green party daryl northrop elections northern virginia green party ballot petitioning campaign finance reform maryland green party running for office 2010 election grassroots democracy illinois instant runoff voting IRV messaging values ballot access blog campaign school clean elections equality green party watch internet money natasha pettigrew rich whitney tactics ten key values twitter brent mcmillan corporate personhood DC Green Party Ddaryl northrop democratic party economics economy education electoral college environmentalism fairvote framing green pages green party of pennsylvania green party of the united states gspm liberty tree message grid party platform politics questions republican party social justice social networking sustainable funding tech texas democratic party texas green party voters 2011 accountability agency capture alterman Alternet anita stewart arizona greens party arkansas arlington green party attack ad ballota access baltimore green party blog talk radio bloomberg budget candidate pledge cathie black civil war clean energy common sense congress congress. green party dalai lama david cobb defense deficit democracy dennis spisak detroit don crawford donkey earth day edward kennedy egypt elephant energy independence facebook fairfax county greens first past the post florida florida green party food george lakoff ggreen party of the united states gloria totten goals gpny gpus gpva graduate school of political management green change green party of canada green party of lebanon green party of new york green party UK gregg jocoy growth gwu hashtags healthcare history housing huffington post hugh giordano ignorance independent media issues jason west jay fisette jobs john reeder lakoff larry lessig lebanon libertarian party libya Linda Piera-Avila manners media middle east military mixed member proportional representation mmove to amend morals move to amend national popular vote new york city non violence npv oath of office obama ohio green party oil opposition research peace pennsylvania pledge of allegiance podcast pollution potatoes progressive progressive majority proportional representation qruicktakes ranked choice voting regulation renewable energy republic russia same sex marriage slavery social media socialist party usa soil and water soldiers south carolina spectator sport steve kramer stewart alexander strategy tactical ignorance taxes texas the alyona show the george washington university the nation the secret frequency third parties towards a green future toyota transportation tthe alyona show tunisia two party system ukuncut unemployment US senate US Social Forum usuncut virginia green party voting wall street journal washington dc
Friday
Mar162012

Better understanding through Tactical Ignorance

What are the consequences of policies enacted by political representatives? This is the question the we all strive to understand, and that politicians struggle to communicate. And of course, the communications are aimed at either portraying a policy as a panacea, or as the worst idea that have ever been presented. So how do we better understand the likely consequences of policies that our political representatives are championing?

I have found a useful method that I want to share with you:

Tactical ignorance.

 

Yes, ignorance. Now, some of you may be thinking that this does not make sense, because isn't ignorance a bad thing? Is it not a state of being uninformed, of not knowing, of not understanding? Of course it is all of those things, but it does not imply a lack of wisdom and insight. We all know that vast expenditure of time and treasure that political figures use when attempting to convince the public of the positive or negative consequences of a policy being enacted. 

This is where the tactical ignorance comes in. By pretending not to know what the advertised consequences of a policy or position are, we can better determine the actual outcome or consequences. Lets work with two examples. President Obama's "all of the above" energy policy, and the GOP policy to reduce or eliminate abortions, curtail science-based sex ed, and limit access to contracteptives.

What are the likely consequences of Obama's "All of the Above" energy policy? Let's pretend we've never heard his explanation of what the goal is.

 

  • Increase in domestic oil production causes temporary decrease in foreign oil imports. US oil exports increase as oil companies sell their oil on the world market.
  • Increase in domestic natural gas production via hydraulic fracturing. Ground water pollution/contamination dramatically increases due to toxic substances in the "hydraulic" component of the process.
  • Moderate increase in renewable energy production. Adoption of renewables is continually hobbled by continued focus on coal, oil, and gas. The problem of fossil fuels being too cheap and renewables being too expensive is not realistically addressed. 
  • Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase as fossil fuel extraction and use increases. Human-caused global warming accelerates.
  • Long term dependence on foreign oil is exacerbated due to depletion of domestic supply. The US has a tiny fraction of oil reserves when compared to oil-rich regions such as the Middle-East. Dramatic domestic production increases will only temporarily decrease price (maybe) over a finite time horizon.
  • Increase in nuclear reactor construction. Construction serves to replace some of the oldest aging reactors in the US. Increase in nuclear waste continues to exacerbate problem of safe storage of depleted fuel, thus increasing costly storage and cleanup economic and environmental burdens on future generations

So, out of this series of likely outcomes, we can conclude that the actual consequences of the "All of the Above energy policy are: a continuation of the status quo (best case scenario) or, depletion of domestic fossil fuel reserves, environmental damage, global warming, and increased dependence on foreign oil (worst case scenario).

What are the likely consequences of the GOP's drive to reduce or eliminate abortions? Let's pretend we've never heard the explanation of what the goal is.

 

  • The ability for women to get abortions will dramatically fall. Goverment and private adoption agencies may be overloaded, and foster-home resources may be overloaded as un-wanted children flood the system.
  • Increasing numbers of family's and single parents will be raising more children. Economic resources of the family will be further strained, and more children will grow up in poverty.
  • Unwanted children may be targeted for abuse by parents at a higher rate than children of planned pregnancies. This could be due to resentment, bitterness, inability of the parent to cope with the stress of child-rearing, etc.
  • GOP insistence on "abstinence only" sex ed, or elimination of sex ed from health curricula nationwide. Endless scientific studies have shown that lack of science-based, and reality-based sex ed causes unwanted pregnancies, and increased rates of STD transmission.
  • Women will have increased costs and barriers to accessing effective methods of contraception. Lack of access will result in continued higher birth rates for already poor women who have limited economic resources for child-rearing, and will put mounting economic pressure on the middle-class as increased birthrates drive families and women into poverty.

So, out of this series of likely outcomes, we can conclude that the actual consequences of the GOP policy to reduce or eliminate abortions, curtail science-based sex ed, and limit access to contracteptives are: overloading of adoption and fostercare system with children, more children growing up in poverty, subjected to physical and mental abuse, increased unwanted pregnancies in teens along with increased STD rates, and finally, social and economic trauma endured by women will increase due to lack of access to effective contraception.

See how effective "tactical ignorance" can be in examining the likely outcomes of policy proposals? Once the empty promises, unproven assumptions, and ideological hyperbole are stripped away, you can get at the heart of the issue.

 

 

Sunday
Jan152012

Ending corruption in Congress, and the road to reclaiming our Republic

Hello everyone,

Laurence Lessig, a Professor of Ethics and Law at Harvard, made a very important presentation about how money in politics has completely severed the relationship between Congress and the citizens of the United States. His recent presentation at Google outlines the extensive and insidious nature of the problem, suggests some solutions, and calls on citizens to do their duty to themselves, their fellow Americans, and to the Republic, so that our democracy may be reclaimed from the moneyed interests that play the system to their advantage, or our misery.

Forward this one far and wide, friends, this concerns nothing less than the future of our nation.

 

Wednesday
Jan112012

Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate, is coming to NOVA



 

Great news! Jill Stein, a candidate for the Green Party presidential nomination, is coming to Arlington!

Details below:

Friends,

Dr. Jill Stein, GPUS Presidential Candidate, will be in the Northern Virginia/DC area, mid-January.  We have scheduled a house party so people can get to know Jill better.  We'll meet at the home of John Reeder.   We'll have snacks and drinks.    If you can, please rsvp to tamar@gp.org.   Even if you haven't let us know, come anyway.  We're just trying to get a rough estimate of attendance.

When:    Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 7:30pm
Where:    1812 N. Huntington Street
, Arlington, Va 22205
Contact:   Tamar Yager, 703-534-2187 or 502-296-3849

Metro:  Orange line to East Falls Church.   Need to call Tamar for a pick-up (advance notice please).

Driving directions:  from Lee Highway and Harrison Street go south on Harrison Street to 18th Street; go right onto 18th Street and go 3 blocks to a right onto Huntington Street.  The house is the third house on the left.
-- 
Tamar Yager
GPUS Steering Committee Co-Chair
Virginia Delegate

 

Thursday
Dec082011

Getting attention for your campaign: Release a really hateful video....

Check out the likes and dislikes!

Friday
Dec022011

Reality check: Unemployment rate "drops" to 8.6%. Good news, or bad?

According to major news reports, the unemployment rate has dropped from 9.0% to 8.6%

This is great news, right? Well, not really, and I will explain why.

First, the unemployment rate measures people who are without any employment (including part-time), who are *actively looking for work. *So, if you are unemployed, and give up looking for work, you are no longer part of the "unemployment rate."

Here is where the important part of the Washington Post article comes into play:

"The jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent last month, from 9 percent in October, the lowest level since the economic free-fall of March 2009, the Labor Department reported Friday morning. But the improvement in the job market was not quite as strong as that drop would suggest: *About half the decline was attributed to people dropping out of the labor force, no longer counting themselves as even looking for work." (emphasis mine)* * *

What we have here is not so much the generation of new jobs to absorb unemployed job-seekers, we have a general contraction of the labor force as people simply give up looking because so few new jobs are actually being created. This is a tragic loss economically, not only to the people out of work, and the economic and social disruption that unemployment causes, but to the nation in general - we have so much creative talent and productive capacity laying idle, the loss is tragic.

Steps to recovery: 

1. Admit you have a problem, and begin accurately measuring it. A reasonably accurate unemployment rate would take into account: people unemployed who are actively seeking work, people under-employed (laid off and took a lower paying full time job or a part-time job), and the discouraged unemployed (have given up looking for work).

2. Protect the economic status of the laid off through unemployment insurance. Why? Once you sink into poverty, it is very hard to get of poverty. At the macroeconomic level , this keeps more people at a higher level of economic consumption.

3. Engage in value-added public works programs - schools, roads, bridges, dams, conservation projects, inner city revitalization, etc - so that when the economy ticks upward, there will be infrastructure to support growth.

Thursday
Nov242011

Congrats to the Greens elected in Virginia!

 

Congratulations are in order for the Virginia Green Party members who won their election contests a few weeks ago! Greens provide dedicated, values-driven, and accountable representation for Virginia in a way that the Democrats and Republicans cannot. 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 16, 2011

Contact
Miriam Gennari
Press Secretary
Cell: 703-309-1600 / (H) 703-549-1422
Email: press@vagreenparty.org

Green and Qualified!

With development on the rise and plans around Virginia to start producing more carbon based energy at home, citizens concerned about the condition of our states soil and water gained ground this November.  Greens will influence improvements of Virginia environment serving on the The Virginia Soil and Water Board. The Board is made up of elected Directors to represent most  communities in Virginia.  Many of the values and concerns of the organization, which gets it funding from federal, state, local and grant monies, mirror those of the Virginia Green Party. Directors, serve in non-partisan and unpaid positions, working on behalf of their Districts and the Commonwealth.
 
On November 8, 2011 long time Green, Chris Simmons took the majority of votes for the Loudoun Soil & Water Conservations District. Chris is a known leader among his peers in both parties, but the fact that the majority of votes were cast for him is telling.  Elected for a second term, District Vice-Chair and Treasurer, Simmons has spent his last term  great deal educating Virginians about the important work done by the organization. His commitment to preserving and conserving Virginia natural resources, as well as educating citizens is what makes him so influential in his community. He hopes to focus his energy this term on addressing the rampant polluting of Virginia’s  watersheds before delicate ecosystems are irreversibly altered. Some answers says Simmons are easy, “It starts with "Conservation:  Every body, every where, everyday" 

Joining Simmons as Directors for the next four years is Giannina Ienco. Ms. Ienco won a seat on the Tri-County/City Board which is based in Fredericksburg. Although Giannina entered the race at the last minute, she managed to run a successful write-in campaign reaching many voters in the City of Fredericksburg. Giannina's decision to run was not an easy one, "With a full-time job, traveling husband and two young children at home, I was concerned that I would not have the resources needed to fulfill a director position. However, with support and encouragement from my fellow Virginia Greens, I decided that I wanted to pursue a more active role in protecting and conserving the natural resources of our community for future generations."Giannnia spent 11 years working on environmental issue for the US government. Green Party member, Ira Richards who won his bid for Warren County Soil and Water Director brings with him needed professional experience in
sustainable agriculture. “I am very pleased that I will now be able to apply my 30 years consulting experience in soil and water conservation to local issues," says Richards.

Tom Yager, Vriginia Green Party Co-Chair has been scouring the state for active Greens who would like to help in a constructive ways to mitigate the damage being caused business and development.  Yager explains that every diverse region comes with it’s own unique set of challenges.  Finding people who are not only informed but active in their communities is not always easy.  “I look for people who care enough to sacrifice some personal time for Virginia’s greater good. There are plenty of people out there who will find the tough decision to run easier if they know that the Virginia Green Party is behind them.”

Individuals interested in learning more about the role the Greens play in the promoting environmental sustainability should contact their local chapter.   Additional information is available online at http://www.vagreenparty.org 
 
###

The Green Party of Virginia is the electoral arm of the Green movement within Virginia. Recognized by the Commonwealth’s State Board of Elections, the GPVA consists of affiliated locals and “at-large” members.  The GPVA is accredited by the Green Party of the United States.

The GPVA provides and promotes leadership in its 10 Key Values, including nonviolence, social justice, environmentalism, grassroots democracy, decentralization, community-based economics, sustainability, feminism, diversity, and personal & global responsibility. 
__._,_.___

 

 

Tuesday
Nov152011

Political tactics primer: Playing the (phony) Victim Card

This story was just too good of an example of a prime political tactic that the powerful use to retain dominance over the weak: The Phony Victim.

As we all know, the Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage. Therefore, they do not perform same-sex marriages. They have also vehemently opposed all efforts by various states to pass laws that allow same-sex couples to apply for, and receive, marriage licenses issued by the state.

Here is a story from the NY Times detailing the Catholic Church's new 'We're the real victim here' tactic: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/bishops-renew-fight-on-abortion-and-gay-marriage.html

The reason that this is a phony victim scenario is that the views of the Catholic Church (no same sex marriage) are still reflected in the vast majority of states. Now, as this changes, the church feels threatened that something will become legal that they do not support. To that end, they raise all sorts of phony alarms about "religious liberty" and "freedom of worship" implying that jack-booted government thugs will force Catholic churches to perform same-sex marriages. (This is also a clever combination use of the "cause confusion and doubt" tactic often used in issue campaigns.)

*Reality check time! Number of same sex marriages that the government has forced any church to perform: ZERO.* In fact, the recent same sex marriage law that passed in New York state specifically states that churches cannot be compelled to perform same sex marriage ceremony's.

The only "right" being "restricted" is the desire of the Catholic church to see their religious view that same-sex marriage is forbidden be reflected in the laws of the state, regardless of the view point of the general public and their elected representatives.

Monday
Nov142011

Occupy The Ballot?

From The Northern Virginia Green Party http://www.novagreens.org/journal/2011/11/14/is-occupy-wall-street-transforming-into-an-electoral-movemen.html

Occupy Wall Street, and its related regional and local movements, have captured the attention and imagination of American's everywhere who fight for the rights of the 99% (in simple terms, that everyone who isn't a millionaire). The current political system serves the needs of the top 1% of income earners and wealth-owners quite well. They and their corporations fund the candidates, and the PAC's, and the think tanks, and the research instutions that support their system of greed. The "Occupy" movement has been characterized by a populist, non-partisan orientation. Meaning, they support values and policies that lift up the poor, the middle-class, and the small business owners, while standing against huge corporations that buy off our politicians, and send our jobs and profits overseas.

 

Read more here

__

Daryl Northrop

Friday
Nov112011

Corporations are not people.

 

 

David Cobb, 2004 Green Party candidate for President, is one of the leaders of Move To Amend which supports the banning of corporate personhood. Why is this a problem? Corporations, through laws and court decisions, have gathered more and more "rights" that were previously only reserved for human citizens. Now, through their lavish funding of elected officials, corporate "rights" are trumping the rights of individuals and their communities.

Listen in as David Cobb talks about this important issue, and what you can do in your community.

 

--

Daryl Northrop

Wednesday
Nov092011

Finally, some decent headlines!

Tuesday
Nov082011

ATTN: Virginia - go vote

Polls are open until 7pm.

Saturday
Oct292011

Message framing for the Occupy movement - from George Lakoff

Hello everyone. George Lakoff is the author of "Moral Politics" and "Don't think of an Elephant," which are two of the finest, most accessible works on messaging for progressives that I have ever read.

Recently, he published an article about messaging and values framing aimed at the Occupy Wallstreet movement, which I am posting here in its entirety, because it is just that good.

 

 

How to Frame Yourself: A Framing Memo for Occupy Wall Street

Posted: 10/19/11 09:58 AM ET

I was asked weeks ago by some in the Occupy Wall Street movement to make suggestions for how to frame the movement. I have hesitated so far, because I think the movement should be framing itself. It's a general principle: Unless you frame yourself, others will frame you -- the media, your enemies, your competitors, your well-meaning friends. I have so far hesitated to offer suggestions. But the movement appears to maturing and entering a critical time when small framing errors could have large negative consequences. So I thought it might be helpful to accept the invitation and start a discussion of how the movement might think about framing itself.


About framing: It's normal. Everybody engages in it all the time. Frames are just structures of thought that we use every day. All words in all languages are defined in terms of frame-circuits in the brain. But, ultimately, framing is about ideas, about how we see the world, which determines how we act.

In politics, frames are part of competing moral systems that are used in political discourse and in charting political action. In short, framing is a moral enterprise: it says what the character of a movement is. All politics is moral. Political figures and movements always make policy recommendations claiming they are the right things to do. No political figure ever says, do what I say because it's wrong! Or because it doesn't matter! Some moral principles or other lie behind every political policy agenda.

Two Moral Framing Systems in Politics

Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is "deserving," defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this moral system itself, which goes beyond Wall Street and the economy to other arenas: family life, social life, religion, foreign policy, and especially government. Conservative "democracy" is seen as a system of governance and elections that fits this model.

Though OWS concerns go well beyond financial issues, your target is right: the application of these principles in Wall Street is central, since that is where the money comes from for elections, for media, and for right-wing policy-making institutions of all sorts on all issues.

The alternative view of democracy is progressive: Democracy starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that sense of care, taking responsibility both for oneself and for one's family, community, country, people in general, and the planet. The role of government is to protect and empower all citizens equally via The Public: public infrastructure, laws and enforcement, health, education, scientific research, protection, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, and on and on. Nobody makes it one their own. If you got wealthy, you depended on The Public, and you have a responsibility to contribute significantly to The Public so that others can benefit in the future. Moreover, the wealthy depend on those who work, and who deserve a fair return for their contribution to our national life. Corporations exist to make life better for most people. Their reason for existing is as public as it is private.

A disproportionate distribution of wealth robs most citizens of access to the resources controlled by the wealthy. Immense wealth is a thief. It takes resources from the rest of the population -- the best places to live, the best food, the best educations, the best health facilities, access to the best in nature and culture, the best professionals, and on and on. Resources are limited, and great wealth greatly limits access to resources for most people.

It appears to me that OWS has a progressive moral vision and view of democracy, and that what it is protesting is the disastrous effects that have come from operating with a conservative moral, economic, and political worldview. I see OWS as primarily a moral movement, seeking economic and political changes to carry out that moral movement -- whatever those particular changes might be.

A Moral Focus for Occupy Wall Street

I think it is a good thing that the occupation movement is not making specific policy demands. If it did, the movement would become about those demands. If the demands were not met, the movement would be seen as having failed.

It seems to me that the OWS movement is moral in nature, that occupiers want the country to change its moral focus. It is easy to find useful policies; hundreds have been suggested. It is harder to find a moral focus and stick to it. If the movement is to frame itself, it should be on the basis of its moral focus, not a particular agenda or list of policy demands. If the moral focus of America changes, new people will be elected and the policies will follow. Without a change of moral focus, the conservative worldview that has brought us to the present disastrous and dangerous moment will continue to prevail.

We Love America. We're Here to Fix It

I see OWS as a patriotic movement, based on a deep and abiding love of country -- a patriotism that it is not just about the self-interests of individuals, but about what the country is and is to be. Do Americans care about other citizens, or mainly just about themselves? That's what love of America is about. I therefore think it is important to be positive, to be clear about loving America, seeing it in need of fixing, and not just being willing to fix it, but being willing to take to the streets to fix it. A populist movement starts with the people seeing that they are all in the same boat and being ready to come together to fix the leaks.

Publicize the Public

Tell the truth about The Public, that nobody makes it purely on their own without The Public, that is, without public infrastructure, the justice system, health, education, scientific research, protections of all sorts, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, ... That is a truth to be told day after day. It is an idea that must take hold in public discourse. It must go beyond what I and others have written about it and beyond what Elizabeth Warren has said in her famous video. The Public is not opposed to The Private. The Public is what makes The Private possible. And it is what makes freedom possible. Wall Street exists only through public support. It has a moral obligation to direct itself to public needs.

All OWS approaches to policy follow from such a moral focus. Here are a handful examples.

Democracy should be about the 99%

Money directs our politics. In a democracy, that must end. We need publicly supported elections, however that is to be arranged.

Strong Wages Make a Strong America

Middle-class wages have not gone up significantly in 30 years, and there is conservative pressure to lower them. But when most people get more money, they spend it and spur the economy, making the economy and the country stronger, as well as making their individual lives better. This truth needs to be central to public economic discourse.

Global Citizenship

America has been a moral beacon to the world. It can function as such only if it sets an example of what a nation should be.

Do we have to spend more on the military that all other nations combined? Do we really need hundreds of military bases abroad?

Nature

We are part of nature. Nature makes us, and all that we love, possible. Yet we are destroying Nature through global warming and other forms of ecological destruction, like fracking and deep-water drilling.

At a global scale, nature is systemic: its effects are neither local nor linear. Global warming is causing the ferocity of the monster storms, tornados, floods, blizzards, heat waves, and fires that have devastated huge areas of our country. The hotter the atmosphere, the more evaporated water and the more energy going into storms, tornados, and blizzards. Global warming cannot be shown to cause any particular storm, but when a storm system forms, global warming will ramp up the power of the storm and the amount of water it carries. In winter, evaporated water from the overly heated Pacific will go into the atmosphere, blow northeast over the arctic, and fall as record snows.

We depend on nature -- on clean air, water, food, and a livable climate. And we find beauty and grandeur in nature, and a sense of awe that makes life worth living. A love of country requires a love of nature. And a fair and thriving economy requires the preservation of nature as we have known it.

Summary

OWS is a moral and patriotic movement. It sees Democracy as flowing from citizens caring about one another as well as themselves, and acting with both personal and social responsibility. Democratic governance is about The Public, and the liberty that The Public provides for a thriving Private Sphere. From such a democracy flows fairness, which is incompatible with a hugely disproportionate distribution of wealth. And from the sense of care implicit in such a democracy flows a commitment to the preservation of nature.

From what I have seen of most members of OWS, your individual concerns all flow from one moral focus.

Elections

The Tea Party solidified the power of the conservative worldview via elections. OWS will have no long-term effect unless it too brings its moral focus to the 2012 elections. Insist on supporting candidates that have your overall moral views, no matter what the local issues are.

A Warning

This movement could be destroyed by negativity, by calls for revenge, by chaos, or by having nothing positive to say. Be positive about all things and state the moral basis of all suggestions. Positive and moral in calling for debt relief. Positive and moral in upholding laws, as they apply to finances. Positive and moral in calling for fairness in acquiring needed revenue. Positive and moral in calling for clean elections. To be effective, your movement must be seen by all of the 99% as positive and moral. To get positive press, you must stress the positive and the moral.

Remember: The Tea Party sees itself as stressing only individual responsibility. The Occupation Movement is stressing both individual and social responsibility.

I believe, and I think you believe, that most Americans care about their fellow citizens as well as themselves. Let's find out! Shout your moral and patriotic views out loud, regularly. Put them on your signs. Repeat them to the media. Tweet them. And tell everyone you know to do the same. You have to use your own language with your own framing and you have to repeat it over and over for the ideas to sink in.

Occupy elections: voter registration drives, town hall meetings, talk radio airtime, party organizations, nomination campaigns, election campaigns, and voting booths.

Above all: Frame yourselves before others frame you.

 

-----

Daryl Northrop

Tuesday
Oct252011

Website changes

Hello reader(s)!

Changed the website to a simpler design.

Let me know what you think.

Thursday
Oct062011

Protest vs Voting, or, Not everything is a binary choice

Hello reader(s),

Certainly by now, you have heard about the Occupy Wall Street movement, and it's follow on's: Occupy DC, Occupy LA, Occupy Boston, etc.

The mainstream media is terribly confused by this movement, largely because they do not have a hierarchical structure, a single-point leader, or a well defined agenda other than: a revulsion at corporate dominance of government, a lack of jobs, and a complete frustration with our feckless elected officials. Hey, wait, that almost sounds like an agenda...

Anyway.

Often there is talk in the protest circles that they are doing this because voting and elections don't matter and do not produce change. Well, that's not quite right. *Voting and elections have produced plenty of change, just not the change they were hoping for. *When the GOP was rebuilding its power base in the 1970's and 1980's, they didn't stop voting and choose drum circles, guerrilla theater, and protest marches, did they? Nope. They organized to change the framing and conversation of values and issues, organized to win elections, and implemented their (crappy) policies.

Now, I am not so jaded that I think public protests do not have a purpose, they do. They are a great way to express publicly a mass disatisfaction with the status quo. However, if lefties, progressives, liberals, whoever, abandon electoral politics, then the conservatives will dominate elected office even more so than they do now, and have even greater ability to enact terrible policies.

I am not advocating for blindly voting for Democrats, simply because they are slightly less awful than Republicans. We need more than that- we need accountable, progressive candidates to run, and win, elections.* I propose that both protesting and running progressives for office is the only viable route to enacting real change.* * * *If you, yes YOU, turn your back on voting and electoral politics in general, the range of negative outcomes is your fault. * * * If you want to protest and rage against the machine and take to the streets? Fine. Do it. Go for it. I am behind you all the way. In fact, I may be there with you. But without an electoral movement to elect progressives who will enact quality legislation, your actions are all thunder and no lightning.

__

Daryl Northrop

Tuesday
Sep272011

Complimentary goods, and you....

Here's a lesson in economics, friends. You see, when I was a senior in high school, approximately 14 years after the earth cooled and dinosaurs stalked the arboreal forests of Pangea, I took a class called Macroeconomics. This class, taught by the open-market loving Mr. Treman, taught me all about the basics of capitalism: Supply, demand, land, labor, capital, opportunity costs, taxes, tariffs, monopolies, all that good stuff. It also taught me about complimentary goods. And that, dear reader(s), is what this post is about.

 

 

 

<----hey - would you like your capitalism on the rocks, or straight up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, complimentary goods, what are they? Read the wikipedia link about...sheesh are you lazy! Ok, if you did not read the wikipedia link, complimentary goods are goods or services that are often related to each other, effect each others use, or prices. An example is peanut butter and jelly, hot dogs and buns, cars and gasoline, etc. The point is, when the price of one goes up or down, the other good is effected. Tonight's example is cars (or other vehicles) and roads/lanes.

The conventional wisdom (especially in the DC "Crappy traffic capital of the region") is 'Golly! Traffic sure is heavy! Lets add more lanes!'...five years later...'Golly! Traffic sure is heavy! Lets add more lanes...five years later...'Golly! Traffic sure is heavy! Lets add more lanes!'

Seeing a pattern here? It's almost as if adding more lanes not only has zero effect on traffic problems, it's that traffic actually gets heavier/worse the more lanes you add. That's because boys and girls, roads and traffic lanes are complimentary goods to cars. If you add more lanes, having a car is a more attractive transportation option, so people buy more cars, and traffic gets heavier, and more lanes are added, and the cycle loops around and around. It comes down to this - we could have freeways running through the greater DC area with 10 lanes on each side, and in a few years, traffic would be just as awful as it is now.

So when traffic becomes a problem, the solution is not to add more roads and lanes. If only there were some other 'alternative' transporation technology that could move lots of people without adding lanes, or without even using roads at all.....hmmmm.....what could it be???

 

***cross-posted at Angry Daryl Is Angry***

----

Daryl Northrop

 

 

Wednesday
Sep072011

Twitter vs Reality vs personal attacks

Hello all,

As an avid twitter user, I try to follow a wide range of people, from conservative to liberal, and from non-political to hyper-political. Often times there will be a spirited back and forth, especially with those who hold differing political views than I do.

 

However, when does a spirited exchange cross the line, and what are the consequences?

1. Repeated rejection of reality. Examples: human activity does not cause global warming, social security is broke, 9-11 was an inside job, NATO is bombing innocent Libyan civilians because it is racist/oil-grabbing. CONSEQUENCES: I will cease to respond. If the activity continues, I may un-follow.

2. Repeated rejection of reality followed up by ad-hominem personal attacks. Examples: @spiritofmadison termed me evil and cold hearted because I wished to make some minor fixes to the social security system. CONSEQUENCES: blocked.

I suspect my unfollowing activity might increase as hysterical and extremist political tweets multiply as we get closer to the 2012 general election. Disclaimer: I am an equal opportunity unfollower and blocker. Extreme non-sense and personal attack from the far left or far right get the same response.

See you on the tweeter!

Daryl Northrop

Sunday
Sep042011

I'd like to thank the Democrats for some free campaign training...

Thanks, Democracy for America!

The good folks at DFA have put together online training that is free, relevant, and vital to running a progressive campaign. Remember, when they say "Democrat" just think in your mind "Green Party." DFA is trying to run and elect progressive candidates, which is dandy. However, the Democratic Party leadership really is not interested in that. Not at all. Not even close.

However, as Greens, we are the progressive alternative to the corporate dominated Democratic Party.

So lets jump to one of their 2010 training presentations "Messaging for Progressives." This will open an audio/visual webinar. This cannot be downloaded, but their slideshow can. You will need to give them your name and email address in order to access training. Or, a name, and an email address...

Wednesday
Aug172011

Candidates + Pledges = My promise to you

Hello dedicated readers.

Let me take a moment to address the issue of the candidate pledge.

Wait. Not that kind of pledge. I'm talking the kind of pledge candidates make to pander to various special interest and single interest groups. There's the no tax increase pledge, there's the no more tax cuts pledge, there's the save marriage pledge, there's the free sombrero's to the Dutch pledge, etc, etc, etc.

You may be thinking, 'What's the harm in an itty-bitty pledge?' - especially if it is something a given candidate is likely to support anyways? Let me tell you. Grown up, adult, rational politics involves making compromises, sometimes tough compromises, sometimes scorchingly painful compromises for not only the good of your district, but for the nation, and quite possibly the world. If you go around making pledges to any group that waves some votes or a campaign contribution check in front of you, you end up painting yourself into a corner before you are even elected.

So, I make this final pledge to you and anyone who might support any future runs for office that I attempt.

I will make one oath, and one pledge. I will take the oath of office with the utmost seriousness. I will also pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.*

 

*I use the version of the Pledge of Allegiance used by all the brave Americans who fought in WWII and defeated fascism. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

---

Daryl Northrop

Sunday
Aug142011

New Idea Alert: National Popular Vote

 

We all know that the President is not elected by popular vote. He or (someday, but hopefully not Palin or Bachmann) she must win at least 270 votes in the electoral college. Most states award all of the "electors" to whomever wins the popular vote in their state. Example, in 2008 Barack Obama received a majority of the vote in Iowa, so he received all of Iowa's 7 electoral votes. There are some states that allocate EV's (electoral votes) a bit differentl (Maine & Nebraska are examples), but most states follow the winner-gets-all model of EV allocation. 

"What's the problem?"** This might be the question you are asking yourself right now. The problem is permanent disenfranchisement. The majority of states are not competetive at the Presidential level. This is why we have the term "battleground states" (roughly 10 states) in the first place, they can, and do, swing back and forth from supporting liberal or conservative presidential candidates. This means, if you are a Republican living in New York state, your vote does not count. Why? Because you are simply outnumbered by people who vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, in nearly every election. Likewise, if you are a Democrat living in Tennessee, your vote does not count, because people who tend to vote Democratic for President are outnumbered by people who vote Republican.

National Popular Vote (NPV) is an interesting new idea getting a lot of attention across the country. In their own words, proponents of NPV say:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

This sounds like an elegant solution that saves us the time, expense, and difficulty of amending the Electoral College out of the constitution. Also, this advances direct democracy, but transitioning the presidential election from 50 separate state elections to one, national election. After all, the candidates are not running to be President of Texas or President of California, they are running in the only nation-wide elected office we have in our system of government. It seems to make sense that the President be elected by a national popular vote, instead of the entrenced political tendencies of various states, or, but whoever can sway the majority of swing states. Is it fair that the President of the country be chosen, basically, by the voters of 5 states? No. Not at all.

NPV is not the only way to make our Presidential election more democratic, but it is another idea that gets us farther down the road to a modern, transparent, accountable voting system that lets everyone have a chance to be heard.

--

Daryl Northrop

**There is another major problem with the Electoral College. The constution does not compel individual states to allocate their EV's to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. This means that rogue electors could cast their EV's for a candidate who "lost" the state, thus invalidating the will of the majority of voters. Some states, but not all, have passed their own laws that force electors to cast their EV's for the candidate who won the majority vote. This is one of the most crippling flaws of the Electoral College, and a travesty to democracy.

Saturday
Jul162011

The Status Quo - everyone talks about it, but what supports it?

The two-party system is the status quo in the United States. We all know this like we know the sky is blue. I have been doing a lot of thinking about what pillars or foundation the current system of power rests on, and I have come up with some ideas. These pillars are by no means a comprehensive inventory of how the status quo remains in place, but they are important pieces of the puzzle.

If you want change, you have to collapse one or more of the pillars that the status quo rests on. Ready for some demolition?

The Pillars:

  1. Corporate and Special Interest campaign financing. Corporations and special interest want to stack the sytem to their advantage, so they donate - as individuals, via political action committees, via 527 issue-groups, etc.
  2. Politics has been turned in to a spectator sport. Either by accident or by design, the two major parties have turned politics in to a spectator sport, where supporters sit in the stands and cheer for their team, but never take the field as players, or even work the sidelines. Their job is to simply make noise when their side tells them to. Citizen politicians are by far the minority in elected office, especially at the federal level. The career politician, supported by special interest financing, and an army of paid political operative, run the show, and amateurs need not apply.
  3. Winner-take-all voting for single-seat elections. When elections roll around, we are sternly warned by the status quo not to waste our votes on third party or independent candidates. The participation of these candidates is somehow a problem, and a "spoiler." This voting system, and the message put out regarding it, serve as a method to coerce people into not voting their conscience. All registered Democrats must for a Democrat, no matter what. All registered Republicans must vote for a Republican, no matter what. Independents may vote for either a Democrat, or a Republican, but NOT for an independent candidate and not for a third party candidate.

In order for a system to collapse or be forced to change, at least one of these pillars must be kicked out from underneath it. I am aiming for #3. And you?

--

Daryl Northrop