Mediaboss Marketing

A member of queer punk rock duo PWR BTTM was recently accused of sexual assault, news that has taken the music industry by surprise.On May 11 a person claiming to be part of Chicagos DIY scene and queer community wrote on Facebook that musician Ben Hopkins is a known sexual predator and perpetrator of multiple assaults. A band that was booked to tour with PWR BTTM tweeted they had been forewarned about Hopkins predatory behavior and Jezebel posted an anonymous interview with a woman who says she was sexually assaulted by the rock star.

The fallout was swift:PWR BTTM, which has recently garnered critical acclaim from The New York Times and just released a sophomore album, was dropped by their management as well as their label, which pulled the bands music from all streaming services.

The allegations have shocked fans, many of whom idolize PWR BTTM for being one of the few gender fluid role models in a heteronormative music industry. The band is part of the queercore movement, a small subculture of punk that eschews aggressive masculinity, and writes songs such asI Wanna Boi, and Sissy. The gender-neutral Hopkins, who wears thrift store dresses onstage and a face smeared with glittery makeup, has become a queer icon and thebands shows are known as safe spaces the musicians demand every venue have gender-neutral bathrooms, and in November gave audience members access to a back entrance when homophobic protestors showed up outside a concert.

But given the complexity of many sexual assault cases, these allegations should not be surprising. They should instead serve as an important reminder that abusers can also come in progressive packages.

Theres a societal tendency to think sexual violence predators fit one, misogynistic mold. That they are the type of people who anchor right-wing talk shows, leer at women on the street or brag about grabbing genitals. This limited definition makes the threat of sexual assault feel contained rather than omnipresent. The reality is that progressive politics dont preclude non-consensual sex.

When a queer person with enlightened gender values is accused of sexual assault it creates cognitive dissonance. Nobody expects a musician who champions safe spaces especially one who isnt a heterosexual man to face allegations of sexual assault. But you know what else we didnt expect? That Americas dads favorite pastime was allegedly drugging and raping women. There is no one-size-fits-all model of an abuser.

There are countless examples of people whose liberal values or artistic jobs have helped distract from their alleged criminal behavior. Bill Clinton, who signed the Violence Against Women Act, secured family leave, and lobbied for sexual orientation to be included in hate crime law, has been accused by three women of sexual misconduct and has infamously used his power to get sexual favors. Canadas Jian Ghomeshi used his high-profile status as a progressive radio host and renaissance man to allegedly sexually abuse 15 women (the court acquitted him of four charges). And lets not forget thelong list of celebrities, including Casey Affleck, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and Nate Parker, whose artistic work is at seemingly odds with the accusations or charges of sexual violence against them. (To be fair, the problem isnt only with men. The female self-proclaimed feminist founder of Thinx underwear was recently accused of sexual harassment by current and former employees.)

We all likely know someone who waxes poetic about gender equality during the day and becomes a total creeper in dark bars. In the worst cases, perpetrators explicitly use their liberal ideals as bait. The term macktivistm refers to men who espouse progressive politics to lure in female victims. A Jezebel article describes one man who was fluent with womens issues such as body-image politics, female silencing and, most chillingly, consent, whom 20 women have accused of sexual assault and harassment.

Liberal values can also become a shield to help perpetrators defend themselves against allegations. Hopkins, who goes by the gender-neutral pronoun they, used progressive gender ideals to bolster their innocence in a statementreleasedThursday. Though they denied the allegations, they wrote: I am firmly committed to consent, to communication, and to mutual expression of sexual interest...I believe it is my responsibility to be accountable to this individuals perspective and to honor it accordingly. While theres no doubt PWR BTTMs values have improved the lives of many queer fans, these enlightened politics come across as hollow and manipulative when used to deny accusations of sexual assault.

While the PWR BTTM allegations will likely never be tried in court, they follow a well-known pattern: Theres a prominent figure within a community whose sexual abuse certain members claim is well-known.Eventually someone posts a blog or a tweet about the persons behavior, which seemingly permits others to share corroborative experiences. This phenomenon recently occurred with an editor who ended his public writing career after a womans blog post about his behavior led to multiple sexual assault accusations and with a music publicist who resigned after a woman tweeted an allegation of sexual harassment that prompted many other similar stories.

While these accusations are incredibly painful for PWR BTTM fans, they are a good reminder that sexual assault perpetrators dont fit into neat categories. Sometimes, they are the aggressive men who grab women at bars and yell sexist slurs. But they can also be queer role models who sing about progressive gender messages while covered in sparkles.

More here:
Progressives Can Be Sexual Predators, Too | HuffPost - HuffPost

Red cards, signaling disagreement, often predominated at Sen. Dan Sullivans town hall May 20 in Anchorage. (Photo by Wesley Early/Alaska Public Media)

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan held a town hall meeting Saturday in Anchorage, one of only a few hes held on the road system since the election of President Donald Trump.

Hundreds packed into the Bartlett High School auditorium were frequently vocal.

This was not the kind of crowd Sullivan was used to.

I cant tell if those are boosor if those are Dont answer! Sullivan said at the start. You dont have to answer that.

When he spoke about rolling back federal regulation and turning control over to the states, lines that usually draw applause for him fell flat. Or worse.

The thrust of what we need to be doing is letting the states, who understand their (insurance) market much better, much better than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., design a systemthat fits Alaska, Sullivan said, straining to continue over the chorus of booing.

Sullivan took questions for more thanan hour. Many were about proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Health care worker Sarah Stevens asked the senator how he expects Alaskans to bear the cost of giving birth if Congress allows insurers to dropmaternity coverage.

Sullivan supports covering pregnancies, but flexibility would bring down insurance costs.

What I dont support is a federal government plan, like you have under the Affordable Care Act, that says to a 60-year-old male you have to have insurance that covers maternity, Sullivan said, amid sustainedbooing. It makes no sense, and thats why you have premiums spiking.

But isnt that just health insurance? Stevens asked, to hearty applause. I dont need prostate exams but I pay into a health care plan that provides prostate exams.

The booing continued, and the crowdheld up red cards to show their disagreement. A few people in the crowd started chants of single-payer.

Just to get it out of the system and get the biggest boo of the night, I am not supporting a single payer health system, Sullivan said, drawing the predicted response.

Red cards also went up when Sullivan spoke of defunding Planned Parenthood and mentioned Trumps more controversial cabinet secretaries.

Green cards appeared when Sullivan described Russia as an adversary and said Alaskas climate is changing.

(Sullivan, though, has disputed the scientific consensus on the cause of climate. He voted no to a Senate declarationthathuman activity contributes to climate change.)

The crowd chanted yes or no?when Sullivan did not give a simple answer to a question about his support for expanded Medicaid.

The senator saidhes focused on not pulling the rug out from under current enrollees.

Donna Marie is among the constituents who have been clamoring for months for a congressional town hall in Anchorage.

At his request, she introduced Sullivan on the Bartlett stage, and she took it on herself to ask people to be respectful and avoid booing. She wassurprised athow one-sided the audience was.

I thought the senator would have more conservative support in the crowd, and more support for his views, Marie said. I didnt see more than three or four ofwhat I would call Trump administration supporters, and the rest of the crowd seemed overwhelmingly progressive.

Sullivan responded with good grace and good humor to a fairly hostile audience,Marie said.

Were they rude? Perhaps a little bit, Marie said. But they werent out of control. Its not like they prevented the meeting from going on. They might have delayed (it) for a couple of moments, but otherwise I thought the audience reacted appropriately given the situation.

Marie said shes hoping U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski or U.S. Rep.Don Young will appear at a town hall shes organizing at the end of the month.

Sullivan, in a written statement Monday, said the Anchorage town hall was more raucous than his previous community outreach events. But he said he believes in listening to all Alaskans, regardless of theirideology.

Zachariah Hughes contributed to this story.

Continue reading here:
Progressives make voices heard at Sullivan town hall - KTOO

That speech had some wishing Booker were accepting the nomination rather than Clinton, but the Trump era has brought renewed scrutiny of his record from progressives. Like all of his Democratic colleagues and even two Republican senators, Booker voted against the confirmation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. But he was rightly called out for hypocrisy, given that he previously worked with DeVos to promote school choice policies, including private school vouchers. Booker also voted against an affordable drug proposal from Senator Bernie Sanders, before ultimately backing a compromise bill. Booker said his initial opposition was based on the need for safety provisions, but critics werent buying it. This is silly, given that Americans already import drugs from Canada illegally and it hasnt resulted in a public health emergency, argued the New Republics Alex Shephard. Similarly, the Canadian drug industry doesnt exactly have a reputation for being dangerous. Voxs Jeff Stein wrote that while its true that his vote may have had more to do with the concentration of the pharmaceutical industry in his home state, its also only served to confirm some progressives suspicions that hes too closely allied with corporate interests in the Democratic Party.

Much of the criticism of Booker is still about tone. Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign committee said Booker has been getting better over the years, but still needs to do more:

One of the biggest issues some people had with Cory Booker over the years is an unwillingness to name villainswhich is an essential part of story telling and which Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders do very well. Unfortunately, Trump did this in 2016 and sold people on the idea that their economic pain was the result of immigrants and other races as opposed to corporate CEOs who arent sharing wealth with workers. Fortunately, Booker has begun to be more aggressive in the Trump era, and its a pending question as to whether he will be willing to call out Wall Street bank CEOs for defrauding millions of Americans and hurting our economy. We shall see, but things are progressing.

Moulitsas argues anyone thinking about 2020 needs to catch up with the grassrootsor ideally get ahead of themwhen it comes to stopping Trump and the Republican Congress. He foresees a massive field of Democratic candidates: Im absolutely convinced that were going to have an embarrassment of riches. That means progressives dont need to settle for second best. Our bench is growing, he said. The reason Im even taking a call about 2020 is because Democrats today need to think about what 2019 looks like. The first question anybody in the resistance is going to ask is where was this person in 2017? If they werent with us in 2017, that will make it really easy to whittle down that list.... Youre either with the resistance today or I would say dont even bother running.

Booker sees himself as very much with the resistance. He took a big stand against his colleague Jeff Sessionss nomination for attorney general, joining Representative John Lewis to testify against him. In January, NJ Advance Media called Booker a leading voice of dissent in the Democratic Party as the Donald Trump era begins, adding, Its a sudden turn of events for a lawmaker who arrived at the U.S. Capitol with a reputation for liking the spotlight but instead sought to hide from its glare, working quietly with members of both parties to advance legislation and using his celebrity status to help elect more Senate Democrats. At CAP on Tuesday, Booker said, I want to fight in this climate. I want to dedicate myself. But we cannot just be a party of resistanceweve got to be a party thats reaffirming that American dream.

Booker has long preached unity and transcendence. Progressives may want him to name villains, but he told Salon in 2013, I dont believe in wholesale vilification of any industry in the United States. The title of his book last year says it all: United: Thoughts on Finding Common Ground and Advancing the Common Good. Hes worked across the aisle for good, as with his work on criminal justice reform with Senator Rand Paul, and for ill, as with his corporate school reform efforts in Newark with Governor Chris Christie and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Last summer, in a sign that he sees Booker as a political threat, Trump attacked the senators impassioned convention speech:

Booker responded neither with snark nor insult, instead telling Trump, I love you, I just dont want you to be my president.

Booker has long been compared to Obama, for reasons both lazy and legitimate. Their race aside, theyre both gifted orators who call for healing divisions, building bridges, overcoming political cynicism and partisan rancorin other words, they evangelize for hope. Theyre also not easy to pin down ideologically, and have angered their fair share of progressives and centrists. Tad Devine, who served as Bernie Sanderss senior strategist last year, said any comparisons to Obama would serve Booker well. I think voters would say theyd like another round of that, thank you very much, he said.

But the message that worked for Obama in 2008, after eight years of hopeless wars under President George W. Bush, may not work for Booker in 2020, after four years of chaos and incompetence under Trump. If progressives mood today is any indication, the Democratic base will demand anger and fiery obstructionism, which is hardly Bookers style. If he adopted such a persona in the partys primary, would the Bernie wing believe it? Not likely.

Booker also thinks its a mistake for Democrats to become what were trying to replace, treating Trump and Republicans like the GOP treated Obama. I literally have these arguments with supporters or fellow Democrats all the time, he said earlier this month on The Ezra Klein Show, where they say, Enough with the love and kindness stuff, Cory. Weve got to fight. And I say, When are those mutually exclusive?.... I think, again, we lose a bit of our moral compass when we are demonizing other people. He added, I just dont believe you need to be mean, you need to be deceitful, you need to practice the dark arts in order to win elected offices.

Booker may not have to completely transform himself to win the Democratic nomination, either. If he can monopolize support from black voterswhich may require outmaneuvering Kamala Harrisand pick up enough moderate Democrats, he could conceivably be the partys pick to take down Trump. While Bookers lack of populist bona fides could prove damaging in a general election, too, a constitutional crisis may well override concerns about, say, his Wall Street ties. But even in that scenario, its hard to imagine Booker succeeding with his same old message. Its hard to be both a lover and a fighterand you certainly cant kill Trump with kindness.

See the original post here:
Can Cory Booker Win Over Progressives? - New Republic

May 21 at 7:31 PM

Maryland Del. David Moon (D-Montgomery) has his heart in the right place, asking the states political power brokers to delay taking sides in the 2018 governors race [Democrats are divided on support strategy, Metro, May 18]. In recent races, their big thumbs came down hard on the scale, limiting the competition needed to produce the strongest candidate.

But not all early endorsements are problematic. It is one thing for leaders of the Democratic establishment to weigh in prematurely. But progressive groups new to the landscape lack the financial resources to be big players in the money primary. For them, an early endorsement may be necessary to participate meaningfully in a primary contest. Our Revolution Marylands county chapters began a process for our members to evaluate candidates, aiming to produce a popular, consensus endorsement for our state group.We are sending questionnaires to prospective candidates on issues of concern to progressive voters, with a candidates forum planned for the end of June.

This process is an antidote to the usual big thumbs giving voice to voters excluded from halls of power. Our open, democratic process will engage previously disenfranchised progressive Marylanders. It should also encourage candidates to make commitments on progressive policy that establishment candidates in recent high-profile races avoided making. That will create a process apart from political insiders usual money-raising contests, and it will serve the winner well in the general election.

Ed Fischman, Bethesda

The writer is chairman of Our Revolution Maryland Montgomery County.

Here is the original post:
Maryland progressives need to act fast in the governor's race - Washington Post

This is the final installment in a four-part series on Americas Industrial Revolution and the political responses it sparked. Go to Richmond.com to read the entire series.

On Sept. 14, 1901, President William McKinley died from a gunshot wound delivered by a crazed assassin two weeks earlier. Republican Party leaders were stunned by the recent string of events. Vice President Theodore Roosevelt, former Republican governor of New York and hero of the Spanish-American War, would now occupy the White House, something the party bosses viewed with grave concern.

They had put the popular Roosevelt on the ticket to help ensure McKinleys re-election in 1900, despite the fact that many of them thought he was a reckless maverick.

Everything went according to plan after the election with a safe, traditional Republican in the White House. The assassins bullet, however, changed everything. While McKinley fit the profile of the non-activist presidents who had held office the previous half-century, Roosevelt was almost the opposite.

At age 42, he was the youngest man to hold the office, and unlike most of his predecessors, Roosevelt was anything but a hands-off president. The worst fears of traditional Republicans became reality when Roosevelt began using his office as a bully pulpit to promote an activist government to serve the interests of most Americans over those of the few masters of big business.

He called for a Square Deal for all Americans businessmen, laborers, farmers, and consumers. He implemented stronger federal control of corporations by attacking the large trusts and monopolies that had squelched competition; by giving more authority to the Interstate Commerce Commission; and by protecting the countrys natural resources.

He received congressional support for the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Meat Inspection Act to protect consumers from hucksters and unscrupulous food producers. More than any previous president, he took bold steps to protect some 230 million acres of the countrys wilderness from unchecked development.

***

The Progressive Movement clearly had an ally in President Roosevelt, and it did not end when he completed his next term, which he won in a landslide. Clearly, his activist presidency resonated well with the American public. For that matter his popularity helped ensure the election of his handpicked Republican successor, William Howard Taft, in 1908.

Although Taft continued breaking up monopolies and trusts, he seemed unable to control the Republican conservatives, who tried to reverse many of Roosevelts initiatives. He himself was more conservative than Roosevelt, and he took issue with many of the reformers and their demands for immediate action. A lawyer and judge by profession, he preferred a slower and more deliberate pace for reform legislation.

Tafts less-than-vigorous pursuit of reform raised the ire of his predecessor to such an extent that it led to a civil war within the Republican Party. The conflict grew so intense that Roosevelt challenged Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912, splitting the party wide open.

Frustrated that the incumbent Taft had his re-nomination locked up, Roosevelt and his supporters walked out of the Republican convention and launched a third party, the Progressive Party, better known as the Bull Moose Party. Their platform advocated expanding the powers of the federal government to bring about more reform and regulations.

With the Republicans torn asunder, the Democratic Party, which had elected only one man as president since 1860, saw victory within its grasp. The native Virginian and strong reform governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, received the nomination and won the election by taking only 42 percent of the popular vote, but receiving 435 electoral votes to Roosevelts 88 and Tafts paltry 8.

***

Once in office, Wilson pursued an aggressive reform agenda. He created the Federal Reserve, giving the country a regulated currency. He pushed legislation that established the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices. He supported the ratification of the 16th Amendment that resulted in a graduated income tax, requiring wealthy Americans to pay a higher percentage on their earnings. And he addressed a number of social issues, such as greatly restricting child labor and limiting the hours of railroad workers.

Despite these many reforms, some of his policies were backward-looking. Following the example of his native South, he implemented formal segregation in the federal government. For example, government buildings in Washington were required to have white and colored bathrooms. Appointments to federal jobs through civil service became increasingly difficult for African-Americans to obtain.

Perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation coming from Wilsons administration was prohibition. Approval in 1919 of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, and transport of intoxicating spirits, has been described as the greatest failure of a social experiment in American history. The amendment resulted in a huge illicit liquor enterprise and an explosion of organized crime. Within 14 years, it became the only amendment to be repealed in its entirety.

World War I and its aftermath dominated Wilsons second term, as did a nearly fatal stroke, taking his attention away from continued domestic reforms.

The United States emerged from the war as the most powerful nation on Earth economically, but the American public had grown weary of Wilsons activist government and reform in general.

A severe postwar recession contributed to a landslide victory in 1920 for Republican presidential candidate Warren G. Harding, who ran on a ticket pledging a Return to Normalcy and a repudiation of the progressive agenda of political and social reform.

There would be no bully pulpit presidents for another 12 years, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in a landslide in the depths of the Great Depression.

***

What can we learn from the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era? Some critics contend that we are experiencing a new Gilded Age. They argue that during the past few decades, corporations and elected officials (many representing safe gerrymandered districts) have rolled back many of the gains made by working and middle-class people during the Progressive Era.

They point out that despite its great wealth, the country now has the highest level of income inequality in 90 years. Most disturbing to these critics is that federal and state tax cuts benefited the wealthy at the expense of the poor and many in the middle class.

Advocates on the other side of the political spectrum, however, argue that government has become more intrusive than ever, thereby stifling the economic potential of the nation and interfering with our individual freedoms.

In his run for the White House, candidate Donald Trump pledged to return America to greatness by slashing regulations, easing government controls, and reforming the tax code, among other things. Once elected to office, much like Theodore Roosevelt, the president has used his own bully pulpit to implement his campaign pledges.

But a hundred-plus days into his presidency, little of his agenda has been carried out, despite having Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Why? Is it his political inexperience? Is it his confrontational style? No doubt those are factors, but I think it is something more fundamental.

A century ago, conditions in the country were as problematic, if not more so, than they are today; yet three successive presidents were able to bring about major reforms to address the issues. One of the keys then was that reform and progressive thinking crossed party lines. Two of the three progressive presidents were Republicans.

Through compromise, cooperation, and effective persuasion, they were able to work with Congress to bring about needed reform. They found viable solutions to the problems created by the painful transition from the 19th century to modern America.

Today, anyone who cooperates with members of the opposing party is an anathema. Cooperation within both parties also has become more difficult. The rhetoric has become increasingly confrontational. Fealty to party or faction within a party appears more important than loyalty to country. It is unfortunate that todays monumental challenges are not being met by either side of the political spectrum.

Perhaps the time has come for introducing fundamental change in the way we govern ourselves, much as the American people did a century ago.

Read this article:
Charles F. Bryan Jr.: With progressives in the White House, everything changed - Richmond.com