Martin Luther King -- the original Wall Street Occupier

Volunteer Connect is again organizing Central Oregon's Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service. Click on the link below to see a list of volunteer opportunities in Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties--we're sure there is something for everyone. New opportunities are being added every day, so please keep checking back if you don't see what you're looking for! Come be apart of the service and celebration, and make this year "A day on, not a day off." http://www.volunteerconnectnow.org

From: Balloon Juice

Required Reading, MLK Day edition

by Tom Levenson

I’m ashamed to say, that until Charlie Pierce in his own, powerful essay on MLK day pointed me to it, I had never actually read Lyndon B. Johnson’s speech to Congress urging—almost ordering—the legislators before him to pass the Voting Rghts Act.

Here’s a sample:

But even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and State of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life.

Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome.

As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil I know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society.

But a century has passed, more than a hundred years, since the Negro was freed. And he is not fully free tonight.

It was more than a hundred years ago that Abraham Lincoln, a great President of another party, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact.

A century has passed, more than a hundred years, since equality was promised. And yet the Negro is not equal.

A century has passed since the day of promise. And the promise is unkept.

The time of justice has now come. I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come. And when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American.

For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated, how many white families have lived in stark poverty, how many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we have wasted our energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?

So I say to all of you here, and to all in the Nation tonight, that those who appeal to you to hold on to the past do so at the cost of denying you your future.

This great, rich, restless country can offer opportunity and education and hope to all: black and white, North and South, sharecropper and city dweller. These are the enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease. They are the enemies and not our fellow man, not our neighbor. And these enemies too, poverty, disease and ignorance, we shall overcome.

Pierce calls this “the greatest speech an American president has delivered in my lifetime.”

Mine too.

Read it.

From: Carlsontoons.com

The Book of Jobs

Forget monetary policy. Re-examining the cause of the Great Depression—the revolution in agriculture that threw millions out of work—the author argues that the U.S. is now facing and must manage a similar shift in the “real” economy, from industry to service, or risk a tragic replay of 80 years ago.

By Joseph E. Stiglitz

Go over to Vanity Fair and read a great article - Stiglitz gets it - READ IT!

From: Blue Oregon

Greg Walden: Key Player in the GOP Leadership

Kari Chisholm

Back here at home, Congressman Greg Walden has an aw-shucks demeanor when he's pretending to be a nice easy-going moderate.

But let's make no mistake: The guy is a top member of the Republican leadership in the House, and is beholden to the same right-wing ideology that enraptures the rest of 'em.

The O's Charlie Pope writes about Greg Walden's role and power in DC:

In fact, the 54-year-old Republican representative from Hood River ripples with power. Today, with Republicans enjoying their biggest majority since the 1940s, Walden is one of Speaker John Boehner's closest confidants, performing the difficult and unseen jobs that are crucial to the day-to-day operations of Congress and the future of the party in power.

Walden starts with seniority and knowledge of the inside game. He has close friendships with people in the right positions, especially Boehner. ...

Boehner called Walden "my go-to guy" last year when he named him to lead the transition committee after Republicans won back the majority in the House. That opinion hasn't changed.

And on the issues?

While Walden operates largely operates under the radar, he's careful to touch all the bases required for Republicans: He signed the no tax pledge from the group Americans for Tax Reform. And he voices the party complaints about big government and the "job killing" regulations and the need to repeal the health care reform law.

In March 2010, as the Democratic-majority in the House was passing the health care bill, Walden stepped out of the shadows. From the Capitol balcony, he and other Republicans held hand-drawn letters that spelled out "K-I-L-L T-H-E B-I-L-L" to a frothing crowd.

Progressive Punch, the comprehensive scorecard site, gives Walden an overall lifetime progressive score of 9.34%. On "crucial" votes (those where the vote was close), he's got a lifetime progressive score of 4.21%.

So yeah, Greg Walden's no moderate. Even if he is, gee whiz, a nice guy. And as a critical member of the leadership and one of Speaker Boehner's confidantes, he gets to own all the craziness that comes out of the House of Representatives right now.

From: Alternet

Conservative Frank Luntz Has Set a Trap for Progressives -- Here's How to Outsmart Him and Boost the Occupy Movement

By George Lakoff

Progressives had some fun last week with Frank Luntz, who told the Republican Governors' Association that he was scared to death of the Occupy movement and recommended language to combat what the movement had achieved. But the progressive critics mostly just laughed, said his language wouldn't work, and assumed that if Luntz was scared, everything was hunky-dory. Just keep on saying the words Luntz doesn't like: capitalism, tax the rich, etc.

It's a trap.

When Luntz says he is "scared to death," he means that the Republicans who hire him are scared to death and he can profit from that fear by offering them new language. Luntz is clever. Yes, Republicans are scared. But there needs to be a serious discussion of both Luntz's remarks and the progressive non-response.

What has been learned from the brain and cognitive sciences is that words are defined by fixed frames we use in thinking, frames come in hierarchical systems, and political frames are defined in moral terms, where "morality" is very different for conservatives and progressives. What lies behind the Occupy movement is moral view of democracy: Democracy is about citizens caring about each other and acting responsibly both socially and personally. This requires a robust Public empowering and protecting everyone equally. Both private success and personal freedom depend on such a Public. Every critique and proposal of the Occupy movement fits this moral view, which happens to be the progressive moral view.

What the Occupy movement can't stand is the opposite "moral" view, that Democracy provides the freedom to seek one's self-interest and ignore what is good for other Americans and others in the world. That view lies behind the Wall Street ethic of the Greedy Market, as opposed to a Market for All, a market that should maximize the well-being of most Americans. This view leads to a hierarchical view of society, where success is always deserved and lack of success is moral failure. The rich are the moral, and they not only deserve their wealth, they also deserve the power it brings. This is the view that Luntz is defending.

Referring to the rich as "hardworking taxpayers" ignores the fact that a great percentage of the rich do not get their wealth from making things, but rather from investments in other people's labor, and that most of the 1% are managers, not people who make things or directly provide services. The hardworking taxpayers are the 99%. That is not the frame that Luntz wants activated.

But Luntz is not just addressing his remarks to Republicans. He is also looking to take Democrats for suckers. How? By choosing his frames carefully, and getting Democrats to do the opposite of what he tells Republicans. There is a basic truth about framing. If you accept the other guy's frame, you lose.

Take "capitalism." It arises these days in socialist discourse, and is seen as the opposite of socialism. To attack "capitalism" in this frame is to accept "socialism." Conservatives are trying to cast Progressives, who mostly have businesses or work for businesses or are looking for good business jobs, as socialists. If you take the Luntz bait, you will be sucked into sounding like a socialist. Whatever one thinks of socialism, most Americans falsely identify it with communism, and will reject it out of hand.

Luntz would love to get Democrats using the word "tax" in the conservative sense of taking money from the pockets of hardworking folks and wasting it on people who don't deserve it. Luntz doesn't want Democrats pointing out how private success depends on public investment - in infrastructure, education, health, transportation, research, economic stability, protections of all sorts, and so on. He doesn't want progressives talking about "revenue" which is defined in a business frame to mean money needed for any institution to function and flourish. He doesn't want Democrats talking about the rich paying their fair share for the massive amount they have gotten from prior investments in a robust Public. Luntz would love to lure progressives into talking about government "spending" rather investments in education, health, and infrastructure that will benefit most Americans.

He doesn't want progressives pointing out that corporations govern our lives far more than any government does - and for their profit, not ours. He doesn't want any discussion of corporate waste, or military waste, which is huge.

Luntz would love to have Democrats talking about "entrepreneurs," which evokes a Republican view of the market as a tool for self-interest. His proposal to discuss "job creators" instead hides the fact that the business community has not been hiring despite record profits. He certainly does not want discussion of outsourcing and minimizing pay for work, which leads corporations to eliminate or downgrade jobs and hence keep wages low when profits are high.

Hidden behind his proposal to substitute "careers" for "jobs" is his attempt to appeal to young people just out of college and grad school who expect more - a profession - not just a mere "job." But of course, corporations are downgrading positions away from professional careers and more toward interchangeable McJobs requiring minimal ability and with minimal pay and benefits.

Luntz is right about not saying "sacrifice." He is right that most Americans are already hurting more than enough. They want a viable present and a future for themselves and their children and grandchildren. He is right to suggest "talking about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together." But that is the opposite of conservative morality. It is the progressive view of a moral democracy that all of Luntz's conservative framings contradict. It is an attempt at co-opting the progressive moral system, because the Occupy movement is showing that it is an idea of Democracy that makes sense to most Americans. And it is an attempt to take Obama's strongest moral appeal away from him.

Unfortunately, Luntz is still ahead of most progressives responding to him. Progressives need to learn how framing works. Bashing Luntz, bashing Fox News, bashing the right-wing pundits and leaders using their frames and arguing against their positions just keeps their frames in play.

Progressives have a basic morality, which is largely unspoken. It has to be spoken, over and over, in every corner of our country. Progressives need to be both thinking and talking about their view of a moral Democracy, about how a robust Pubic is necessary for private success, about all that the Public gives us, about the benefits of health, about a Market for All not a Greed Market, about regulation as protection, about revenue and investment, about corporations that keep wages low when profits are high, about how most of the rich earn a lot of their money without making anything or serving anyone, about how corporations govern your life for their profit not yours, about real food, about corporate and military waste, about the moral and social role of unions, about how global warming causes the increasingly monstrous effects of weather disasters, about how to save and preserve nature.

Progressives have magnificent stories of their own to tell. They need to be telling them nonstop.

Let's lure the right into using OUR frames in public discourse.

George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

From: The Daily Kos

GOP Myths and Legends

Here are a few of the Myths the GOP members and Fox News pundits have been spreading

From: The Reality Based Community

From: Political Animal at the Washington Monthly

Kristof takes stock

By Steve Benen

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof argues today that President Obama “has done better than many critics on the left or the right give him credit for.”

He took office in the worst recession in more than half a century, amid fears of a complete economic implosion…. The administration helped tug us back from the brink of economic ruin. Obama oversaw an economic stimulus that, while too small, was far larger than the one House Democrats had proposed. He rescued the auto industry and achieved health care reform that presidents have been seeking since the time of Theodore Roosevelt.

Despite virulent opposition that has paralyzed the government, Obama bolstered regulation of the tobacco industry, signed a fair pay act and tightened control of the credit card industry. He has been superb on education, weaning the Democratic Party from blind support for teachers’ unions while still trying to strengthen public schools.

In foreign policy, Obama has taken a couple of huge risks. He approved the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, and despite much criticism he led the international effort to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi. So far, both bets are paying off.

That’s a reasonably good summary of the last three years. I’d include some additional accomplishments to the president’s list — Wall Street reform, DADT repeal, ending the war in Iraq, the woefully under-appreciated student loan reform, New START, etc. — but the column’s summary includes several highlights.

Kristof’s larger point, though, was to offer a suggestion to voters.

[T]hink back to 2000. Many Democrats and journalists alike, feeling grouchy, were dismissive of Al Gore and magnified his shortcomings. We forgot the context, prided ourselves on our disdainful superiority — and won eight years of George W. Bush.

This time, let’s do a better job of retaining perspective. If we turn Obama out of office a year from now, let’s make sure it is because the Republican nominee is preferable, not just out of grumpiness toward the incumbent during a difficult time.

That sounds about right.

From: Politico

Why the U.S. needs more Solyndras
By: Joe Horowitz

The fallout from the Solyndra debacle is, in many ways, sadly predictable. Republicans are pointing fingers at the Obama administration for giving the now-bankrupt solar company a $535 million loan as part of its stimulus program. Democrats note that the loan-guarantee program was first established by former Republican President George W. Bush and his Department of Energy (DOE). The upshot: The possibility of any kind of government support to future clean-tech companies is now at risk, just as private investors are becoming even less likely to fund such projects themselves.

But it is imperative that the U.S. look beyond this blame game. The government must help fund clean-energy projects of all kinds, especially credible, venture-backed ones, even with big risks. Such investment is crucial for the U.S. to stay competitive in the global economy and move toward true energy independence.

As our government spends millions of dollars to investigate Solyndra’s demise, other nations continue to pour billions into building their clean-tech industries. Since 2010, China has made available over $40 billion in loans to a handful of their solar companies. Japan, an energy-dependent island nation, has been heavily investing in alternative energy since the oil embargo of the 1970’s. Solar power is also heavily subsidized in many European countries, particularly in Germany. And although our politicians all talk about the need to create jobs, ironically, if we are not willing to level the playing field, meaningful job creation for our country becomes the collateral damage.

Many of course will argue that it is not the role of our government to take venture capital risks; that is the job of the private sector. However, some industries are just too capital intensive to succeed without government help. The original premise of the DOE loan program was that newly developing, clean-tech industries are strategically important to our future. And though venture capital firms are able to fund the most promising projects, commercializing and scaling up these fledgling new companies can take a large amount of funding – funding that is not always available through the capital markets. This is where it makes sense for our government to be involved, even though it was recognized that there would be failures along the way.

Go over to Politico.com and read the whole article