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.

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

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

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

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

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

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...

Just a reminder - questions to ask yourself when you are writing something political...

There you are, sitting at your desk in some office, charged with writing a hard-hitting, concise piece of political brilliance.

Before your fingers become a blur of hyperbole, innuendo, false-correlations, and insinuations, remember to ask yourself:

1. How does this writing assignment fit in with your (campaign, group, agency) communication strategy? Does it help, harm, or do nothing to advance it?
2. What do you want your reader to KNOW after they finish?
3. What do you want your reader to DO after they finish?

Follow these tips, and you will have better writing than many of the politicals hacks out there right now!

--

Daryl Northrop

Blogging....from the PAST

Anyone interested to read my blog entries from 2003 to 2009? Of course you are! Feel free to browse my first blog, Towards a Green Future, over at LiveJournal. Stop snickering - LiveJournal was one of the few relatively easy to use blogging platforms in 2003. That's 8 years ago, which in internet-time is 4 billion years.

See cave-drawing below for what the blog looks like:

--

Daryl Northrop

Newsflash: Red still does not equal Green!

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/02/18683604.php

Socialist Party USA Presidential candidate drops bid to win Green Party Presidential nomination. 

In a statement, Stewart Alexander said his decision was based upon the Green Party’s nomination requirements; “the requirements would greatly restrict my ability to seek the U.S. Presidential Nominations for the Socialist Party USA and the Peace and Freedom Party.” 

Our requirements? Like, being an actual Green Party member dedicated to building the party? Actually, I hold no ill-will against Alexander or his party, even though I believe they are seriously misguided in their policies. However, if you are going to run a presidential candidate, it has to be with a goal: Winning, building the party, helping local candidates - whatever. But, I believe that one candidate representing multiple parties is not the way to go.

--

Daryl Northrop

From the wild corners of the internet - Why calls for a third party fall flat

We need a third party candidate! We need a third party!

>>crickets<<

Stalking the wooly fringes of the internet are articles like this from Thomas Molitor who writes at NMPolitics.net. He posits that the voters want a new candidate and a new party because two policy ideas are missing from the current political debate: An reformed money system, and a flat tax. I could go into a long discussion that these two ideas are missing from mainstream political debate for a reason: they are really, really bad ideas.

However, the issue I would like to discuss is what it would take to have a robust multi-party system.

What would it take? I am asking you, my tens and tens of readers. Comment and let me know.

My belief is that it would take three things: Money, votes, and for people to do more than just wish for a third party or third party candidate.

In nearly every partisan race for office across the nation, from city council, to state legislature, to Congress, and the presidency, there are more than just Republican and Democratic Party candidates. Just look a bit farther down the ballot, and by golly, there they are! So, the extra choices are there. What's missing?

Money and votes - that's what's missing. Running for office, even a small race in a geographically limited area takes money. To raise the money, you need an organized group of people who can build a donor base. The vast majority of third party candidates are missing this piece of the puzzle. Many are so uncomfortable about asking for money, or so head-in-the-clouds, that they think money doesn't matter and should not even be discussed. This is one of the main reasons they do not, and cannot win, an election.

Votes, in the end, are what it takes to get a candidate and their party into power. The responsibility rests on two parties: the voter, and the candidate. Voters say they want third party candidates, and third parties. Well, I can say I want a unicorn, but that isn't going to make one spring into existence. When it comes down to the actual casting of their vote, the vast majority of voters chicken out and vote for either a Republican or Democratic candidate. Why? The reasons are myriad, but the two main comments are: "I don't want to help the candidate I really oppose" (this is the spoiler argument), or, "I want to vote for a winning candidate." Vast articles have been published on why both of these are crap reasons to vote for a major-party candidate, so I will skip the discussion here. The responsibility of the candidate is to give the voters a compelling reason to vote for them. Hint: a compelling reason is not "hey, I'm not a democrat or a republican." The candidate must mount a campaign that is relevant to the race they are campaigning in. Why do I say this? In 2004, a Socialist Workers Party candidate ran for mayor of a mid-western city on a policy of reforming our relations with Cuba. Um.....what? An interesting issue, but one that has near zero saliency in that particular race. A campaign, based on clearly articulated values, and built around issues relevant to the campaign is the only want to actually get a meaningful number of vote. Does this mean the candidate has to talk about exactly the same thing in exactly the same way the two major-party candidates do? No. In face, differentiation is important.

If you are a voter, stop and seriously consider if you really want more than two parties or not, and what you might be willing to do to make that happen. You can give money, you can give your vote, you can do both, or just one or the other. But, you must do one of these things, or you will not get what you claim to want. It's really that simple.

If you are a third-party candidate, stop and seriously consider what you are really doing. Are you running a campaign to make yourself feel good about an issue? Or, are you running a serious campaign that is focussed on winning the election, or at least building credibility for yourself and the party which could help win future elections? If not, you may be technically running for office, but your words and actions are completely irrelevant, and those people who choose to give their funds and votes to you are wasting their resources.

Thanks for reading, and your comments are welcome!

--

Daryl Northrop

Questions from the peanut gallery...

In my last post, I asked for questions or topics that people would like to know my Green Party perspective on. This was also sent into Twitter-land. A gent who follows me on twitter, let's call him "ThoughtfulRINO"* asked me two rather tongue-in-cheek questions. At least that's what I first thought. But then I realized they are not so tongue-in-cheek after all. The two questions speak to common misperceptions of the Green Party, and illustrate values and policy areas that we need to communicate more effectively about.

Ok, now on to the questions. First, a disclaimer: All thoughts and opinions expressed in this post and all other posts are solely my own. They are not official statements from any Green Party organization or election campaign. Whew! I feel better, don't you?

ThoughtfulRINO: @DarylNorthrop what do you guys love more: taxing the rich or cutting defense?

Misconception about Greens: We hate the rich and we hate the military. My opinon as a Green: I would love to be rich some day, and I honor and respect our soldiers - for they have pledged their life to defend the nation and me from harm.

Taxing the wealthy or cutting defense spending are meaningless actions considered on their own. They are only budgetary and economic tactics. Tactics are generally without political orientation. A Green Party strategy of fiscal responsibility, peace, and social justice might feature the tactics of taxing the rich or cutting defense spending. Over the past 30 years, income taxes for the wealthiest earners have fallen dramatically, corporate tax rates have fallen, and capital gain taxes have fallen, while defense spending (and other government spending) has risen to levels not seen since WWII. It is not a coincidence that social programs have been cut, the tax burden on the poor and the middle class has increased (often in the form of sales tax hikes, property tax increases, auto registration fees, gas taxes, etc).

Now, the question is What Is To Be Done? The answer is to first identify the American values that we seek to apply to the situation. Fairness, Equity, Respect for Future Generations. In a nation that has a large budget deficit, an ambitous foreign policy of leadership, and pressing infrastructure needs at home - everyone should pay their fair share in taxes, from the poorest individual to the wealthiest, and from the small businessman to wealthy multi-national corporations that have facilities here. Early in the 20th century, the progressive income tax was implemented. As a Green, I support the progressive income tax. Why? Because it shifts the tax burden on to those who benefit most from society and those who have the most ability to pay without suffering ill-consequences. Further, a progressive income tax is needed in a modern capitalist economy due to the tendency of wealth to accumulate in a very small segment of society. In order to function properly, a capitalist economy must have a measure of reinvestment of income from the rich to the middle class and the poor. Some may argue that taxing the wealthy at a higher percentage than the middle class or the poor is unfair, but lets look at the historical record - the US has taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate than the middle class and the poor for nearly 100 years. We also have the wealthiest nation on the planet, with a large middle class, and more millionaires than we know what to do with. However, during the past 30 years, the tax rate on the wealthy has been cut by nearly 50%. Not coincidentally, more and more wealth has accumulated in to the hands of the few, and that means that more and more political power has accumulated there as well.

Is that fair? Is that equality? Is that healthy for our democracy and our economy? No.

ThoughtfulRINO: @DarylNorthrop i've got another for your green friends: if you could boycott or tax into oblivion 1 corporation, which one would it be?

Misconception: Greens hate big business and think all corporations are bad and evil and should be run out of business. My opinion as a Green: business should be conducted in a way that honors our values of fair trade, respects the environment, and treats employees with decency and dignity.

Another good question. But, punishing corporations is another action, or tactic, that does not have much meaning without context. Corporations can either be operated within the bounds of the law, and in an ethically positive manner. Or, they can be operated outside the law, exercise unhealthy influence over the government, engage in non-competitive or monopolisitic business behavior, and cause severe environmental damage. Which type of business would you rather buy from, be employed by, or have located in your community? The answer is obvious - the lawful, ethical, environmentally respectful company. However, we hear daily of companies that lie to their shareholders, deceive the financial markets through phony sales and profit reports, damage the environment, and treat their workers inhumanely.

Businesses, large and small, should operate within the bounds of the law, and in a way that builds real value in the economy, which is part of the larger society. Companies that do break the law, pollute the environment excessively, deliberately build dangerous goods, and demean their workers should be punished in a way that stops the destructive behavior and corrects their future actions. The value in effect here is accountability. Business and the economy in general do not operate in a vacuum devoid of values, morals, ethics, and effects on the society in general. My high school macro-economics teacher summed it up simply when he said that the economy is made up of land/environment, labor/workers, and capital. If you degrade or damage any one of those components, you damage the economy and the society in general.

So thank you for the questions, even the tongue-and-cheek ones. Keep 'em coming!

*The whole "RINO" reference is an inside joke. For those that don't know, RINO stands for Republican In Name Only, and is generally used by conservative and reactionary members of the GOP to deride more moderate conservatives who dare to vote in a non-ideological manner, and that apply commonsense along with conservatism when legislating.

---

Daryl Northrop

I need a blog topic. What do you want to know about the Green Party?

I've written quite a bit about what I think the public should know about the Green Party. But, am I covering all the bases?

If you have something YOU would like to ask about the party - send me an email daryl@darynorthrop.com with your question.

Please advise in the email if I can credit/quote you, or if you would like your questiont to remain anonymous.

Thanks!

--

Daryl Northrop

Too good to pass up - the Green Party of Canada rolls out vicious attack ad.

This is really below the belt stuff. The Canadian Green Party, in a stunning move, takes off the gloves and really mangles their opponents with this ruthless ad.

--

Daryl Northrop

Green vs Greed - The Green Party economic alternative

If you are over the age of 20, then you have lived through the following cycle:

Recession (1991-1993)

Economic Boom (1993-2000)

Recession (2001-2002)

Economic Boom (2003-2008)

Recesssion (2009 to present)

See a pattern here? You should. It is the classic boom/bust cycle of capitalism. Rather than get into a tedious debate over whether or not capitalism is good/bad/evil, let us just say that this boom/bust cycle is intrinsic to capitalism, and if you have a capitalist system, then you ought to be on the lookout for this cycle and the economic damage it causes.

So the alternative to continual enabling of the boom/bust cycle of the past 2 decades (and indeed 200yrs of American economic history) is to embrace a new definition of real wealth, and consider carefully what we truly value in our society. Is it tech bubbles, and phony real-estate booms? Or is it something else - the value of hard work, knowledge, expertise, and personal fulfillment?

An excellent source for new economic ideas is from David Korten's presentation at 2010 Pacific Northwest Regional Gathering.

Some great highlights are:

The Green Party begins not with an ideology, not with a quest for political power, but with a set of ten positive values that align with the needs of our time and frame a vision of the world of peace, justice, and environmental vibrancy for which most psychologically healthy humans have longed for millennia. These 10 values are: (1) Grassroots Democracy, 2) Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, 3) Ecological Wisdom, 4) Non-Violence, 5) Decentralization, 6. Community-Based Economics and Economic Justice, 7) Feminism and Gender Equity, 8) Respect for Diversity, 9) Personal & Global Responsibility, 10) Future Focus and Sustainability.

Our current economic system advances exactly the opposite of each of these values. We need to replace the defective system with a new system that honors these universal human values.

As Wall Street so clearly demonstrates, capitalism seeks monopoly control of every aspect of daily life to avoid market discipline and uses its financial power to circumvent democracy and hold politicians hostage to Wall Street interests in disregard of the interests of the electorate. Far from being the champion of markets and democracy, capitalism is the mortal enemy of both.

Far from facing a choice between capitalism and socialism, we face a seamless consolidation of economic and political power in a Wall Street-Washington axis dedicated to the further consolidation of its power beyond public accountability.

A Threefold strategy:

1. Change the defining stories of the mainstream culture. It is a simple, but rarely noted truth. Every transformational social movement begins with a conversation promoted through education and media outreach that challenges a prevailing cultural story and ultimately displaces it with a new story of unrealized possibility. The civil rights movement changed the story on race. The environmental movement changed the story about the human relationship to nature. The women’s movement changed the story on gender. Our current task is to change the prevailing stories about the nature of wealth, the purpose of the economy, our human nature, and the path to prosperity.
   
   The old story would have us believe that money is wealth. That the purpose of the economy is to make money. That it is our human nature to be individualistic, materialistic, greedy, competitive, violent. And that unleashing the unrestrained pursuit of individual greed is the path to universal prosperity. It takes only a moment’s reflection to realize that each of these ideas is false and morally bankrupt. Together these story elements constitute the foundation of false and morally bankrupt economic theories and policies that lead to terminal species failure.
   
   Our common future depends on expanding public awareness that money is only a number. That destroying real wealth to make money is an act of insanity. That it is our mature human nature to care and share. That unrestrained pursuit of individual greed in disregard of the needs of others is a sign of deep psychological dysfunction and presents a threat to the well-being of all. Positive action necessarily begins with new stories.
2. Create a new economic reality from the bottom up, as millions of people the world over are doing in their efforts to rebuild local economies and communities.  They are supporting locally owned human-scale businesses and family farms, developing local financial institutions, reclaiming farm and forest lands, changing land use policies to concentrate population in compact communities that reduce automobile dependence, retrofitting their buildings for energy conservation, and otherwise working toward local self-reliance in food, energy, and other basic essentials. This is the work for example of the Transition Towns Movement. I serve on the board of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE), which serves as a support system for such efforts in the United States and Canada.
3. Change the rules: Current law and public policy largely favor the self-serving and deeply destructive corporate-led global economy. That works well for the interests of big money. People and planet are better served by rules and policies that support local control and protect community interests. To change the rules, however, is necessary first to build the necessary political support through work at local levels to change the defining stories and demonstrate their application by building a new reality from the bottom up. As we are seeing about the country, rule changes also best start at the local level with action by local governments that are close to the real life concerns of people and place.

We already have a Green Party consensus on the framing vision and agenda; we simply need to boil it down to a coherent story that connects with the concerns at the fore of the public consciousness:  jobs and money.

Jobs and money are entry points to virtually all the issues central to the Green party vision. Our immediate priority should be to reframe the debate on jobs and money as an entry point to a broader discussion about economic policy options and the need for fundamental system transformation.

I hope you take the time to read his entire article (I've put about 1/2 of it here). The economy of our nation should serve the needs of the people vs the people serving the needs of Wall Street and its servants in Washington, DC.

--

Daryl Northrop

2011: yes YOU can.

Hello readers! Hope you had a safe and fun New Years eve celebration. Only one burst of celebratory gunfire new our Alexandria home. While I support my fellow citizens rights under the 2nd Amendment, just a word to the wise: what comes up must also come down. A bullet fired into the air can, and does descend with enough velocity to kill.

With that out of the way, this is now the official "Obigatory start of 2011 New Years Post!."

Here in 2011, the question remains: What do you want the government to do, to not do, and how to do it? This is a question that can never be answered, completely, once-and-for-all, in a democracy. But this is not a cause for despair, it is a cause for celebration. For it means that no matter how badly the ruling elite of botched things up at home and abroad, we, the people, have the ability to make things right. The history of our own nation is an example. After throwing off the yoke of British oppression, the Founding Fathers, with all of their visionary system, chartered a system of government called the Articles of Confederation (the predecessor to the Constitution).

It was a total failure. The system was broken. It did not work. At all.

So they fixed it. A constiutional convention was called, and a brand spanking new Constitution was drawn up, and everything was grand!

Except that it wasn't. They forgot a few minor details such as: Freedom of speech, separation of state and church, right to bear arms, due process, and all the really good stuff we think of as essential to democracy.

The point being is that our leaders (and us) are flawed, and we will rarely, if ever, get things right on the very first try. That is why one of my favorite parts of the constitution comes from the Preamble "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union..." This means that the process of forming our government and our society in general is an evolution, marked by mistakes, blunders, and (hopefully) corrections.

The Green Party is the same way. It is not driven by the powerful elite of our nation, it is driven by "We The People." We are far from perfect, but by holding true to our shared values of: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, Ecology, and Non-Violence, we can do better than what we are doing now.

--

Daryl Northrop

620,000

620,000

That is the number of Americans who were killed in the Civil War. The conflict was put into motion on this day in 1860 when South Carolina left the Union.

Of course, the number of slaves who lived in bondage, and died as property over the course of US history is many times that number, and the scars ofslavery still wound our nation to his day.

The price of viewing some as having innate racial superiority to others is at least partially expressed in those numbers. When some try to whitewash and romanticize the causes and costs of the Civil War, let us not forget the price that was paid, and is still being paid today.

--Daryl Northrop , Descendant of George Burroughs - Union soldier from Iowa.

Keep the Green Party in the black!

(Originally posted from Green Party Watch)

Financial support for your local, state, and national Green Party is imperative. There is no other way to say it. Politics takes money, and progressive politics that actually represent people takes clean money. So, if you can spare even $5 a month, you can make a real difference in politics here in America.

An Appeal For Support From Green Party Watch

Last week the Green Party’s National Committee passed a new Fiscal Policy intended to position the Party for financial growth going into 2011 and beyond. Now the National Committee is discussing the proposed 2011 Budget for the Party, which is (again) optimistic in light of the economic collapse this country is facing and the effect this economy has had on funding for non-profits. To the credit of this proposed budget it does more closely tie proposed expenditures to fund-raising targets, and it actually budgets for electoral support such as Ballot Access and Campaign support, something sorely missing from prior budgets.

But let me be frank – the Green Party of the United States, given that it does not accept corporate funding and is not eligible for public financing, is almost entirely funded by small donations from Greens like you and I. There are no National Membership Dues, there are only pleas for financial support. The financial support from us “Greens on the Street” have paid for having an office in DC, paid for having a Political Director, and Office Manager, and until recently a Fundraiser and Accountant. The Green Party (US) Budget has typically been shoe string at best, half or one-third that of the Libertarian Party, and likely a fraction of the budget of the two Corporate Parties that control our government and electoral system.

In fact, I will go a step further and say that there are months in which the Green Party (US) has had to decide between paying staff salaries on time versus paying off debts to creditors versus paying the rent. Sound familiar? Yup, many of us have been in the same boat.

Green Party Watch is a website dedicated to covering news and views about the Green Party, particularly the Green Party in the US, and without the Green Party we would have nothing to cover. Our goals in creating this website were primarily to help raise awareness online and through the media of what the Green Party is doing, what Green Party Candidates are doing, and what Green Party locals and state parties are doing. Green Party Watch is an ALL VOLUNTEER EFFORT. We have never asked for any money, we have never asked for any compensation for our time and work, and we don’t intend to. We have no paid advertisements on this site, there are no pop-ups, no Google ads, nothing.

We intend to continue this ad-free public service to Greens across the United States and beyond because we believe in expanding media coverage of the Green Party in order to fill that void in our corporate media, and we believe in helping to build a stronger community awareness of the Green Party by spreading the word of what the Green Party is up to, good or bad.

So now comes my rare and special plea to you, the Green Party Watch reader. I’m not going to ask for financial support for Green Party Watch (we don’t need it, not really). I’m not going to ask for support for my own campaign for City Council in Oshkosh, Wisconsin this Spring.

I am asking you to join me in making a small financial contribution to the Green Party of the United States.

Why? I won’t tell you that it is for campaign support or ballot access or anything other than what it is – A donation to KEEP THE GREEN PARTY IN THE BLACK. A donation to keep the office doors open, to keep the phone bill paid, to pay for mailings, to pay for merchandise, to pay for health insurance for the two or three employees the Green Party retains, to pay for travel costs to prepare the Annual National Meeting, to pay for the general operating expenses of an organization.

But not just any organization, the Green Party is NOT the Sierra Club. The Green Party is a bootstrap grassroots political organization that has a skeleton staff, low overhead costs, and no corporate ties. Nonetheless when I call 1-866-41-GREEN I reach an actual human who can answer my questions.

A donation to support the Green Party Candidate Database which we have used so extensively in our reporting here at GPW, and expanded coverage of Local Candidates. A donation to support continued Media Outreach, better web presence, LiveFeeds, support for a Local Organizing Kit, Publication of Green Pages, and more.

Green Party Watch gets around 500 visitors a day. During Election times or Israeli kidnapping of Cynthia McKinney we get thousands of hits a day. We have almost 1,500 people subscribed to our Facebook feed. None of this would be relevant without the Green Party. I have arranged with the Green Party (US) to set up a specific fund-raising campaign for the Green Party from Green Party Watch. I am now asking all of the GPW readers to either make a large or small donation to the Green Party or to become a sustaining member, whatever you can manage. Lets put our money where our mouths are.

I am pledging a $100 donation to the Green Party if someone will match me. Who’s in? $50? $25? How about the price of a pizza delivery?

Lets give a gift to the Green Party from Green Party Watch letting them know that we want them to keep the doors open, the phones on, and the candidates to support!

--

Daryl Northrop

Genetically modified food..

Something tells me we've taken this a little too far....

:-) Happy Monday everyone!

--

Daryl Northrop

Thank you to Brent McMillan, Exec Dir of The Green Party of the United States

On December 11th, Green Party members in the DC area met to give a great send off to Brent McMillan. Brent worked at the Green Party HQ in DC for 7 years, which is like 100yrs in real-world time! His efforts over the years were key in fundraising, organizing, recruiting candidates, outreach and countless other areas.

Often Brent worked under very challenging circumstances - whether under pressure from the two corporate controlled parties, or dealing with all the fun internal party fights that waste so much time and energy. But, through all of it, he was calm, professional, and worked to be as effective as he could, every single day. Did I say "every single day?" Yes, because he often worked 50, 60, 70, 80 hours per week.

So, Brent - I thank you for all you have done for party, and the movement for a vibrant, citizen-powered democracy in America. I always enjoyed speaking with you, and look forward to hearing about and being a part of your future efforts.

A shot of Brent giving a talk at the gathering.....