Progressive comrades: read this! Quiz on Friday.

What Obama can’t do for the progressive movement
By Joe Brewer and Evan Frisch

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

This is an exciting time for progressives. An inspiring new approach to politics has mobilized millions of politically ambivalent citizens. There is, for the first time in our lives, a genuine optimism that we can reclaim our country from a corrupt and morally bankrupt extremist group that has hijacked the discourse – and thus the dominant institutions – of the body politic.

And yet, there are dangers far greater than the smears we have seen so far.

As members of the Rockridge Institute, we have been unable to comment on the promise of the Obama campaign, and the perils progressives face in its midst, due to the restriction against partisan activities by 501(c)(3) nonprofits such as ours. The Rockridge Institute closed this week and, so, we are able to comment directly on our analyses of political campaigns. Now that we are free from legal constraints, we feel the need to help our fellow progressives prepare to face the challenges that lie ahead.

First, a note about the Rockridge Institute. This nonpartisan progressive think tank was founded by George Lakoff to shift the political debate through insights and analyses from the cognitive sciences. You can read the announcement declaring the end of the Rockridge Era here. In this article, we call for a new era for progressive politics informed by the opportunities and pitfalls we discovered through our work at this small shop based out of Berkeley, California.

A Wake Up Call for Progressives

Obama has ignited the civic passions of millions with an inspiring call to transcend the politics of the past and deliver on the promise of a more perfect union. His campaign is grounded in the fundamental American values and principles that have brought about progressive changes throughout our history. The success of this approach, though often criticized in the media, exemplifies a basic tenet that Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute have advocated for a long time, namely that voters are motivated by shared values and authenticity.

The Clintons and others criticized Obama when he rightly pointed out “Republicans were the party of ideas,” in recent decades, because they “were challenging conventional wisdom.” At a time when his opponents were trying to represent Obama as too far to the right, they linked these comments to his insightful observation that Ronald Reagan had successfully “changed the trajectory of America,” which they spun as Reagan worship. A key insight missed by the media during that trifle is that conservatives have indeed shifted the common sense of our nation – for the worse. For decades, conservative think tanks have churned out and propagated strategic initiatives that have undermined the founding principles of the United States. Meanwhile, progressives have been stuck in reaction mode, struggling to defend the policies of the past, issue by issue.

It has been an uphill battle to get progressives to recognize the need to (a) challenge the conservative principles behind all of their policies and (b) advance progressive principles to replace them. So, for example, when conservatives call for privatization of the central functions of government, progressives recoil in disgust. But when asked how to respond to privatization and the defunding of successful social programs, progressives remain stuck in the reaction trap and position themselves against the conservative thrust.

When prodded about their stance, they generally lack a proactive progressive response – such as the recognition that government has a positive moral mission to protect and empower its people, which led to a large middle class and our historic prosperity. An expansive middle class doesn’t happen naturally as the conservatives have worked to convince us. (Nor will global climate change just go away.) It takes community understanding of shared prosperity achieved through an infrastructure of government support and protection. But progressives aren’t getting this understanding out there. While the rich get richer and the middle class struggles, while we wait for polluters to voluntarily clean up their act, too many people continue to believe that middle class prosperity and clear skies just happen.

This lack of a coherent progressive vision leads to the creation of many single-issue organizations that simply react to conservative efforts to privatize, defund and dismantle X, Y or Z. Such organizations compete with each other for resources and fail to establish a public understanding of the vital role of government. It may be obvious to the people who work in these organizations, but it’s not the current common sense. Why not? Why aren’t good works enough? Because, everyday for the last 40 years, conservatives have been investing in long-term strategic efforts to undermine public appreciation for the positive and necessary role of government in a thriving society. Even failures, such as the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, enable conservatives to strengthen the perception that we can’t count on government to protect us. Too many people cannot separate Republican governing failures from government itself. And, so, we acquiesce to Republican privatization – instead of strengthening the Federal Emergency Management Administration, we get a transfer of governance to private companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.

Continue reading

Eating disorders common among American women

By Robert Preidt
HealthDay News

75 percent say they behave abnormally around food, survey finds.

Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of young American women report disordered eating behaviors, and 10 percent report symptoms of eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa or binge eating disorder, a new survey finds.

The findings – from an online poll of more than 4,000 women between the ages of 25 and 45 – found that 75 percent eat, think and behave abnormally around food. The survey was conducted by SELF magazine in partnership with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Our survey found that these behaviors cut across racial and ethnic lines and are not limited to any one group. Women who identified their ethnic backgrounds as Hispanic or Latina, white, black or African American and Asian were all represented among the women who reported unhealthy eating behaviors,” Cynthia R. Bulik, a professor of eating disorders and director of the UNC Eating Disorders Program, said in a prepared statement.

“What we found most surprising was the unexpectedly high number of women who engage in unhealthy purging activities. More than 31 percent of women in the survey reported that in an attempt to lose weight, they had induced vomiting or had taken laxatives, diuretics or diet pills at some point in their lives. Among these women, more than 50 percent engaged in purging activities at least a few times a week, and many did so every day,” Bulik said.

Continue reading

Military propaganda pushed me off TV

By Jeff Cohen
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

In the fall of 2002, week after week in debates televised on MSNBC, I argued vigorously against invading Iraq. I used every possible argument that might sway mainstream viewers – no real threat, cost, instability. But as the war neared, my debates were terminated.

In my 2006 book “”Cable News Confidential,” I explained why I lost my airtime:

There was no room for me after MSNBC launched “Countdown: Iraq” – a daily one-hour show that seemed more keen on glamorizing a potential war than scrutinizing or debating it. “Countdown: Iraq” featured retired colonels and generals, sometimes resembling boys with war toys as they used props, maps and glitzy graphics to spin invasion scenarios. They reminded me of pumped-up ex-football players doing pre-game analysis and diagramming plays. It was excruciating to be sidelined at MSNBC, watching so many non-debates in which myth and misinformation were served up unchallenged.

It was bad enough to be silenced. Much worse to see that these ex-generals – many working for military corporations – were never in debates, nor asked a tough question by an anchor. (I wasn’t allowed on MSNBC unless balanced by at least one truculent right-winger.)

Except for the brazenness and scope of the Pentagon spin program, I wasn’t shocked by the recent New York Times report exposing how the Pentagon junketed and coached the retired military brass into being “message-force multipliers” and “surrogates” for Donald Rumsfeld’s lethal propaganda.

The biggest villain here is not Rumsfeld or the Pentagon. It’s the TV networks. In the land of the First Amendment, it was their choice to shut down debate and journalism.

Continue reading

Juan’s story: undocumented but not un-American

By Sally Kohn

The first thing I noticed about Juan when I met him is his presence. For a young man, just graduated from high school — that period when most of us were shy and awkward at best — Juan is confident and vocal, the kind of person with clear potential to be a leader in whatever field he might choose.

The second thing you notice about Juan is the sadness in his eyes. His country, the only home he has ever known, decided his potential is irrelevant — that no amount of talent and passion and vision and drive could ever overcome the fact that he and his family once crossed our nation’s borders without permission. It’s as though Juan the person doesn’t exist without Juan the paperwork. In our country, he’s treated as a number — one to be reduced or feared.

Fear is one of the dominant motivating and manipulating forces in politics today. Some have tried to convince us that we should be afraid of immigrants, exploiting our fear about our jobs, healthcare and the economy, while pointing fingers at immigrants and saying they’re the cause of our problems. These are problems that have existed for years, deep flaws in the distribution of wealth and opportunity in our society, and undocumented immigrants are just the latest scapegoats. Fear is used to distract us while the real problems only grow.

The other motivating force is usually pity. But that’s not the answer either. Pity is equal parts compassion and isolation — a sort-of thank goodness that it’s not me in his shoes. Pitying Juan would rob him of his dignity and power — and absolve ourselves of responsibility.

Continue reading

Democrats hedge on health care

By Manu Raju
The Hill

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

It is still seven months before Election Day, but already senior Democrats are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue.

In the back of their minds is the damage done to President Bush’s second term by his failed attempts to change the nation’s Social Security policy.

For some senators, the promises made by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) outside of Washington may not match the political reality on Capitol Hill.

“We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates’ healthcare plans. “What they are doing is … laying out their ambitions.”

The Democratic candidates say their plans would cover the 47 million uninsured people living in the United States, except for millions of illegal immigrants. Their push for universal healthcare has sparked sharp exchanges over who would do more to cover the uninsured. A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 58 percent of Americans say healthcare costs are an “important” part of their economic concerns.

But veterans on Capitol Hill say that getting a sprawling piece of legislation requires broad compromise from both parties and outside groups.

Should the majority party rush the issue through, the minority may hunker down – as was the case with Bush’s Social Security proposal and President Bill Clinton’s attempt at addressing healthcare policy.

If supporters wait too long, however, it could fall victim to the political considerations of the next election cycle.

Continue reading

Friends of South Carolina’s public schools:

Today you can sign the petition for a constitutional amendment to insert “high quality education” into our state constitution, replacing the current South Carolina standard of a “minimally adequate education.”

Go to www.GoodbyeMinimallyAdequate.com. Sign the petition and then forward it to your network of friends and supporters of South Carolina’s children. South Carolinians of school age and up are encouraged to sign. NO OUT OF STATE ADDRESSES, PLEASE !!!

We are shooting for 1,000,000 signatures of South Carolinians. Let’s make history. Sign and forward now!

Bud Ferillo

Score one for thinking people

WYFF TV: JONESVILLE, S.C. — Following a day of national attention and public outcry over a sign in front of a small church in a small town, the message has been changed.

The sign in front of the Jonesville Church of God said, “Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?”

On Tuesday, the Church Of God’s International Office issued a statement saying that the sign had been removed.

The message on the sign now reads: “How will you spend eternity, smoking or no smoking?”

Pastor Roger Byrd said that he had just wanted to get people thinking. He said that the message wasn’t meant to be racial or political.

“It’s simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” he said.

When asked if he believes that Barack Obama is Muslim, Byrd said, “I don’t know. See it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim? I don’t know. He says he’s not. I hope he’s not. But I don’t know. And it’s just something to try to stir people’s minds. It was never intended to hurt feelings or to offend anybody.”

Obama has said repeatedly during his campaign that he is a Christian and attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

The amount of attention the message received surprised Byrd.

“I’m very surprised,” he said, “It shocked me and startled me.”

Byrd had said that he and his congregation decided on Sunday night to leave the sign up, and that he didn’t want it to appear that controversy forced him to take the sign down.

The WYFF4.com story about the sign was viewed more than a quarter million times by users across the country. Hundreds of negative comments regarding the sign were posted online. On Tuesday, Byrd apparently decided the wording on the sign should be replaced.

He was not available for comment on Tuesday.

Obama-Osama sign outside SC church

Geoff Miller sent this today.

A Pentecostal church in South Carolina has put up a sign asking if Obama and Osama are brothers. Religious nutters embarrass the Carolinas again. The real God must be furious!

obama_osama1.jpg

Take action!

File a Complaint with the IRS: A referral of an exempt organization may be made by submitting Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form.

Form 13909 and any supporting documentation may be submitted in a variety of ways.  They can be sent via:
* Mail to IRS EO Classification, Mail Code 4910DAL, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1198,
* Fax to 214-413-5415, or
* Email to eoclass@irs.gov.
Submission of Form 13909 is voluntary.

Church Number and Address
864-674-6843
621 Forest Street Jonesville, SC 29353

State office for denomination:
864-963-4751  (Extension 102 for the “State Overseer”, Thomas Propes)
adminbishop@sccog.com

National office:
kbell@churchofgod.org
423-472-3361

US news media’s latest disgrace

By Robert Parry
Consortium News

After prying loose 8,000 pages of Pentagon documents, the New York Times has proven what should have been obvious years ago: the Bush administration manipulated public opinion on the Iraq War, in part, by funneling propaganda through former senior military officers who served as expert analysts on TV news shows.

In 2002-03, these military analysts were ubiquitous on TV justifying the Iraq invasion, and most have remained supportive of the war in the five years since. The Times investigation showed that the analysts were being briefed by the Pentagon on what to say and had undisclosed conflicts of interest via military contracts.

Retired Green Beret Robert S. Bevelacqua, a former Fox News analyst, said the Pentagon treated the retired military officers as puppets: “It was them saying, ‘we need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'” [NYT, April 20, 2008]

None of that, of course, should come as any surprise. Where do people think generals and admirals go to work after they retire from the government?

If they play ball with the Pentagon, they get fat salaries serving on corporate boards of military contractors, or they get rich running consultancies that trade on quick access to high-ranking administration officials. If they’re not team players, they’re shut out.

Continue reading

Free online course on barriers to voting starts April 21

As the 2008 election approaches, few issues have been identified as greater concern to voters than the economy. Actually voting, unfortunately, is not always so simple.

Tough to Vote, Tough to Get By: Economic Insecurity and Barriers to Civic Participation, a free online course organized by Demos and YP4, is now enrolling.

Over six weeks, you’ll cover the following topics:

Not Getting By: A Look at Economic Insecurity
Debt: De facto safety net
Middle class insecurity
Youth economics
Election Reform: Breaking Through Barriers to Voting
Allegations of voter fraud and voter ID laws
Understanding the potential of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)
Improving access to the polls – the case for Election Day registration

Sign up for the free course here.

This course starts April 21 and runs through May 30; enrollment will be open until April 28.