Mediaboss Marketing

By Daryl Johnson By Daryl Johnson August 21 at 6:00 AM Daryl Johnson is the former senior analyst for domestic terrorism at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He now owns DT Analytics, a private consulting company for state and local law enforcement.

Here's why you can't ignore violent right-wing extremists when it comes to domestic terrorist attacks. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

Eight years ago, I warned of a singular threat the resurgence of right-wing extremist activity and associated violence in the United States as a result of the 2008 presidential election, the financial crisis and the stock market crash. My intelligence report, meant only for law enforcement, was leaked by conservative media.

A political backlash ensued because of an objection to the label right-wing extremism. The report also rightly pointed out that returning military veterans may be targeted for recruitment by extremists. Republican lawmakers demanded then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano rescind my report. The American Legion formally requested an apology to veterans. Some in Congress called for me to be fired. Amid the turmoil, my warning went unheeded by Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security caved to the political pressure: Work related to violent right-wing extremism was halted. Law enforcement training also stopped. My unit was disbanded. And, one-by-one, my team of analysts left for other employment. By 2010, there were no intelligence analysts at DHS working domestic terrorism threats.

Since 2008, though, the body count from numerous acts of violent right-wing terrorism continued to rise steadily with very little media interest, political discussion or concern from our national leaders. As this threat grew, government resources were scaled back, law enforcement counterterrorism training was defunded and policies to counter violent extremism narrowed to focus solely on Muslim extremism. Heated political campaigning by Donald Trump in 2016 pandered to these extremists. Now, right-wing terrorism has become the national security threat which many government leaders have yet to acknowledge.

[The Trump administration is showing white nationalists it wont fight them at all]

The mere existence of so many heavily armed citizens filled with hate and anger toward various elements of American society is troubling enough in its own right. They number in the hundreds of thousands. More troubling is the violent convergence now underway within right-wing extremist movements sanitized with the label alt-right. Largely under the media radar, disaffected extremist groups with long histories of squabbling have been independently pooling resources, some even infiltrating our government through the outreach efforts of right-wing extremist groups such as the Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Over the past year, weve witnessed political violence erupt between right-wing extremist protesters and counterprotesters at pro-Trump rallies in Minnesota, Washington, California and now Virginia. This rebranded alt-right extremist movement has the ultimate goal to disrupt civil society, undermine government institutions and pick which laws if any they will abide by, and what supposed justice they will administer on their own authority.

But the story, in a very real sense, didnt begin in 2017. As with the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges during the 1990s, the 2014 Bundy standoff in Nevada and the 2016 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge siege in Oregon have served not only as recruitment opportunities for anti-government and hate groups, but they also serve as a radicalization facilitator. Why? Because extremists in the 2014 and 2016 standoffs were allowed to take up arms against the federal government and threaten law enforcement officers without suffering any legal consequences.

[Not punishing the Bundys for the Nevada standoff led to the occupation in Oregon]

More recently, the renewed debates over Confederate monuments, same-sex marriage and Black Lives Matter has reinvigorated alt-right extremists to mobilize toward a more radical fringe element capable of violent action at any moment. Of further concern, a new generation of charismatic leaders within the white supremacist movement has emerged after Trumps election, creating an opportunity for disparate groups to unite under one banner.

Neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, militia extremists, and other radical right-wing zealots march side-by-side at pro-Trump rallies across the country. Trumps endorsement of the border wall, the travel ban, mass deportations of illegal immigrants these ideas were touted on white supremacist message boards merely 10 years ago. Now theyre being put forth as official U.S. policy. Such controversial plans have placated white supremacists and anti-government extremists and will draw still more sympathetic individuals toward these extremist causes along with the sort of violent acts that too often follow, like Charlottesville.

Rhetoric from the president has further emboldened the alt-right. After the violence in Charlottesville, former KKK leader David Dukewelcomed President Trumps remarks: Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa. Similarly, other white nationalists praised the president for not attacking them.

[When white supremacists strike, police dont always strike back]

America finds itself overwhelmed with domestic terrorist attacks, increased terrorist plotting and the emergence of new polarizing political issues. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has not only failed to implement an effective strategy to combat right-wing terrorism; it is afraid to even raise the subject in public for fear of political backlash or contradicting its narrow-minded terrorism narrative (e.g., terrorism only comes from Muslims).

Extremists no longer hide anymore. They number in the hundreds of thousands and are extremely well-armed. The political apparatus and the news media appears confused in their reporting of the scope of the domestic terrorist threat some ignoring it completely. When 9/11 happened, the government made an effort to connect the dots beforehand, but failed because of a lack of communication among agencies. In this case, the government isnt even trying and worse, it appears to be enabling the threat to flourish.

The Islamist militants who brought down the World Trade Centers twin towers 16 years ago (or the ones who rammed their vehicles into pedestrians in London, Paris and Barcelona recently) had no domestic constituency. Their acts werent enshrined instantly on social media or obliquely heralded by the president, duly elected representatives or rationalized by media ideologues dead set on preventing a political backlash. The terrorists I have dedicated my life to stopping have had all that going in their favor. This is more than a formula for disaster. It virtually invites the disaster upon us.

Read more:

This is how you become a white supremacist

Attacks like Portlands will keep happening unless we all fight white supremacy

White supremacists love Vikings. But theyve got history all wrong.

Go here to read the rest:
I warned of right-wing violence in 2009. Republicans objected. I was right. - Washington Post

AUGUSTA Several Republican lawmakers are expected to announce their concerns Tuesday about expanding Medicaid, a first step toward what could become a formal campaign to oppose the question voters will face on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Rick Bennett of Oxford, a former Maine Senate president and former chairman of the Maine Republican Party, will join three sitting Republican lawmakers at an 11 a.m. State House news conference to make an announcement of importance to Maine taxpayers, senior citizens and families, said Brent Littlefield, a Washington-D.C.-based political consultant who also advises Gov. Paul LePage and Maines 2nd District U.S. Rep Bruce Poliquin.

The news conference is not meant to be a kickoff event for a campaign opposing Question 2, which would expand Medicaid in Maine under the federal Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, Littlefield said.

Its going to be much more specific than that, he said. But he noted that a campaign may follow.

Joining Bennett at the news conference will be Reps. Heather Sirocki, R-Scarborough; Paula Sutton, R-Warren; and Stephanie Hawke, R-Boothbay Harbor.

Maine Equal Justice Partners, a progressive advocacy group for low-income people, gathered more than 67,000 signatures of registered Maine voters to put the Medicaid expansion question on the Nov. 7 ballot. The proposal would expand Medicaid coverage to adults under 65 who earn below $16,000 for a single person and $22,000 for a family of two.

Currently, 19- and 20-year-olds, individuals with disabilities, the elderly and certain low-income parents qualify for Medicaid, which operates as MaineCare.

David Farmer, a spokesman for the expansion campaign, has said it will reduce the number of people without health insurance, it will create jobs.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called Maines uninsured rate of 8.8 percent in 2015 an all-time low, but Maine Hospital Association President Steven Michaud has said state eligibility rules cut MaineCare enrollment by 75,000 people in recent years, according to The Associated Press.

Michaud said that move shifted costs to Maine hospitals, which are providing about $250 million a year in charity care while Medicaid payments to hospitals are decreasing.

Expanding Medicaid is estimated to cost Maine $54 million each year once it is fully implemented, according to the ballot questions fiscal note.

That figure includes $27 million in estimated savings and the cost of 103 new state positions to administer the expansion. The federal government would chip in $525 million each year, and lawmakers would have to appropriate the $54 million if the ballot question passes.

But Republican opponents to the expansion, including Gov. Paul LePage, have said the expansion, even with the matching federal funds, would decimate the state budget and cause the Legislature to increase state tax rates to cover the shortfalls.

LePage has repeatedly told radio talk show hosts the expansion would set the states fiscal house in disarray for decades to come. Also in question is whether the Affordable Care Act will remain in place under President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress, where both lawmakers and Trump have promised to repeal and replace the landmark law, which is considered a key accomplishment of former President Obama.

The ACA provides federally matching Medicaid funds for states that expand the health insurance program for the nations poorest citizens, and while the repeal effort has yet to succeed, the issue remains a top concern for lawmakers in Washington. Under the ACA, states that expand Medicaid would see a gradual tapering of the federal reimbursement rate to a low of 90 percent of a states expansion costs in 2020.

Scott Thistle can be contacted at 791-6330 or at:

[emailprotected]

Twitter: thisdog

Continue reading here:
Republicans organize to raise concerns about Medicaid expansion in Maine - Press Herald

Liesel Kershul fiercely opposed the war in Iraq. Shes been a Bernie Sanders acolyte since the early aughts, and she spent her high school years organizing on-campus protests against police brutality.

Then she married a Marine. While her views didnt change, her expression of them did.

I felt like, oh, I need to keep my mouth shut because I love this man and I dont want to interfere with his career, Kershul says in an interview.

Military spouses often take their cues from the military, where service members are generally discouraged from openly discussing politics, especially if they fall on the left end of the spectrum. Ask any service member what news station plays in the chow hall, and chances are theyll say Fox. Progressive views tend to stand out, and those who hold them keep quiet.

But after Donald Trump was elected President in November, Kershul couldnt keep her politics to herself. In a post inviting friends and family members to join her at the January Womens March in Washington, D.C., the 34-year-old completely came out on Facebook as a progressive.

After posting, she was surprised to learn that there were many other women in the military community like her.

Progressive affinity and political action groups have popped up in online spaces in the wake of the November election to engage, embolden and rally liberal military spouses, veterans, and service members.

For many of us, it feels like a sea change, says Kershul.

While marching on the National Mall, she met Angie Drake, co-founder of Homefront Progressives, an online networking group that grew out of a military offshoot of the wildly popular, pro-Hillary Clinton Facebook group Pantsuit Nation.

Drake gave Kershul a pile of yellow sashes to hand out to military families in attendance, a reference to the yellow ribbons commonly tied around trees and outside of homes while family members are deployed. They disappeared like hot cakes.

Looking around that crowd, I thought, wow, I am definitely not alone here, says Kershul.

There is a strong push to get people to volunteer to help change the 2018 elections, to get more military community members involved in politics, to get more veterans and spouses to run for office, says Drake, describing the work of Homefront Progressives.

As the 2018 election nears, Homefront Progressives will focus on voter education, registration, volunteering, and how to do so as a military community member without stepping on a lot of toes at the local base, she adds.

Drake, who has been an Air Force spouse for about 27 years, said she operates public and private pages for the group. On the private webpage, military progressives give each other the encouragement to speak out in their communities. On the public page, members have shared stories about sexual assault, economic insecurity, and their decisions to publicize their political views after years of silence.

Kershul is a regular contributing writer. I, for one, am no longer willing to wear a muzzle, she wrote in an April post.

Kat Howell, who is married to a Marine, started a private Facebook group, Liberal Military Network, after the recent presidential election. Through a string of connected Facebook groups, she met Kershul, who invited her to blog for Homefront Progressives.

There are more people coming forward, and it gives me a lot of hope that maybe at our next duty station I'll actually get to meet [some] in person, Howell says.

Another organization, Common Defense, was founded during the 2016 presidential campaign by veterans opposed to Donald Trump. Run by an all-veteran staff, members of the group organize locally to stand up for social, economic and environmental justice. Co-founder Alexander McCoy tells The Progressive he believes its the first progressive organization to be run by veterans.

McCoy, who left the Marine Corps in 2013, says the impetus for Common Defense came during the 2016 presidential campaign. After he read in The Washington Post that Trump had lied about donating money to veterans charities, he put together an impromptu protest in front of Trump Tower, inviting veteran friends he knew in the city.

The next thing I knew I was on The Last Word with Lawrence ODonnell on MSNBC that night, McCoy says. Thats when we realized, were onto something here. Its so important and so powerful that we speak out as progressive veterans.

One of the Common Defenses first actions was a partnership with MoveOn.org to call on Senator McCain to withdraw his endorsement of Trump following the candidates attack on the Khan family.

We were shocked and dismayed at the outcome and realized this is going to be a longer fight, McCoy says of the election. The group now has 150,000 members, including military family members and supporters.

The grassroots group recently participated in the Our Revolution Peoples Platform, mobilizing members to confront senators over the proposed ObamaCare repeal.

You cant separate this President's agenda from the impact it has on real people who have served in uniform, says McCoy.

Asked about the groups stance towards military and defense policy, McCoy says the membership is a big tent. Some members are explicitly anti-war, while others are simply critical of defense overspending.

Most people would say we need a military, says McCoy. And that military, if you have to have it, should be filled with people who represent the United States. And it should be filled with people with moral integrity. I dont see a contrast there.

Many members of Homefront Progressives agree. Jessica Hall, an Army spouse who manages the groups social media account, doesnt see a contradiction between supporting her husbands work and progressive causes. And she rejects the notion that its unpatriotic to consider cutting the defense budget in order to support social programs for all.

We all want a strong military. But do I think its already really strong? Yes I do, she says. How can we support our military in a better way but also support these programs that help the rest of America?

Stephanie Russell-Kraft is a Brooklyn-based freelance reporter covering the intersections of religion, culture, law and gender. She has written for The New Republic, The Atlantic, Religion & Politics, Religion Dispatches, among others, and is a regular contributing reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Go here to see the original:
Under Trump, Progressives in the Military Find a Voice - Progressive.org

Creative director of the maison explains his vision as he drives the company forward, while keeping its values firmly rooted in its heritage

By Kim Soo-jin

22 Aug 2017

Montblanc is a 110-year-old heritage brand. How do you keep the maisons heritage in tact while embracing modernity and change?

Change is part of Montblancs DNA. Montblanc is what I call a heritage maison, meaning its heritage comes with values in this case, the values inherent in our craftsmanship, excellence and innovation. And these values evolve over time, so that what we considered to be innovation 10 years ago is not what we consider it to be today, or what it will be tomorrow. So this evolution of our values allows us to keep moving forward without forsaking the heritage of the maison.

You describe your target client as a young urban progressive, rather than a young urban professional what is the difference?

The word professional has very specific connotations and I would say if [we had been talking about a client between] 2013 and mid-2016, we could have used professional as well. A progressive is basically a person who is a professional, but in a profession that is not yet necessarily defined. [When you hear] professional, you think of lawyers and doctors and of a certain kind of mentality. A progressive is somebody who does his own thing because he believes in it, and he has his roots in [it]. In fact, it doesnt matter if hes working in a profession that we know of, or if hes creating his own identity. So thats why we use progressive because it opens up the world.

Montblanc launches limited edition fountain pens in tribute to scientific work of Johannes Kepler

Which collections or products has the Chinese market responded well to? And how are you catering to this market?

In the last five years, globally, theres been a lot of blurring of cultures, genders, ages and nationalities. We cater to the urban young progressive, and the requirements of progressives around the world have merged and become very similar. The requirements of a young urban progressive in Shanghai or Hong Kong are similar to those of a progressive in London, New York or Milan. When I worked in fashion, I did a collection 20 years ago, and we had to do a Japanese collection, an American collection, a German collection, and a Chinese collection. Now, because the requirements of progressives everywhere are so similar, everything depends on aesthetics and on what the client wishes to express. You cannot say something works only in China or only in Europe. Its very much to do with the way in which people want to express themselves.

Montblanc dares to take risks with new grand complications

What is the biggest challenge that the maison faces right now?

I think the biggest [challenge] we face that everyone faces is that theres a lot of noise around. Theres information that everyone has access to. I come from a fashion background, and in the early days we used to work with the agencies. We understood trends and told our clients what those trends [were] going to be. Now, our clients have access to exactly the same tools that we have. But the challenge is to remain relevant and to create products that our clients can identify with. And I think it is very important to maintain this, otherwise you lose your identity somewhere.

Swiss smartwatches multiply as makers hunt millennial buyers

Montblanc has released its first smart watch, the Summit. How is the maison making its first wearable technology stand out from the crowd?

It starts with the case. When we began thinking about the smart watch, we wanted to see where it would live within the Montblanc watch universe. The 1858 collection was chosen for two reasons: first, it connects with our Minerva heritage in Villeret. Second, we were wondering, how does one interact with our mechanical watches? Its through the crown. When you push [the crown] it has a mechanical feel, so we decided that this would be how a wearer should interact with our digital watch. Another important aspect is the curved sapphire glass. The Summit has this slightly curved dome, so you have all this tactility it feels different, if feels more like a mechanical piece. So all these elements, when combined, create a piece that feels like a mechanical watch, but which provides all the benefits of being connected.

This article was originally published in Destination Macau

Here is the original post:
Montblanc creative director Zaim Kamal talks China's progressives and smart watches - South China Morning Post

Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Washington Post

The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics

The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics

Book World: Prescription for progressives: Focus on elections, not protests

The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics

By Mark Lilla

Harper. 143 pp. $24.99

---

The country confronts an extraordinary challenge from the right. President Trump's budget proposes to cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent, the Department of Education by 13.5 percent and the State Department by 30 percent, while boosting the military by 10 percent. Former adviser Stephen Bannon, a hero of the alt-right (a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state), had whispered in the presidential ear about dismantling the "administrative state," and a White House rhetorical campaign continues to delegitimize an independent judiciary and press. But are liberals in any shape to offer a compelling alternative vision? Can the myriad groups under the Democratic tent even work together? These questions have driven Mark Lilla to write his latest book, "The Once and Future Liberal."

A professor of humanities at Columbia, and the author of five books on political philosophy including "The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction," Lilla in his new book issues an important, passionate and highly critical wake-up call to liberals who, he believes, are stuck in the mud. In its early stages, his argument is illuminating but then veers seriously off course before ending up focusing on the right goal. First, he contends, the Democrats have been whipped bigly, as Trump might say, at every level of electoral politics. Second, Lilla believes that liberals haven't learned from their failure to appeal to voters. Third, they now have a window of opportunity. But, fourth, though liberals believe they are seizing the moment, they are not, because they are not focusing on elections. "If the steady advance of a radicalized Republican Party, over many years and in every branch and at every level of government, should teach liberals anything," Lilla writes, "it is the absolute priority of winning elections today."

Resistance isn't enough, Lilla says. Liberals need to join in support of a common set of ideals and policies. Lilla compares the Republican Party's website - which features "Principles of American Renewal" - with that of the Democratic Party, one of whose topic areas is "People." In that category are women; Hispanics; the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community; the Jewish community, Native Americans - in all, 17 separate groups, each with a unique message. Republicans reach out, make coalitions, focus on electoral office, and that's proved successful, Lilla says. If "we want to protect black motorists from police abuse, or gay and lesbian couples from harassment on the street," Lilla writes, "we need state attorneys general willing to prosecute such cases, and state judges willing to enforce the law. And the only way to make sure we get them is to elect liberal Democratic governors and state legislators who will make the appointments." So far, so good.

Lilla then describes liberalism's double-edged legacy from the New Left of the 1960s. As he puts it, the left "spawned identity-based social movements - for affirmative action and diversity, feminism, gay liberation - that have made this country a more tolerant, more just and more inclusive place than it was fifty years ago." But it also unwittingly "shifted the focus of American liberalism ... from commonality to difference." He adds, all too briefly, that what's missing is a cogent analysis of the painful class split in America that was abundantly revealed in our recent election. Again, so far, so good.

Then Lilla wades into stormy waters. Identity politics has launched liberals into a "victimhood Olympics," he asserts. Sure, I'd say, we have some of that. But, he concludes, "given the Republicans' rage for destruction, [winning elections] is the (BEGIN ITAL)only(END ITAL) way to guarantee that newly won protections for African-Americans, other minorities, women and gay Americans remain in place. Workshops and university seminars will not do it. Online mobilizing and flash mobs will not do it. Protesting, acting up and acting out will not do it. The age of movement politics is over, at least for now. We need no more marchers. We need more mayors. And governors, and state legislators, and members of Congress." Here I say, wait a minute. Whoa!

What Lilla isn't seeing is that we come to electoral politics in many different ways. Some people come to it through a desire for public service, bypassing social movements altogether. Others join social movements, get stuck in identity silos and ignore elections. This book is for them. But many others - like myself - were drawn to politics by participating in social movements. When I was in high school, politics seemed very much a male realm. It was through feminism that I learned that I, too, had a voice, could join the conversation, advocate, petition, vote. Again, it was as a civil rights worker in the South that I got a frightening look at the link between race and electoral politics.

We need social movements, and we need to move outward from them. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a young black man who approached me after a talk I gave at the University of California at Berkeley. He referred to a June front-page photo in the New York Times of black Harvard graduate students in caps and gowns at their own black graduation ceremony. On the same page, he saw a photo of a white man above a headline reading "Fringe Groups Revel as Protests Turn Violent," whom he guessed not to be a college graduate. "I wish some of the black graduates from the top picture could tell the white guy from the bottom picture, 'Hey, we're not leaving you out.'" Then he added, "But if I drive three hours north from Berkeley, I don't feel safe as a black man." The young man felt both a need for a movement and a determination to reach common ground with others beyond it. This view is echoed by leaders such as the Rev. William Barber II, a pastor who spoke at New York's Riverside Morning Church on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's Vietnam speech and who has launched an ecumenical "Repairers of the Breach" movement. In 2013, he led peaceful Moral Mondays demonstrations at the North Carolina General Assembly to protest restrictions on voting.

Lilla's message to liberals is timely and welcome. But he might better advise them: Go on your march. Join the marches of other groups, too. And continue to protest, above all. Then come home and organize that fundraiser for your favorite candidate for governor, the state legislature or Congress.

---

Hochschild's latest book is "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right," a finalist for the National Book Award.

Link:
Book World: Prescription for progressives: Focus on elections, not protests - The Edwardsville Intelligencer