in Portland. Homicides there hit record highs in 2021 and 2022. Businesses have fled the city center. Homelessness has soared. Opioid overdose deaths have tripled.

Mr. Vasquez has said that he wants to take on lawless behavior and prosecute even petty crimes. Mr. Schmidt, who campaigned in 2020 on making low-level crimes a lower priority, has responded to voter concerns by trying to burnish his law-and-order credentials. He supported a partial rollback of Oregons pioneering drug decriminalization law this year and dedicated more staff members to prosecuting violent crime. Car theft numbers have dropped rapidly in the past year, and he has touted that progress.

Voters across the West Coast have sent signals in the last few years that they want to see a crackdown on crime. In 2021, Seattle elected a Republican as the citys lead prosecutor for low-level crimes. The next year, voters in San Francisco recalled that citys progressive prosecutor, Chesa Boudin.

Mr. Vasquez was previously registered as a Republican. The post under contest in Tuesdays primary is nonpartisan, with only two candidates on the ballot. Whoever gets more than 50 percent of the vote will lead the office next year.

More here:
Progressive Prosecutor in Portland Faces Bitter Challenge From Co-Worker - The New York Times

Opposition to the two-state solution was once the province of a small group of rightists who were ideologically opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Eventually they were joined by a more pragmatic and hawkish contingent alarmed by the rise and popularity of Hamas and other Iranian-controlled proxies. Those two groups then benefited from the deflation of the Oslo balloon, in which many who supported Palestinian self-governance in theory had become disillusioned by the terrorism that followed each Israeli concession.

Those two latter categories are persuadable. The pragmatists can be swayed by the defeat of Iranian terror gangs and the emergencehowever farfetched it might beof a homegrown Palestinian nationalist party that reflects the changes in the region and makes its peace with Israels existence. The disillusioned can be swayed, perhaps, by the same thing that made them disillusioned in the first place: a change in Palestinian culture and behavior.

Yet all of those disparate pockets of opposition to a two-state solution might pale in comparison to the one that has only recently shown its strengththat of the ideological left.

Historically, support for Palestinian self-determination was synonymous with two states for two peoples, a concept with enduring support on the political left. Support for a Palestinian state itself remains high among self-described Democrats in the U.S., but that has become disentangled from the two-state solution, primarily because many progressives have come to believe that a Palestinian state would be the only legitimate one. This trend has left Israeli liberals with no real support system abroad, because even Israelis who support Palestinian statehood tend not to support the dismantling and annihilation of their country, their people, and their family. Thats a sticking point that isnt going away.

The post-October 7 pro-Hamas protests were revelatory in this way. Those inclined to dismiss these demonstrations by waving them away as college silliness must understand that the campus portions of the response to the Gaza war are a later development, evidence of the bandwagon effect. Immediately upon the news of Hamass success in carrying out the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, progressive organizers were out in force. The protest movement did not rise in response to anything Israel said or did; it was a true out-of-the-woodwork moment for Hamas superfans. It was as if a hard-luck baseball team made the World Series for once: Everybody who wanted to see Hamas win but hadnt made their Hamas fandom much of a priority suddenly came to claim their share of the spoils. The Democratic Socialists of America held what was essentially a victory party in New York.

Soon these demonstrations took to the halls of Congress, where staffers openly sympathized (and even occasionally defected to) the pressure groups attacking their bosses. Eventually Democratic representatives, and then senators, began to capitulate. Democratic-aligned super-donors kept the pro-Hamas demonstrators flush with cash. Elite university presidents granted the tentifadas wish lists, ceding them power over the administrating of the campuses. President Biden, the last holdout, folded and let them influence his foreign policy.

It would be one thing if this entire movement were merely indifferent to the two-state solution. But in fact it is undergirded by hostility to any Jewish sovereignty at all. The larger progressive movement from which it sprang has long been of the opinion that the vital conflict in Israel is over what happened in 1948, not 1967that is, the existence of Israel, not the expansion of its borders or territory, is the original sin that must be rectified.

The ideological engine behind this is decolonization, an upside-down anti-Western and antidemocratic theory of which Israel is only a part. But its a large part, because anti-Semitism does not do portion control. The flat-earther idea that Jews arent native to Judea or that the people of Israel arent from the Land of Israel is silly on its face, but the combination of ideology and conspiracy theory makes it impervious to facts and evidence in the minds of its true believers.

You do not, as Bob Dylan sang, need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. But the Weathermen are the ones with that wind at their backs.

Sometimes the easiest way to see this is by paying attention to those whose professional lives depend on their ability to anticipate shifting orthodoxy. In an April interview with Politico, Patrick Gaspard, president and CEO of the influential Democratic think tank the Center for American Progress, suggested the two-state solution might be a dead end. He and his interviewer then had this exchange:

You dont see a two state solution as a plausible outcome?

I firmly believe Israel must exist as a state. But I also believe Palestinians if we are going to solve this problem need to exist in an Israel that is inclusive of their full rights.

The pushback has always been that if you have a single state, you cant have a Jewish majority state that is democratic in Israel.

I think that taking out the possibility of coexistence is, in itself, really cynical and tragic.

Gaspard later tried to walk it back, so the finger-in-the-wind take is that Israels existence is at least still open to discussion on his side of the aisle. But the shift is pronounced and the forces driving that shift still have all the momentum.

See more here:
Will the Progressive Left Bury the Two-State Solution For Good? - Commentary Magazine

Progressive New York Democrats on Capitol Hill are offering a stark warning to young voters, as polls show President Joe Bidens support from that voting bloc lagging compared to 2020.

They also have advice for the incumbent.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman told Spectrum News NY1 he understands young people's frustration. "I feel much of the same frustration, he said before invoking Donald Trump. The former president getting back in will be 10 times, 100 times worse than what we have right now.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in an interview, pointed to the legislative stakes in November, such as the future of climate change and affordable housing policy.

I just dont personally think we can afford to wait another four years for us to try to tackle these issues, she said.

In a Siena College/New York Times poll conducted in late April and early May, Biden beat Trump in a head-to-head matchup by just 4 percentage points among voters aged 18 to 29.

That is a significantly smaller margin than 2020. Siena College Research Institute Director Don Levy saidBiden won that age bracket by about 24 points.

According to Levy, part of the reason for the shift is the economy and inflation, which polling shows are the top issue for those voters.

By 33 points, right now, they trust Trump more than Biden as a steward of the economy, he said.

So what should Biden do?

For starters, after weeks of college protests over the Israel-Hamas war, both New York Squad members urged the president to heed the concerns ofprogressives and activists and try to bring stability to the region.

But they both were also eager to see the conversation turn back home.

It's making sure that we end this siege on Gaza and can focus on all the issues that matter to us, Ocasio-Cortez said.

We have to do something about affordability, childcare, utilities, housing - housing in particular - and that includes holding corporations accountable, Bowman said.

The progressives also offered some praise for Biden. Bowman noted that the president has been receptive when pushed on policy, citing rent stabilization as an example.

Ocasio-Cortez argued Biden has been effective on some major policy fronts, such as making historic investments in climate change and expanding the child tax credit. She also said such an observation can be true even if young voters are also concerned about Bidens foreign policy.

We can hold both of these things at the same time, she said.

She urged young voters to think of the big picture, saying November is about more than just one match-up.

It's about our actual legislative goals, right? she said. The only way we can do that is if Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn is Speaker, if Chuck Schumer of Brooklyn is the Senate Majority Leader, and if Joe Biden is President of the United States.

With summer just around the corner, Biden now has just five and a half months left to turn more young voters around.

See the rest here:
Progressives warn young voters, as Biden's polling lags - Spectrum News NY1

Across the nation, college administrators are cracking down on pro-Palestenian speech. In Texas, police violently broke up peaceful protests, and one college even reportedly told students that they couldn't use the phrases "Israel," "Zionism," or chant in Arabic. At Brandeis University, police shut down a pro-Palestine protest because its president said it had "devolved into the invocation of hate speech."

While progressives have tended to support campus censorship efforts in recent years, an article in Vox by writer Eric Levitz argues that the left should embrace free speechand that its push to censor speech in the name of inclusion and social justice was misguided.

"Should students concerned with social justice rethink their previous skepticism of free speech norms, for the sake of better protecting radical dissent? I think the answer is yes." wrote Levitz. "There is reason to believe that progressives would be better equipped to resist the present crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy had social justice activists not previously popularized an expansive conception of harmful speech."

Levitz's article also argues that rejecting censorship could lead the left to find more allies when their ideas are on the chopping block.

"In a world where right-of-center intellectuals had more cause for believing that their defense of leftists' free expression would be reciprocated," Levitz wrote, "it seems plausible that opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act might be a bit more widespread and its prospects for clearing the Senate somewhat dimmer."

While Levitz's piece is refreshing, its support for free speech isn't about adopting a new appreciation for the principles of free expression, regardless of political viewpoint. It's about adopting the best policies to protect left-wing ideas.

Save several paragraphs reminding progressives that debate is necessary for finding the truth and that "the more insulated any ideological orthodoxy is from critique, the more vulnerable it will be to persistent errors," Levitz's argument is pragmatic in nature. He spends most of the piececorrectlyarguing that if progressives had been willing to take a stand against censorship of right-wing beliefs, the current norms allowing for the censorship of pro-Palestine activists would not have been set in place.

However, if your reason to defend speech is purely practical and self-interested, it becomes much easier to indulge in exceptions to your free speech principles. Surely, allowing the censorship of the most offensive, unproductive viewpoints couldn't be used to justify the suppression of your own, much better, ideas, right?

Levitz even hints at such exceptions. "If adopting a permissive attitude toward campus speech entailed significant costs to progressive causes, then doing so might be unwise," he wrote, later adding, "Defending free speech and standing up for the disempowered may sometimes be competing objectives."

When your defense of free speech comes from a core, universal principle, calls for censorship are unthinkable. This is why, for example, it's so frustrating to see Levitz group the First Amendment nonprofit the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) with a long list of "conservatives" who have spoken out against censorship of pro-Palestinian activism.

FIREand everyone else smeared as "conservative" for standing up against censorshipdoesn't begrudgingly defend left-wing speech so that right-wing speech will stay protectedthey're a nonpartisan organization that defends First Amendment rights because they believe fiercely in the importance of free speech.

Perhaps the biggest flaw is that Levitz's piece still doesn't make the core realization that there can be true, principled, defenders of free speechthose who truly think a nation with more ideas and more voices, even offensive ones, is better than one with fewer. Instead, he sees speech protections as a kind of truce, a decision from both the left and right to leave each other alone so they can both best further their political goals.

We would have a better, more functional world if more peopleleft or rightwere willing to passionately defend the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree. However, getting to that world requires that people let go of the idea that censorship is ever a good idea, not merely that it's impractical.

More here:
'Vox' Wants Progressives To Support Free Speech For The Wrong Reasons - Reason