Mediaboss Marketing

They gathered in the community center of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh on Tuesday night like the remnants of a battered army trying to regroup and rally.

The occasion was a meeting of the newly formed Peoples Coalition, a collection of 16 North Carolina progressive groups committed to promoting economic and social justice. The theme was mobilizing against the actions of the Republican-controlled General Assembly.

The warm-up music included Gil Scott-Herons early 1970s song, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Many in the crowd of about 75 people were old enough to remember when it was an activists anthem.

The Rev. Nancy Petty, Pullen Memorials pastor, opened the meeting with a moment of silence for the three adults and three children killed Monday in the Nashville school shooting and all victims of gun violence. Earlier in the day, the state Senate voted to override Gov. Roy Coopers veto of a bill that makes it easier to buy a handgun. That contrast expressed a gulf much wider than the 1.5 miles between the church and the Legislative Building.

Petty said the pandemic had halted in-person meetings and slowed progressive activism, but she said that lull is over. We are back and we are ready to be back, she said.

Petty noted that this year marks the 10th anniversary of the Moral Monday protests that united advocacy groups in opposition to actions by the legislature. She said it was time to reignite that resistance. Many North Carolinians, she said, are coming together as a Peoples Coalition refusing to let our lawmakers pass their dangerous agenda without a struggle and a fight.

Other speakers also spoke against the actions of Republican lawmakers, but the prospects for blocking those actions are bleak. Republicans, now in their 13th year in power, gained seats in the last election and are one vote shy of veto-proof majority.

Meanwhile, the election also gave Republicans a 5-2 majority on the state Supreme Court, replacing a 4-3 Democratic majority that had supported voting rights and rejected gerrymandered election district maps. Its likely the newly constituted court will approve new voting restrictions and redrawn district maps that will heavily favor Republican candidates in 2024.

Story continues

Sailor Jones, associate director of Common Cause North Carolina, alluded to those setbacks in addressing the audience. This time, my friends, the courts will not save us, Jones said. Who will?

We will, the audience responded, but it sounded more like a wish than a promise.

Yet a counter movement has to start somewhere. The Peoples Coalition hopes it is starting in the capital city. They plan to hold more town hall meetings around the state.

State legislative leaders from both parties were invited, but did not attend, though two Democratic state lawmakers did state Sen. Lisa Grafstein of Wake County and state Rep. Greg Ager of Buncombe County.

Grafstein, a civil rights lawyer, told me after the meeting that Democrats eventually will regain a legislative majority as voters respond to Republican overreach, much as they did to the Supreme Courts abortion ruling.

I genuinely do believe we will get it back, she said.

But, for now, belief is about all that progressives have.

Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-829-4512, or nbarnett@ newsobserver.com

Excerpt from:
Boxed out by GOP gains, NC progressive groups seek to reignite resistance | Opinion - Yahoo News

Civil and digital rights groups this week joined a trio of progressive U.S. lawmakers in opposing bipartisan proposals to ban the social media platform TikTok, arguing that such efforts are rooted in anti-China motives and do not adequately address the privacy concerns purportedly behind the legislation.

The ACLUarguesthat, if passed, legislation recently introduced in both theU.S. HouseandSenate sets the stage for the government to ban TikTok, which is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance and is used by more than 1 in 3 Americans. The Senate bill would grant the U.S. Department of Commerce power to prohibit people in the United States from using apps and products made by companies subject to the jurisdiction of China and other foreign adversaries.

The government shouldnt be able to tell us what social media apps we can and cant use.

The government shouldnt be able to tell us what social media apps we can and cant use, the ACLUassertedvia Twitter. We have a right to free speech.

In a Wednesdayletterled by the free expression advocacy group PEN America, 16 organizations including the ACLU argued that proposals to ban TikTok risk violating First Amendment rights and setting a dangerous global precedent for the restriction of speech.

More effective, rights-respecting solutions are available and provide a viable alternative to meet the serious concerns raised by TikTok, the groups contended, pointing to a Februaryproposalby Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) to expedite a probe of the company by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States as a possible way to mitigate security risks without denying users access to the platform.

Rep.Jamaal Bowman(D-N.Y.) has emerged as the leading congressional voice against banning TikTok, saying Wednesday that he fears the platform is being singled out due in significant part to xenophobic anti-China rhetoric.

Why the hell are we whipping ourselves into a hysteria to scapegoat TikTok? Bowmanaskedin a phone interview withThe New York Timeswhile he traveled by train to Washington, D.C. to speak at a #KeepTikTok rally, where content creators, entrepreneurs, users, and activists gathered to defend the platform.

In his speech, Bowman noted that TikTok as a platform has created a community and a space for free speech for 150 million Americans and counting, and is a place where 5 million small businesses are selling their products and services and making a living at a time when our economy is struggling in so many ways.

Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the San Francisco-based digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, concurred with Bowman,tweetingThursday that if you think the U.S. needs a TikTok ban and not a comprehensive privacy law regulating data brokers, you dont care about privacy, you just hate that a Chinese company has built a dominant social media platform.

Two other House DemocratsMark Pocan of Wisconsin and Californias Robert Garciajoined Bowman in addressing Wednesdays rally.

In an interview with theMilwaukee Journal Sentinelbefore his speech, Pocanacknowledgedvalid concerns when it comes to social media disinformation and all the rest.

But to say that a single platform is the problem largely because its Chinese-owned honestly, I think, borders more on xenophobia than addressing that core issue, he stressed.

Garcia, aself-describedTikTok super-consumer,assertedonMSNBCThursday morning that before we ban it, I think we should work on the privacy concerns first.

TikTok speaks to the next generation LGBTQ+ folks are coming out, people are being educated on topics, I think we need to be a little more thoughtful and not ban TikTok, the gay lawmaker added.

Wednesdays rally came a day before TikTok CEO Zi Chewtestifiedbefore the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, some of whose members expressed open hostility toward the Chinese government.

To the American people watching today, hear this: TikTok is a weapon by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on you and manipulate what you see and exploit for future generations, said committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).

Chewwho committed to a number of reforms including prioritizing safety for young users, firewall protection for U.S. user data, and greater corporate transparencytook exception to some of the lawmakers assertions.

I dont think ownership is the issue here, he said. With a lot of respect, American social companies dont have a good track record with data privacy and user security.

I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analyticajust one example, Chew added, referring to the British political consulting firm that harvested the data oftens of millionsof U.S. Facebook users without their consent to aid 2016 Republican campaigns including former President Donald Trumps.

Related

Visit link:
US progressives stand against 'xenophobic' TikTok ban - The Real News Network

to eliminate gas hookups in new buildings shows that progressives are indeed serious about banning gas stoves. (Photo by Davide Bonaldo/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

A proposal in New York to ban gas hookups in new buildings has reignited a heated debate about whether gas stoves should be banned. The proposal, which is likely to pass in the annual state budget this year in Albany, would exempt many commercial uses of gas lines but end new residential connections, thereby enacting a de-facto ban on gas stoves and appliances. The New York proposal follows one earlier this year by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency that was exploring a ban on gas stoves.

Supporters of these policies claim that they are essential for protecting public health and preventing climate change. Meanwhile, critics argue that they are an example of government overreach. Beyond the surface-level arguments, the Albany proposal also exposes a more profound issue about the nature of progressivism as a philosophy: Rather than acting as a force for progress, too often progressives want to take us back to the past.

Some studies purport to show that gas stoves produce harmful pollutants that can cause respiratory problems, such as asthma. Supporters of a ban point out that technology exists to replace gas stoves with more efficient electric alternatives that are safer and cleaner. Gas stoves and other gas-powered appliances are contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global warming and its associated environmental problems.

However, critics of gas stove bans argue that they are based on bad science, as well as an example of government paternalism. They contend that the research into health problems caused by gas stoves is underwhelmingor at least the relationship is still unprovenand that products powered by natural gas actually lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions than do their chief competitors: products powered by electricity generated from burning coal. More fundamentally, many conservatives accuse gas stove critics of fomenting alarmism, believing it is not in the governments mandate to tell people which appliances to use in their homes.

As the gas stove example illustrates, progressivism is too often based on the idea that ever-increasing amounts of bureaucracy and red tape should be added to American life to solve societal problems. Rather than empowering individuals to make their own choices and find their own solutions, progressives believe that government technocrats should take control and impose their preferred solutions on society.

Ironically, the debate surrounding the Albany proposal also highlights the phenomenon of gaslighting in political discourse. Critics of the Consumer Product Safety Commissions proposal earlier this year were accused of spreading false information. The commission had no intention of banning gas stovesor so we were told. However, the Albany policy demonstrates that progressives are indeed serious about eliminating gas appliances from homes. By accusing their opponents of gaslighting, progressives attempted to deflect attention from their actual policies, which they likely knew would be controversial. The Albany proposal shows that the critics were right all along.

By trying to ban gas stoves and other aspects of modern life, progressives show their true colors. Despite claiming to be for progress, supporters of these policies are attempting to return society to a more primitive and supposedly simpler time. They actually want to freeze society in its current stateor even go backwardspreventing progress from taking shape.

Rather than promoting innovation and creativity, progressive policies tend to favor the status quo. In this sense, gas stove bans are not outliers: they are emblematic of a broader worldview centered on coercion and technocratic manipulation. To truly promote progress in the 21st century, a dynamic and bottom-up approach is surely needed. Dont expect it to come from those who call themselves progressive.

I specialize in regulation, cost-benefit analysis, and the effect of regulations on innovation and growth. I'm author of the bookRegulation and Economic Growth: Applying Economic Theory to Public Policy. My writing has appeared in theWall Street Journal, theLos Angeles Times,and theWashington Post. I have also published in scholarly journals, includingRegulation & Governance,Contemporary Economic Policyand PLOS ONE. I received my PhD in economics from George Mason University and my BA and MA in economics from Hunter College of the City University of New York.

View post:
New York Ban Proves Progressives Are Coming For Your Gas Stove - Forbes

At an election night party in November, I asked then-Assemblymember-elect Diane Papan about what appeared to be the growing split in San Mateo County politics between progressives and moderates with her clearly ensconced in the latter.

Papan swiftly balked at the label. She is not a moderate, she said, but rather, a pragmatic.

The implication is clear: A progressive agenda must be tempered by the need to get things done. Some progressives would argue this pragmatism is an excuse to back away from truly pursuing solutions to such issues as the climate crisis, housing costs and associated discrimination or police misconduct.

Progressive is just one of the terms I use with some frequency when writing about politics. In this lull between campaigns, it seems a good time to question what it means and how it should or should not be used. Moderate is another term that turns up here, and I am not at all sure it can be applied with any degree of accuracy. Another is the word activist, and I am pretty confident in its application.

What difference does any of it make?

Well, as long-winded as this corner can be, I am limited to 800 words. For the sake of economy and, like a lot of journalists, I resort to a kind of shorthand terms that have a common understanding, at least within the political world I frequent. The risk is that these words yes, labels are generalizations, with all the biases and inaccuracies that may attach.

Particularly now, in the political environment of the Peninsula, I confess to some confusion about how to apply terms such as progressive and moderate with confidence in their usefulness as labels to me, to the people I write about and to those of you who do me the honor of reading.

The Pew Research Center describes progressives as advocating that U.S. institutions need to be completely rebuilt because of racial bias.

Pew also notes and it is abundantly true here that progressives are among the most politically active Democrats.

Many of Peninsula progressives are young; many of them not all are from communities of color, which are slowly emerging as the combined majority on the Peninsula.

They are far-left liberal. Many of them are adherents of the Democratic Socialist principles espoused by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. They are big fans of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, responding online to the label of extremist, offered a list of positions she obviously believes are more mainstream than the political establishment believes: Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, ICE is a rogue agency that should be dismantled. I believe in cooperative economics and cooperative democracy, aka democratic socialism, she wrote.

Incidentally, I have heard more than one candidate say he or she wants to be the AOC of SMC. I dont think this is an AOC county, but there you go.

The complication of describing progressives as a distinct political entity within our local political landscape is that most of the elected officials on the Peninsula certainly the most prominent ones can only be described as progressive. Then-Assemblymember Kevin Mullin, running for Congress last year, was described by several progressive groups as one of the leading progressives in the Legislature. He also, most assuredly, is a leading member of the political establishment.

It is notable that the election night comment from Papan was made at the plumbers union hall in Burlingame, a mainstay political setting in the county for decades. Labor has been, perhaps, the key factor in the transition of San Mateo County from staunchly Republican to entirely Democratic. Labor remains the single most influential interest in the county, and unequivocally progressive. But progressives could easily see labor leadership as pragmatic and mainstream establishment. Labor consistently has a strong track record when it comes to supporting candidates who win, which, inarguably, is the ultimate mark of pragmatism.

And this may be the heart of the matter. The real conflict between progressives and pragmatics is that more pragmatics win office at least for now. This tension plays out in other ways: in votes on political matters at the Democratic Central Committee, or in fights over who goes as delegates to the state Democratic conventions. On these battlegrounds, the sides are evenly split.

There is a core emerging of leading progressive officeholders emerging county Supervisors David Canepa and Noelia Corzo, San Mateo Mayor Amourence Lee and South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman among the most notable.

But the real tension may simply be that a younger generation is impatient for an older establishment generation to get out of the way.

And that is as old as politics itself.

Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.

Visit link:
What is progressive? | Columnists | smdailyjournal.com - San Mateo Daily Journal

San Diego voters drop off their ballots at the country Registrar of Voters office. Photo by Chris Stone

Over the last decade, as Democrats achieved total control of the state government and their policies took a turn to the left, those who oppose the ideological trend have increasingly used the only avenue still available ballot measures tooverturn what legislators and governors have wrought.

Recent elections have seen a spate of initiatives (to write new laws) and referenda (to block legislative laws) sponsored by business interests to overturn the Capitols decrees. Proponents have included the tobacco, bail bond and plastics industries, as well as ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft.

Next year, voters are certain to face two other business-sponsored measures: referenda by thefast foodandoil industriesto block newly enacted regulations on their operations. Others could be added. For instance, were Gov. Gavin Newsom to succeed inimposing fines on gasoline refinersfor exceeding profit limits, another oil industry referendum is likely.

New laws being challenged by referenda, including the two already headed for the 2024 ballot, are suspended until voters render final judgment.

Understandably, progressive politicians and their allies, particularly labor unions, dislike business use of ballot measures to thwart their legislative gains. As the syndrome has evolved, there have been efforts to make placing measures on the ballot more difficult.

A few systemic changes have been enacted, affecting the process on the margin, but there hasnt been a successful frontal assault. In 2018, then-Gov. Jerry Brownvetoed a billthat would have banned paying signature gatherers on a per-name basis, using the same words he used in his 2011 veto of similar legislation.

Per-signature payment is often the most cost-effective method for collecting the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to qualify a ballot measure, Brown wrote. Eliminating this option will drive up the cost of circulating ballot measures, thereby further favoring the wealthiest interests.

Contrarily, those who would make qualification of measures more difficult, or at least more expensive, contend that its the current process that favors those with the deepest pockets (i.e. business groups), and that their money encourages paid signature gatherers to lie to voters about proposed measures to persuade them to sign petitions.

Does that occur?Absolutely. But it also happens when labor unions and other left-leaning interest groups circulate their measures and when politicians themselves use the ballot process.

Proposition 47, a 2014 measure sponsored by Brown, was especially deceptive, claiming that it would reduce penalties only for non-violent felons, when it also benefited those who commit certain types of rape, domestic violence and other heinous crimes.

Thelatest effortto kneecap those who resist the Legislatures progressive legislation was unveiled Monday a bill to require that unpaid volunteers gather at least 10%of signatures on all referenda and on initiatives seeking to repeal or amend recently enacted laws.

Assembly Bill 421also would require paid signature gatherers to undergo mandatory training, register with the state for the specific measures they are presenting to voters, wear badges, and use unique identification numbers that would allow their petitions to be traced back to them.

The coalition ofprogressive groupsadvocating AB 421, and its author, Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, a Culver City Democrat, argue that the proposed changes would make the ballot measure process fairer and more transparent.

Its entirely possible that AB 421 will be enacted, but ironically, business interests could challenge it by referendum.

Moreover, it could run afoul of a1988 U.S. Supreme Court decisionoverturning a Colorado law that banned a statute against paid signature gatherers. It declared that petition circulation is core political speech and the use of paid signature gatherers is the most effective, fundamental, and perhaps economical means of achieving direct, one-on-one communication with voters.

CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how Californias state Capitol works and why it matters.

Continued here:
Opinion: Progressives Seek to Restrict Paid Signature Gathering for ... - Times of San Diego