Submitted by danps on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 6:45am
Submitted by danps on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 5:19am
Part 1.
Part 2.
Yesterday I looked at Bruce Murphy's article about the Wisconsin recall, and how Murphy thought Democrats and unions brought defeat on themselves. There is one point he made that fits in with a purely political analysis, which is what I'm focusing on today. He writes: "Had Tom Barrett — or any Democrat — offered an alternative, some approach that would eliminate the abuse of public benefits without crushing unions, while protecting the many public workers who are not overpaid, this could have carried the day against Walker." Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 8:55pm
Part 1.
Since the recall was run as a conventional political campaign, instead of one grounded in the turmoil of last year, it's fair to ask how the latter might have looked. Doug Henwood offered these thoughts:
Suppose instead that the unions had supported a popular campaign - media, door knocking, phone calling - to agitate, educate, and organize on the importance of the labor movement to the maintenance of living standards? If they'd made an argument, broadly and repeatedly, that Walker's agenda was an attack on the wages and benefits of the majority of the population? That it was designed to remove organized opposition to the power of right-wing money in politics? That would have been more fruitful than this major defeat.
It seemed like the Barrett campaign never bothered to make the case for unions in general or collective bargaining in particular. I kept thinking, did last winter just go down the memory hole? Why isn't anyone bringing up the unjust law that was the catalyst for all this? Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 8:09pm
Submitted by danps on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:07am
One of the things liberals are terrible at is messaging. We tend to start discussing issues by going Full Wonk, and that isn't very appealing to the largest part of the population. If you want to engage on an issue you need to get your rhetorical foot in the door first, and that means finding a quick, punchy way to grab the average citizen's attention. Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:17am
The New York Times report on president Obama's kill list put into stark relief something that has been easy to overlook at times over the past few years: the differences between those who prefer a personality-based political environment and those who emphasize policy.1 Those tensions really came to a boil after Chris Hayes discussed the drone program on his show last week. Kevin Gosztola posted on the reaction; in it and a companion piece several exchanges involving Tbogg showed the division very clearly.2 Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Sat, 05/26/2012 - 6:46am
Submitted by danps on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:13pm
[Dan is being wicked modest here, since he's involved in the pushback against fracking (as are a lot of people scattered across the country, if you read the D - x and counting series, which covers them as an import way that citizens exercise their rights (and duties)). Dan's effort is also connected to the series we ran on non-violence. And Corrente has been [lambert blushes modestly] ahead of the game in the fracking effort, ever since PA_lady published her series back in 2010. --lambert]
On Tuesday a group of Shalersville residents attended a meeting of its trustees to voice their objections to fracking. Video of all the statements can be seen at the Shalersville No Fracking web site. There was a three minute speaking limit so the clips are short. (If you cannot watch video where you are, this is a rough transcript of my own remarks.) Here is just one of them, and note how the resident talks about her opposition to fracking from both a technical and visceral perspective. There are logistical, technological and environmental reasons to not want a fracking operation in your town, but there are emotional ones too:
Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 8:10am
Submitted by danps on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 8:19am
Submitted by danps on Thu, 04/19/2012 - 8:45pm
The fight against fracking in Ohio comes at a time when the state is approving new wells at a rapid pace. Local activists are organizing in an environment where the ground is constantly shifting under their feet - sometimes literally.
Anti-fracking activism has been influenced by developments both inside the state and beyond. At a recent public anti-fracking meeting a representative from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) described the experience of activists in western Pennsylvania several years ago. Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 5:00pm
This was published with considerable feedback from affinis, JuliaWilliams, okanogen, and lambert. My sincere thanks to them for their help.
The purge of livestreamers and other transparency advocates at Occupy Oakland has been largely successful, and last weekend produced one of its predictable results. At the weekly Fuck the Police march there was a huge spike in vandalism (via) over previous ones, and there was a greatly escalated police response. The unilateral disarmament of livestreamers meant that, as Sue Basko (among others) pointed out, only the authorities were able to record the events of that night. If they choose to selectively edit or show only clips that support their side of the story, what will there be to rebut that?1 (Basko also points out that livestreaming video can be used to rebut charges made by authorities, something the accused in this case might find handy. Her Occupy Symposium has been collecting really nice essays on this topic, incidentally.) Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 6:08am
Submitted by danps on Sat, 04/07/2012 - 7:23am
Submitted by danps on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 6:54am
Pages
