Project Economic Refugee

Randi blogs about the ultra-secretive Washington D.C. group “The Family”:

If you forgot to mark your calendar, this [February 4th] was the National Prayer Breakfast, sponsored by the secretive and shadowy far-right organization known as “The Family.”   Tea Parties? Prayer Breakfasts? Do you get the feeling that the people on the far right really want to be running a restaurant? If they could just open up a little diner somewhere and leave the governing to us, we would all be a lot happier. The National Prayer Breakfast is really the only thing that The Family does in public. It’s the stuff that they do privately that’s so disturbing.  The leader of “The Family,” has praised the tactical skills of Adolf Hitler. And you thought breakfast with your family was awkward! The Family is also pushing a law in Uganda that calls for imprisonment and execution for “aggravated homosexuality.” Why? Mostly simply because they’re aggravated by homosexuality. Of course The Family also runs the C Street house that sheltered and “counseled” adulterers John Ensign and Mark Sanford. There’s a nice breakfast tie-in: the problem with those guys was that they were makin’ bacon where they shouldn’t be. That’s a lovely agenda for a group that sponsors a prayer breakfast! “More orange juice?” “No thanks, I’ll just have a bowl of homophobia and a side of adultery.” 

Read her full blog here .

Organizing for America is currently requesting feedback from the public.  In the survey they have online, they do not list “immigration reform” as an issue that is “most important to you”.  However, you can select “Other” and type “Immigration Reform.  You can go to the survey here.  As you may already know, Organizing for America works closely with President Obama in terms of grassroots community organizing.

Speaking of President Obama … in case you missed it, here’s the video of President Obama taking the House Republicans on a Question & Answer session that some are hailing as a major game changer in terms of political momentum in his favor:

You can find the transcript of the Q&A session here.

Markos (Kos) Moulitsas has been posting content in support of an immigration reform that would help solve the humanitarian crisis that we currently have of economic refugees immigrating into the U.S.  Let’s show him support by linking back, distributing his material, and contribute constructive comments.  Here’s his latest post:

Immigration reform would be good for the economy

How timely that Naomi Kline’s How Corporate Branding Took Over the White House piece so well analyzes the state of Obama’s brand.  I found this portion of Naomi’s piece particularly on-mark:

[Obama] will boldly appoint the first Latina to the Supreme Court, while intensifying Bush-era enforcement measures in a new immigration crackdown…

This preference for symbols over substance, and this unwillingness to stick to a morally clear if unpopular course, is where Obama decisively parts ways with the transformative political movements from which he has borrowed so much (the pop-art posters from Che, his cadence from King, his “Yes We Can!” slogan from the migrant farmworkers - si se puede). These movements made unequivocal demands of existing power structures: for land distribution, higher wages, ambitious social programs. Because of those high-cost demands, these movements had not only committed followers but serious enemies. Obama, in sharp contrast not just to social movements but to transformative presidents such as FDR, follows the logic of marketing: create an appealing canvas on which all are invited to project their deepest desires but stay vague enough not to lose anyone but the committed wing nuts (which, granted, constitute a not inconsequential demographic in the United States).

By the same token, it’s particularly timely that George Lakoff has put in his two cents on his It’s Not Enough to Criticize Obama: Citizens Need to Take Action piece, here are few highlights:

In forming his administration, President Obama abandoned the movement that had begun during his campaign for deal-making and a pragmatism that hasn’t worked. [However] That movement is still possible and needed now…

The conservatives are winning the framing wars again – by sticking to moral principles as conservatives see them, and communicating their view of morality effectively. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama ran a campaign based on his moral principles and communicated those principles as effectively as any candidate ever has.

But the Obama administration made a 180-degree turn, trading Obama’s 2008 moral principles for the deal-making of Rahm Emanuel and Tim Geithner, assuming it would be ‘pragmatic’ to court corporations and move to the right, in the false hope of bipartisan support.

By the way, looks like President Obama will be focusing largely on jobs and dosmetic recovery on his State of the Union speech … we’ll see … you can watch the speech live below:

Update: here’s the post-game analysis:

Many of my liberal friends often tell me that they prefer to listen to NPR, Pacifica, or other non-profit independent radio.  While I support and enjoy some of that programming (one superb program is Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman), I always thought those stations to be overly folksy, dull, and too focused on issues occuring in other parts of the planet.  Furthermore, their constant pledge drives to raise funds from their listeners to run their operations tend to get old real quick and makes it look like they have no business model at all. 

Personally, I like to get a perspective that is more fast-paced, breaking news with a progressive perspective on what is going on with the political landscape of the U.S.  For this reason, when Air America Radio came around in 2004, I thought “thank God! I don’t have to listen to only boring ”ethnic” music anymore or only to dry academic or quasi-hippie discussions about the meaning of something … I can finally hear a discussion about strategy!”  

Well, this morning I ran across this piece of bad news via The Stephanie Miller Show’s Chris Lavoie’s twitter account:

The Steph Show has never been a part of Air America… in fact they were our competition. It’s sad, but the SM Show lives on.

I immediatly ran over to AirAmerica.com’s site and found that the site was gone; in its place, was this black-and-white text:

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a “perfect storm” in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry’s long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

Those companies that remain are facing audience fragmentation as a result of new media technologies, are often saddled with crushing debt, and have generally found it difficult to obtain operating or investment capital from traditional sources of funding. In this climate, our painstaking search for new investors has come close several times right up into this week, but ultimately fell short of success.

With radio industry ad revenues down for 10 consecutive quarters, and reportedly off 21% in 2009, signs of improvement have consisted of hoping things will be less bad. And though Internet/new media revenues are projected to grow, our expanding online efforts face the same monetization and profitability challenges in the short term confronting the Web operations of most media companies

When Air America Radio launched in April, 2004 with already-known personalities like Al Franken and then-unknown future stars like Rachel Maddow, it was the only full-time progressive voice in the mainstream broadcast media world. At a critical time in our nation’s history — when dissent on issues such as the Iraq war were often denounced as “un-American” — Air America and its talented team helped millions of Americans remember the importance of compelling discussion about the most pivotal events and decisions of our generation.

Through some 100 radio outlets nationwide, Air America helped build a new sense of purpose and determination among American progressives. With this revival, the progressive movement made major gains in the 2006 mid-term elections and, more recently, in the election of President Barack Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress.

Laws have changed for the better thanks to this revival…..but all the same our company cannot escape the laws of economics. So we intend a rapid, orderly closure over the next few days. All current employees will be paid through today, January 21. A severance package will be offered tomorrow to full-time current employees with more than six months of tenure.

We will strive to assist affiliates and partners in achieving a smooth transition. Starting at 6 pm EST today, we will provide our affiliates, listeners and users a selection of encore programming until 9 pm EST on Monday, January 25, at which time Air America programming will end.

We are proud that Air America’s mission lives on through the words and actions of so many former radio hosts who are active today in progressive causes and media nationwide. In the years ahead, as we look back, we should all be proud of our passionate determination to assure that our nation’s progressive voice would be heard loud and clear. Through the hard work and dedication of current staff, and those who preceded you, a lasting legacy was forged which will now continue through other voices and venues.

Thank you.

There is no question that this has been a bad week for progressives, what with a Republican winning Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat and with the Supreme Court ruling that has basically handed over our democracy to the almighty transnational corporate-powers-that-be.

For a roundup of what other non-Air America progressive radio hosts had to say about its closure, visit the greenmountdaily.com blog.

For an honest analysis of why Air America failed, head over to Huffington Post to read Bill Press’ (host of The Bill Press Radio Show) note.

So how do you feel about Air America closing its doors forever?

From Reuters:

In his message for the Roman Catholic Church’s World Day of Communications, the pope, who is 82 and known not to love computers or the Internet, acknowledged priests must make the most of the “rich menu of options” offered by new technology.

To read the story, click on this link.

January 22nd is Blog for Choice Day 2010 and I’m supposed to blog about this question: “what does the slogan Trust Women mean to you?”  But if I just did that blindly, I’d be doing a disservice to the pro-choice movement that has helped safeguard the dignity of American women.  Instead, I’d like to take this opportunity to reflect on where the “pro-choice” movement is at.  For the record, let me first state that I’ve always thought the frame “choice” (as in “it’s my body it’s my choice” mantra) has always seemed like a total loser to me.  I mean “loser” in terms of how it actually hurts the cause of women’s reproductive rights and also works against the overall strategy of keeping abortion legal because it fails to connect with a modern populace.

The messaging problem stems from multiple failed strategies, the likes of which were analyzed over at DailyKos on an aptly titled “Feminism Fail” post.  Setting the frame of abortion and reproductive rights purely as a matter of “choice” always sets liberals up for failure because it plays right into the hands of the conservatives’ stereotypes about them of “men and women using abortions as a lazy/irresponsible method of birth control”.  Not only that, but the frame “choice” runs counter to progressive identity.  C’mon fellow ‘pro-choicers’, for once, let’s be honest here: arguing in terms of “me, me, me, MY choice My body My decision” only communicates to the average person an individualist, dismissive, seemingly selfish, and ironically quasi-conservative (in the traditional sense) position, which is diametrically opposed to the sense of community, social, and mutually bonding responsibility that progressive ideals are supposed to uphold. 

Don’t get me wrong: I do not for a minute believe that the majority of women who choose to have an abortion are selfish or any of the things that I just described above.  In fact, I agree with Jessica Valenti of feministing.com on what she said back in 2007 in this piece that appeared on AlterNet.org:

Trust women to know what’s best for themselves and their families. Many women who choose to have abortions do so out of concern for their existing children. It’s time to put to bed the bullshit stereotypes of women having abortions out of “convenience” or selfishness. 

However, I think Jessica overlooks something key in terms of “trusting women”: there’s a difference between doing that in isolation and in doing that as a community that cares.  What do I mean by this?  Well, Rabbi Michael Lerner said it best in his “The Left Hand of God” book:

 …we should seek to create an ethos in which women feel invited to consult and receive support from others affected by their decision to abort, and conversely for those involved to offer support and comfort should such a decision be taken by the pregnant woman.

I just simply do not understand why ‘pro-choice’ groups do not co-opt the “life” slogan from the conservatives and expand their brand to frame abortion in terms of a healthy quality of life, which would include health care for all-especially for children, access to constraceptive education, and the fostering of pro-working family policies that give parents the support to provide a better quality of life for their children.  The middle class is under attack by our society’s modern obsessions of corporate materialist bottom lines of greed.  Yet, the ‘pro-choice’ groups fail to grab onto this narrative and run with it, opting instead to dig their heads stubbornly into the sands of stagnation.  It’s time for them to abandon their tired and isolating slogans of “choice” and instead embrace the slogan of being pro-HEALTHY families, meaning, as Rabbi Lerner put it: keeping abortion legal, safe, rare, and cultivating a culture that rewards the parents that opt to undertake the beautiful task of raising children.

…in support of gay marriage:

…I wonder if daughter Meghan McCain had anything to do with this (Meghan has previously made her support for gay marriage known publicly, angering the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party).  To read the statement that John McCain released in response to his wife ”going rogue” on him, visit DailyKos here.

Update: wonder how Sarah Palin will explain it to her teabagger followers why she campaigns to support John McCain, whose wife now supports gay marriage…

For those still in doubt about where she stands in terms of judicial ideology: Sonia Sotomayor joined progressive judges John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer in voting against overturning a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of corporate greed in political campaigns.  For more details about this ruling, check The New York Times here and DailyKos here.

Update: here’s an absolute must-read piece on this topic: Supreme Court’s Ruling Would Allow Bin Laden to Donate to Sarah Palin’s Presidential Campaign.  I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Bad news for Latinos and immigration reform: Scott Brown (picture above), who staunchly opposes immigration reform, just won the Massachusetts Senate seat.

Prepare yourself for the onslaught of spin that the right-wing media will force feed into the mouths of the coporate media journalists, who will swallow it whole unquestionably.  You know the usual conservative line: about how Massachusets is supposed to “represent a rejection of Obama and his ‘liberal policies’ blah blah blah”; when the reality of the reasons why the Democrats lost that seat were quite different.  Martha Coakley (Brown’s Democratic opponent), the DNC, and even the White House became complacent and unprepared to deal with the anger that that state had towards their Democratic governor.  Let’s be frank: Coakly ran a terribly lazy campaign, while Scott Brown worked really hard  to earn the vote of Massachusets.  Coakley was also a dull and smug candidate who assummed that in a Democratic state, she would win big no matter what … guess the lesson that the Obama campaign learnt in New Hampshire in ‘08 was unlearnt by Democrats: never take anything for granted!


I have to say, the Massachusetts Senate race has become quite an interesting case study in many old assumptions that continue to hamper the effectiveness of many progressive activists and Democratic officials.  For example, I’ve read some analyses arguing that the naked pictures of Scott Brown did not hurt him in his political aspirations because he was a “dude” and that if he were a woman, the situation would be completely different.  I disagree with that assumption because it fails to recognize the simple fact that looks, appearance, charisma, and marketing will always trump substance, respectability, and integrity in elections of high-profile public office holders.  Sarah Palin’s sexy and folksy image did not put her at a disadvantage; quite the contrary, they were a plus for her during the ‘08 campaign.  What trumped her image’s effectiveness was an even more powerful image than hers: the Obama story line of hope, progressive ideals, and national consciousness trascendence (Obama, of course, had also intellectual substance, but I would argue that his booksmarts came in 3rd place -behind his campaigns’ diciplined organizing strategy- to the powerful image his campaign crafted).       

Another assumption now in full display has to do with how “the Democrats do not enjoy a 60 vote majority in the Senate anymore”.  This was a total myth to begin with: Lieberman is really a corporatist Republican in disguise and Senator Sanders is not even registered as a Democrat, not to mention the fact that not all Democrats are progressives: many Democrats are actually conservatives, in the pockets of big corporations, who continue to side with Republicans (hence the importance of primaries to ensure that progressive Democrats, not conservative ones, win the nominations to be the actual Democratic Party candidate). 

The assumptions keep on rolling, with now some liberals starting to claim that the Masachusetts election might be a blessing in disguise to get the so-called “public option” back into the much-needed healthcare reform bill.  All I have to say is this: keep dreaming!  Do you really believe that the Democrats will actually have the balls to now scrap everything, start from scratch, and go the reconciliation route?  C’mon people, did you forget who is leading the Senate?!  Harry the timid softspoken Reid!  I say wake up, cut your losses and get what you can because when opportunity knocks, you better answer it or it might not come back again in a long time, or worse, ever.   

Update: maybe it’s time for some heads to roll: starting with Rahm Emanuel … a good replacement would be Howard Dean; hey, I’m just sayin’.

Update 2: here’s a good summary of what options are left for Democrats to pass health insurance reform.

Update 3: for a great analysis of the lessons [that should be learnt] from the health care reform battle thus far that could be applicable to the looming immigration reform debate, read this post.