Citizens United the truth not progressives strawma
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/08/09/clinton-documentary-renee-loth.
By: hammerhiter7
See original here:
Citizens United the truth not progressives strawma - Video
If you watch Fox News and then MSNBC cover racial issues, you can see clearly that conversations between progressives and conservatives about race frequently bog down. This happens because each side is unwilling to vary how they present their argument, thus stifling true dialogue.
In the eyes of progressives, conservatives are too quick to blame the victim by laying the problems facing black communities at the feet of blacks themselves.
For their part, conservatives see progressive concerns with the structural problems that lead to racial disparity as attacks on an economic system that conservatives believe has done a great deal of good for all, including persons of color. They also see the progressive agenda as expanding the power of government in ways they disagree with.
Both retreat to their corners, with progressives rejecting the blame-the-victim mentality and conservatives thinking that structural racism is code for ignorantly rejecting markets.
There is a way around this unwillingness to engage. Two recent events have pointed out how. The events in Ferguson have brought out libertarian voices like Rand Paul who have long argued that the militarization of local police forces have disproportionately harmed people of color, especially in the enforcement of the War on Drugs.
Author Matt Ridley on the media backlash and Twitter outrage over his op-ed Whatever Happened to Global Warming? Photo credit: Getty Images.
As the tragedy in Missouri continues, libertarian-leaning Rep. Paul Ryan has introduced a new anti-poverty program that includes a focus on the ways in which government intervention in labor markets has worked to make it much harder for poor Americans, especially ones of color, to move up the income ladder.
What both share is a belief that racial disparities need not be the result of direct person-to-person racism or the failings of minority communities. Rather, it is structural racism at work, and it concerns both libertarians and progressives, and it should concern conservatives.
When mostly white local police forces get military gear and supplies for SWAT teams and then use them to prosecute a War on Drugs that is far more likely to target black than white users, you have structural racism.
When mostly white politicians, often at the behest of mostly white businesspeople, pass occupational licensure and zoning laws that raise the cost of entering occupations or engaging in home-based businesses that are particularly attractive to non-whites, you have structural racism.
Excerpt from:
Outside the Box: How libertarians can bridge the political divide over race
Teresa Ellsworth. (Submitted photo) (Picasa 3.0)
LONDONDERRY -- Teresa Ellsworth, a Londonderry resident who mounted a Progressive Party run for state representative in the Aug. 26 primary, died Sunday.
The cause of Ellsworth's death was not clear, but Vermont State Police -- as is standard procedure -- investigated Ellsworth's death and found nothing suspicious.
Progressive Party leaders on Wednesday noted the loss of an enthusiastic candidate who had expressed an interest in furthering some of the organization's key ideals.
"We were all shocked and saddened to hear about Teresa's passing," said Kelly Mangan, elections director of the Vermont Progressive Party. "She was passionate about social justice, and she believed that we can make the world a better place."
State Rep. Chris Pearson, a Burlington lawmaker who is the House Progressive Caucus leader, expressed "my sadness and deep condolences for her family."
Ellsworth ran as a Progressive for the Windham-Bennington-Windsor state House District, which consists of the towns of Jamaica, Londonderry, Stratton, Weston and Winhall.
She was a former New York state resident who had relocated to Vermont with her husband. Ellsworth had run for tax collector in a New York town, but this was her first political campaign in Vermont.
In an interview with the Reformer before last month's primary, Ellsworth said she was "very interested in politics."
"I've spent some time in Montpelier with the Progressive Party," she said.
Follow this link:
Progressives note death of state House candidate
There is nothing progressive about red ink.
This year, progressives will run on strengthening the economic recovery, reducing inequality, improving college affordability, promoting broad-based wage growth and making sure the most vulnerable among us are well cared for. And if we want all these to happen, we also need to campaign on fixing the national debt not as budget scolds but as the wing of the party that connects how growing debt is incompatible with the American dream.
The national debt is currently higher than it has been at any time since World War II and is on pace to continue growing faster than the economy. Yet, when confronted with this reality, many in my party deny that this is a problem and point to the declining deficit. They ignore the Congressional Budget Offices projections that the deficit will begin to rise again and the fact that the short-term deficit and long-term debt are not interrelated. They also associate any discussion of the debt with calls for gutting welfare programs, slashing entitlements and imposing needless austerity.
As progressives, we should fight against these alleged solutions, but that does not give us the right to ignore the problem. A growing national debt can have real and profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans. High debt levels can hobble economic growth by stifling job-generating investments and slowing wage growth. Meanwhile, debt can increase the cost of living on working families by driving up the interest rates on everything from mortgages to student loans to credit card debt. High debt levels can reduce the availability of affordable loans for first homes or small businesses.
The precise impact of higher debt levels is somewhat uncertain but far from abstract. According to the Congressional Budget Office, wages two decades from now would be more than 10 percent lower if debt is on an upward path relative to the economy, compared to a downward path. In todays dollars, thats a $330,000 per person wage cut for someone who works 40 years beginning today. Similarly, just a 0.3 point swing in the interest rate could lead a family with a $300,000 mortgage to pay an additional $20,000 in interest.
The very wealthy can bear these costs. But for ordinary Americans, that could be the difference between getting ahead and treading water or even falling further behind.
And if the direct impact of the debt werent enough, it is increasingly impairing the governments ability to be a positive force in peoples lives.
Each year, more and more of the federal budget is going toward interest payments, leaving less room for important investments in energy, education, infrastructure, low-income support and basic research. Between 2013 and 2024, interest payments will quadruple from $220 billion to nearly $880 billion. And only a few years later, 100 percent of the revenue the government collects will go toward interest payments and mandatory spending instead of spending to promote economic opportunity and improve prosperity for the next generation.
Sensible reforms that close unneeded tax breaks and better target our health and retirement programs could make room for these important public investments. Instead, our leaders have kicked the debt down the road through discretionary spending cuts and indiscriminant sequestrations, which just make a bad situation worse and represent exactly the kind of austerity we need to avoid. Progressives can protect and strengthen our most important programs only if we show the other side that were willing to make room for these priorities in the budget.
As someone who has spent years focusing on policies to promote economic development and urban renewal across the income spectrum, especially during my time as mayor of Philadelphia and governor of Pennsylvania, I know first-hand how critically important these issues are to the well-being of families, communities and the broader economy. The United States should not accept the situation where incomes for middle-class Americans have grown far slower than the overall economy in recent decades. Economic mobility has always been central to the American dream.
See the original post here:
Column: Progressives Should Get Serious About Cutting Nations Debt
He resigns, but not with any grace:
Rev. Bruce Shipman resigned from his post as priest-in-charge of the Episcopal Church at Yale on Thursday two weeks after his remarks in a New York Times letter garnered national media attention for their alleged anti-Semitism.
In an Aug. 21 letter responding to Emory professor Deborah Lipstadts Aug. 20 New York Times essay titled Why Jews Are Worried, Shipman put forth his idea that Israels actions in Gaza contributed to growing anti-Semitism in Europe. He added that stalled peace negotiations and Israels occupation of the West Bank were also factors. As a result of the piece, Shipman faced a wave of criticism from those who accused him of making anti-Semitic statements. [DB: That's not quite all his letter said, or why people were troubled by it.] In an email to the News, Shipman said he resigned because he could not garner sufficient support from his board to survive the adverse publicity.
Within hours of the publication of my letter there was an avalanche of angry email that continued for several days, Shipman wrote. It was ugly and accompanied by harassing telephone calls to my home The message to many will be that bullying tactics succeed.
Of course, we should condemn anyone who harassed Shipmanthough I dont see how angry email constitutes either harassment or bullying; phone calls to the house are a different story. But given that Shipman himself acknowledges that he resigned because he could not garner sufficient support from his board to survive the adverse publicity, the harassment is not, in any event why he resigned. He made remarks that many people interpreted as apologizing for European anti-Semitism; people, including me, criticized him for it; and his superiors decided that they didnt want to be associated with his remarks. This is whats known as freedom of speech, and a churchs right to decide who it wants as its chaplain, not bullying. If the church had ignored criticism from me and others and kept Shipman, the result would have beendisappointment and perhaps a bit of additional criticism. Some bullying. Note, by the way, that his was an unpaid position, valuable to Shipman because it gave him additional prestige, which is why he signed his controversial letter with his title of Episcopal chaplain at Yale. If the Yale Episcopal Church would rather have someone who is not dragging its reputation through the mud through apologies for racism, who can blame it?
And speaking of apologies for racism, even I, who tends to be rather cynical about the motives of the far left, have been taken aback at the extent to which many alleged progressivesthe same people who hurl accusations of racism with abandon at people they disagree withhave defended Shipmans initial remark, and more recently various remarks of Steve Salaita, that in the formers case apologized for anti-Semitism based on Israels actions and its patrons acquiescence, and in the latter case did that plus also wrote that by linking Jewishness to support for Israel, Hillel and other Jewish organization justified anti-Semitic discourse. (Its perfectly reasonable to criticize that remark and say that Salaita should still get the job at Illinois on academic freedom grounds, or, for that matter, to argue that one or even a few offensive quotes hardly provides a full measure of a man. Its not at all reasonable to claim that when Salaita says something justifies anti-Semitic discourse, he wasnt actually saying that it justifies anti-Semitic discourse. [UPDATE: KC Johnson has an excellent piece on the Salaita controversy; I may not have another opportunity to link it, so here it is.)
With regard to Shipman, a typical dialogue in blog comments here and elsewhere went like this. A. Shipman claimed that Israel is responsible for European anti-Semitism, and implied that Jews have some obligation to criticize Israel if they want to alleviate anti-Semitism. I think anti-Semites are responsible for anti-Semitism, just like anti-black racists are responsible for racism. B. What Shipman was doing was criticizing Israel, and you just dont want anyone to criticize Israel. A. Im not talking about Israel. The article that Shipman was responding to was about growing anti-Semitism in Europe. The proper response to that is to condmen anti-Semitism, not bring up Israel. B. You just dont want to talk about the fact that Israel is murdering children in Gaza. A. What does Gaza have to do with anti-Semitism in Europe? European Jews arent Israelis. Shipman can talk about Israel all he wants, but should a progressive clergyman, if he cant bring himself to condemn Jews being attacked on the streets of Paris, at least not blame Jews for it? B. Hes not blaming Jews, hes blaming Israel and its fiercest supporters. A. But that means, in practice, a Jewish-run country, and mostly Jewish supporters, no? Anyway, how about you just say, Regardless of how I feel about Israel, I condemn European anti-Semitism, and thats what Shipman should have said, too. Can you just say youre against European anti-Semitism, full stop? B. Sigh, another Zionist troll.
This has persuaded me that for a lot of progressives, their self-identification as anti-racism activists is a charade. Instead, they are against racism when it suits their broader political agenda. They think that opposing anti-Jewish racism, at least when it comes from Islamists or the left, will undermine their anti-Israel agenda, so they are not interested in opposing anti-Jewish racism. (Or, as in the case of one recent column in the Guardian, they may condemn anti-Semitism in Europe, and then ultimately blame the far right exclusively, because thats where the serious anti-Semitism is, and besides, we need to be defending supporters of the Palestinian cause from smear and slander.) And indeed, going beyond the issue of anti-Semitism, its been pointed out that self-described progressives have attacked Sarah Palin, Katherine Harris, and others in blatantly sexist terms, there have been racist attacks on Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, and other non-white conservatives. Crickets chirping.
Undoubtedly, there are also lots of progressives/liberals/leftists who sincerely oppose racism in all its forms. But if you only oppose racism when you think such opposition will advance your broader political agenda, and ignore/apologize for/justify or even participate in racism when that seems more politically advantageous, you are not actually against racism, you are someone who pretends to be against racism.
UPDATE: For the record, I absolutely concede that a lot of conservatives and libertarians also ignore racism when they think acknowledging it would undermine their political goals. This doesnt make them racists, and it doesnt make people on the left racists when they do the same thing; it just means that they value other political/ideological goals over a consistent opposition to racism. But my sense is that a consistent, vigilant, outspoken anti-racism is much more likely to be a part of a progressives self-perception than a conservatives, which is why it seems noteworthy when one sees evidence of this among progressives.
See the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Shipman out at Yale, and a comment on those who only pretend to be against racism