What should we expect from a National Security Database?

I read that the initial uniform driver licenses (or ID cards) can be later modified (or the programs/equipment which produce them) to include biometrics such as fingerprints & picture of iris of the eye & also a great deal of personal information. This is one area where liberals & libertarians should overlap - skepticism about the cards. The British are facing the same & it is controversial. Alot of European countries have had national ID cards for awhile, but they don't have the government we do & many places you don't have to show them - they're more useful for getting your guaranteed decent health care & so on.

From the people's email network (different but imporant topic) & remember - Bush is still stumping around about Social Security, saying he's only just begun!

Today with tears in his eyes on the floor of the Senate Republican George Voinovich begged the members of his own party to reject John Bolton. As bad as the public record is on that nominee, what terrible secrets is this senator party to that he is so petrified of what that man is sure to do? If only he could tell us. If only he had voted his conscience when he had the chance and the power himself in committee.

Don't expect us to tell you that the compromise on the judges was anything but the most craven and cowardly surrender. You know it. We know it. But we can win it all back by DEMANDING A FILIBUSTER of Bolton now. There is no more extraordinary circumstance than stopping yet another illegal and disastrous war, this one with Iran, which the installation of Bolton is intended to make inevitable. Who will have the courage to stop him? Who will have the courage to speak out? Who if not us?

http://www.usalone.com/bolton.htm

Even if you have sent a message before, do it again now. We are sending our brave young sons and daughters to die in a nightmarish foreign urban jungle, where the next tin can by the side of the road could take off their arms and legs. Can we not find 41 senators with the courage to stand up and vote in the safety of their Senate chambers? Tell them, FILIBUSTER NOW, use it or lose it. And let the Republicans show us they too care about our country first by ALSO voting against cloture.

A number of Dade country votes counted 3x:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5033150,00.html

Scanning the news before work:
Looks like Turkey is playing nice because the new pipeline throught the countries Bush just visited ends there.

Looks like Iran is playing nice because they are hoping to be able to join the WTO. Bribery works every time.

What is going on in Baghdad? 40,000 troops planning to go house-to-house - the city will be in lockdown, & this may spread all over the country. It sounds like a civil war & we're on one side. Who knows?! Doesn't sound good!

Dianne,

Tears in his eyes? Tell me more. I haven't seen anything.

Dianne,

Where was the audit of all statistical anomolies in November? Seems to me, the more we look, the more illegitimate this current regime is!

How many "mistakes" were in fact benifitting Bush and how many benefitted Kerry. In any election, if the mistakes don't equal out in the "wash" then it's time for a new washing machine.

Suz,

Thanks for that topic. I admit I have been on the fence about this topic because I know Europe has a national id. And it always boils down to liberals say it's bad and conservatives say "any thing to protect us!"

But this clearly shows WHY it's bad and WON'T PROTECT US!

Let's not forget who is in charge of this thing.
Remember Poindexter of Iran Contra fame?
He came out of his sewer and found a job commensurate with his morals.
This is nothing more then a scheme for the Repub Party to gather information about us.
They counter with it is already out there. I counter there will be more information and it will be in one central location.

The lines at the DMV are already too long... will there be a seperate line for terrorists?

The Express Lane to Invasion of Privacy

States pay for this too. That means OUR TAX DOLLARS are going to help the terrorists have easier access to our personal information. Way to go Congress!

We need to hide election reform and voter reform in the Iraq appropriation bills, since they'll vote everything through on that.

Posted by: battlebob at May 26, 2005 09:55 AM

BB, I don't know where he is now but John Poindexter resigned from the TIA project and it was torpedoed by Congress when it became evident in 2002 and early 2003 that it was far more invasive than US citizens were prepared to accept.

Here's a link to his resignation letter dated August 13, 2003:

http://cryptome.org/poindexter.htm

The CNN article on Poindexter's resignation and Rumsfeld's reaction to what was being built is also interesting:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/poindexter.resigns/

The question is what became of the organization that was built to develop the TIA software and what is it doing now?

ANOTHER OBVIOUS CLUE THAT FOREIGN PRESS IS THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN GET THE REAL NEWS:

Rumsfeld Laments Global Reach of War News By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 26, 7:21 AM ET

PHILADELPHIA - One of the military's new wartime challenges is dealing with global media that can instantly spread around the world information that may be false or damaging to U.S. interests, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

The United States needs to respond to anti-American messages with greater agility and speed if it is to win the ideological struggle with Islamic extremists, Rumsfeld said in a speech to members of the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia.

"We'll need to develop considerably more sophisticated ways of using these new means of communication that are now available to reach the many and diverse audiences," he said.

Rumsfeld didn't delve deeply into specifics in his brief talk with members of the civic group. But in the recent past, news outlets have broadcast messages from terrorist groups, or reported stories that have fueled rage against Americans in the Muslim world.

"This is really the first war in history that is being conducted in an era of multiple global satellite television networks, 24-hour news outlets with live coverage of terrorist attacks, disasters and combat operations," Rumsfeld said.

He said U.S. officials must also deal with "a global Internet with universal access and no inhibitions, e-mail, cell phones, digital cameras wielded by anyone and everyone" and "a seemingly casual disregard for the protection of classified information, resulting in a near continuous hemorrhage of classified documents, to the detriment of the country."

The defense secretary was among those who complained earlier this month following deadly riots in Afghanistan after Newsweek published a story that U.S. interrogators desecrated a copy of the Quran at Guantanamo Bay. The magazine later retracted the story amid questions about its truthfulness.

Patti: check out kerry'08tripod.com for JK '08 Bumper Stickers.
Join our early movement.

Free Spirit -

I also saw/heard the tears on Voinovich - a moving speech to say the least. He is the kind of representative we want in our government. He went against the tide. He led from his conscience. It was bold and brave. Both sides should learn from his example. (Too bad he didn't get it right in the beginning).

An excellent piece:

http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/leno050205brighteyes.html

Hey watch this

Posted by: Karen at May 25, 2005 09:42 PM

Carol: Even well meaning Congress people like Voinovich apparently can be hoodwinked by Rove,Lugar et al. Bolton's nomination should never have made it out of committee and I think even Voinovich knows that now. His opposition was principled but blocking Bolton in commitee would have sent a real message to this administration which it did not.Constantly losing the war but winning the battle doesn't cut it.

Posted by: free spirit at May 26, 2005 09:35 AM

Voinovich's tears seemed quite real when I saw a video clip of that portion of his speech on the Senate floor yesterday begging his fellow Repubs to vote against Bolton's nomination. I listened to C-Span yesterday (and am listening now, too). Voinovich (and other Repub Senators) do NOT want Bolton's nomination approved and several have quoted Republican documents and viewpoints about Bolton (in lengthly and very damning detail) about why Bolton should NOT be approved for the UN post. A couple of the Repub Senators have said that if the Senate could do a secret ballot, the Repubs who voted their conscience would nix the nomination because they know he is not the right person for the job. Bolton (in the Repub documents) comes off as little more than a common street thug who uses strongarm tactics - completely with childish temper tantrums - to get his way. (He is another version of Bu$hCo, in other words, and likely that's why Bu$h has said he favors Bolton because Bolton could impliment changes in the UN that Bu$h believes are necessary - which I take to mean Bolton, as Bu$hCo's mouthpiece could strongarm, coerce, and otherwise render the UN ineffective, per the dictates of Bu$hCo....)

The other thing that is upsetting Senators on the Intelligence Committee is that apparently Bolton had access to documents that even the Intelligence Committee has not seen (and then Bolton cherry-picked info he wanted to use, and changed facts to suit his purposes), which hinders the "advise and consent" part of the Senator's duties and responsibilities.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration/
Boxer: Senate Should Delay Bolton Vote

Ray McGovern | Bolton Threat to Intel Community
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052505A.shtml

Voinovich later told reporters that all senators are under “overwhelming pressure” to “go along with the president” even though “very few people are enthusiastic” about the choice of Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.

IMHO those are crocodile tears and/or tears of embarassment streaming from Voinovich's eyes. He had a chance to do the right thing, but couldn't. Pleading/begging for cover from other Senators is a cowardly way to express deep opposition to a candidate. He is literally is trying to have it both ways. I can't wait to see the campaign that his political opponents (both parties) run against him (a'la the JK comments "I voted for it before I voted against it").

Your Papers APPEAR To Be In Order...

...But vee vill be vatching you.

As if allowing insurance and credit card companies to raise the APR on existing accounts due to fluctuations in your credit rating...meaning...if you miss a payment or two with one company...they all know due to your credit rating being used to evaluate your "performance" through the year and even though you have a good relationship with say a second company...the company with which you have never missed a payment over 20 years can suddenly raise your interest or insurance rates.

And now this...

Duck Duck...

Goose Step.

Here is a site worth seeing for information regarding the National I.D. card.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

This is from the previous link I posted:

State DMVs Targeted by Identity Thieves. In recent months three state DMVs have been penetrated by identity thieves. In March, burglars rammed a vehicle through a back wall at a DMV near Las Vegas and drove off with files, including Social Security numbers, on about 9,000 people. Last week Florida police arrested 52 people, including 3 DMV examiners, in a scheme that sold more than 2,000 fake driver’s licenses. Two weeks ago Maryland police arrested three people, including a DMW worker, in a plot to sell about 150 fake licenses. These criminal schemes come in the wake of a rash of data broker scandals that have compromised the personal information of millions of Americans. (May 4)

Yes, forget the terrorists: "We have met the enemy and they is us." (Pogo)

Yesterday I reported that the Houston Chronicle has repeatedly published letters from fringe Republicans calling Texas Democracts socialists, communists and other such inane comments. My response was that at a time this country is at war that it is inappropriate for a newspaper that reaches 5 million Texas homes to be publishing and encouraging such hate speech.

This was their response:
"But for your information, I discussed your complaint with Ms. Minshew and James Gibbons, the editorial page editor. We disagree with your assessment that it bordered on hate speech. We work hard to keep letters like that out of the mix."
Yea Right.

I once again urge all Texas bloggers to email their complaints to these folks that just don't get it.I also urge a general boycott of this newspaper until they reasonably monitor the language of their letter writers.

Ira,

See if your letter describing the Repugs as fascits gets published.

Posted by: Indy at May 26, 2005 12:30 PM

Precisely, Indy....

National ID cards (neoCon style, meaning they would use the info against a person if given half a chance), combined with computer nerd's ability to hack into systems, plus the Patriot Act II under consideration... is a combination that spells disaster for John Q. Public and Jane Q. Public individually and collectively. There are already enough encroachments on privacy which at least breach the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law. Per the "They Thought They Were Free" on a previous thread yesterday, plus "First they came for..." plus the 14 signs of fascism... we're already there, although it seems few people realize it, as we know so well from the lack of information coming from MSM....
New Patriot Act to Expand FBI's Power, Democrats Wary
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052505F.shtml
~~~~~~~~~

Voinovich's tears likely were crocodile tears and/or tears of embarrassment... but at least he has demonstrated that he may be willing to vote his conscience and that he seems to know right from wrong, which is counter to the megalomaniacal criminal mentality of the Bu$hCo administration. It's at least a gesture of conscience, which other neoCon Repukes have not shown since Bu$hCo was selected in 2000 by rubber-stamping anything Bu$hCo suggests. I will grudgingly give Voinovich the gesture; and wait to see if he acts on it. (Better that than the slimy underbelly of the likes of Coleman who is so clearly Bu$h's creature eager to do Bu$h's bidding.) So far, in listening to C-Span, it seems there could be a vote on Bolton at 7 p.m. tonight (presumably that's Eastern time).
Voinovich Letter Rips Bolton
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052505I.shtml

Senator Reid just Announced a Reform Agenda

Remarks by Senator Harry Reid
“The Use of Power: An Agenda for Reform”
National Press Club
Washington, DC
Thursday, May 26, 2005

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

This has been an important week for America. The defeat of the nuclear option was not a victory for any party, but a victory for our Constitution and our country.

As we said from the beginning of this struggle, our fight wasn’t over some obscure rule of the Senate. It was a fight for Americans’ fundamental rights and against the abuse of power.

And I'm here today to say that fight has not ended. It is only beginning.

This week threatened to be one that would undermine our democratic traditions. Instead, it marks a moment when we can finally turn away from government by polarization…and build a government for the people.

Time and again, the American people have seen George Bush and the Republican leadership choose between their partisan interests and the people’s interest. And every time, they have chosen an ideological agenda over an American agenda.

When George Bush and the Republican leadership make their decisions, the whispered wishes of a few right wing activists drown out the pleas of America’s families.

But if the Washington Republicans stopped to listen to the American people, this is what they’d hear:

Americans are sick and tired of getting caught in the crossfire of partisan sniping.

Americans want us to put the common sense center ahead of nonsense .

Americans want us to bring people together, to focus on what we owe to one another, and the responsibilities we share.

And Americans want their agenda – their jobs, their health care, their security – to get back on the front burners of the nation’s agenda.

Americans are coming to realize this Republican Congress is out of touch with the real problems of working families and that the agenda the Republicans are advancing is at odds with what people in this country really care about.

We Democrats have something better to offer. A reform agenda that will cleanse Washington…give power to the people – not special interests…and make sure that everyday Americans and their concerns get back on the Congressional calendar.

Strengthening our national defense. Rebuilding our economy. Providing families with affordable health care. Making America energy independent. Securing our retirement. That’s our agenda. That’s America’s agenda. But the Republican Congress has put all this and more on hold. I hope that now we can finally turn to the people's business.

Six moths have passed since this Republican Congress began and here’s their record:

They spent precious days trying to overturn constitutional principles.

They tried to overturn the decisions of courts and duly elected legislatures in order to insert themselves into one family’s tragedy in Florida.

They all-but disbanded the House Ethics Committee in order to protect the Republican leader from scrutiny – but then were forced to reverse themselves under public pressure.

But perhaps the greatest abuse of power is to have the ability to help but choose to do nothing.

While gas prices have shot past $2 a gallon, this Republican Congress did nothing to lower prices and give families some relief.

At a time that parents are having to tell their children that the family can’t afford to send them to college, this Republican Congress rejected a proposal to make college more affordable.

And even though we have gone eight years without an increase in the minimum wage – the second longest period ever – this Republican Congress rejected an increase that would give the hardest working Americans the chance to provide for their families.

Whether it is rejecting Democratic initiatives to provide medical care to veterans or to return to fiscal responsibility, this Republican Congress’s record is clear: when it comes to answering the call of the far right, it’s “I’ll do it ASAP.” When it comes to doing the people’s business, it’s “take a message.”

Americans deserve a Congress that will use its power to advance American values not a Congress that abuses its power to advance the agenda of a radical few.

We need a common sense reform agenda for the common good. And that starts with defending our nation and making it more secure. As of this month, more time has passed since 9-11 than the time between Pearl Harbor and the defeat of Japan. During those three years and eight months – sixty years ago – we invaded North Africa and Normandy. We freed people from the Philippines to France. Hitler lay dead and Tojo was in chains. We had defeated fascism around the world and had begun to build the new United Nations.

But today Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, our homeland is still not secure, we’re still not energy independent, and – in many ways – Americans are less safe than we were before 9-11.

Democrats are the party of national security. And we have an agenda to defend America from danger. We stand for increasing our military strength by 40,000 troops so we can wage the War on Terror on every front. We stand for securing our borders and bridges, our seaports and airports, our nuclear and chemical plants. We stand for tracking down and securing the loose nuclear weapons that threaten our people. And we will honor our troops and their families by making sure they get the benefits they have earned.

Our common sense reform agenda will take our economy from sluggishness to prosperity. A prosperity where a rising tide lifts the boat of every American who is willing to work hard.

When it comes to the economy, the Washington Republicans offer the same old answers and then try to change the subject. But the growing trade deficit and a runaway national debt that puts us into hock to China and Japan show that this Administration and this Congress have lost control over America’s economic destiny.

Democrats stand ready to win back America’s prosperity. We’ll end the tax breaks that encourage companies to take jobs overseas. Restore fiscal responsibility. Spur innovation. Open the doors to college. And make work pay more than welfare.

And if we want our companies to be ready to compete in the world economy, we have to hold down health care costs. Today, Starbucks spends more on health care than on coffee. Today, GM spends more on health care than on steel. Today, we can’t ask our companies to go head to head with foreign competitors with this burden on their backs.

Our families will never get ahead while they are getting battered down by health care costs that total $10,000 a year.

And our country will never be what it should be as long as the color of your skin or the size of your bank account determines whether your children can see a doctor. We can do better for them. And they are expecting nothing less from us.

Many of the jobs of the future will be jobs that come from new energy saving industries. Today, Japan’s and South Korea’s head start on innovation means they are running away with those jobs. We have to get back in that race.

Americans are getting fed-up every time they go for a fill-up. They know that our reliance on Mideast oil is making America less safe. They want us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make this nation energy independent. We can get there – but only if we start putting America’s security and prosperity first.

And Democrats will continue to stop George Bush from privatizing Social Security while we say “yes” to shoring up Americans’ pensions and making our retirement system more secure.

This is our agenda – an agenda for reform, an agenda to do the people’s business. And for them we will continue to fight.

The lines that divide Congress should be between right and wrong, not right and left.

Our enemies should not be those in the other party, but the common threats that face the American community.

Our goal should not be winning the news cycle, but breaking the vicious cycle of political battle and winning a future where all Americans can live out their dreams.

The defeat of the nuclear option shows what is possible when people of good faith – Republicans and Democrats – join hands and put principles ahead of partisanship.

This doesn’t have to be an isolated incident – a momentary ceasefire before Washington’s trench warfare starts up again. Rather it can be a new beginning. Because on issue after issue, there is a common sense center in America that knows what it believes and can’t understand why this Republican Congress won’t get the job done.

Just as there was a bipartisan majority that could not stomach the nuclear option, there is a bipartisan consensus for action on many fronts. And all we need for progress is for President Bush and the Republican leadership to let America’s agenda get its day.

The American people are demanding it. And Democrats are going to be standing in the common sense center to make sure that we get there.

In this Congress, there is a bipartisan consensus for raising the minimum wage – but the White House and the Republican leadership stand in the way.

There is a bipartisan consensus for allowing the prescription drugs to be safely reimported – but the White House and the Republican leadership stand in the way.

And there is a bipartisan consensus for stem cell research that has the potential to help cure diseases such as diabetes and help save American lives. From Nancy Reagan to Orrin Hatch, Republicans have broken ranks to join the common sense center on this important issue.

For four years, President Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation. Even when this Republican Congress sent him bill after bill weighed down with pork or special interest subsidies or runaway spending, he chose to keep his veto pen in the drawer.

But now, he is threatening to veto stem cell research. Not because most Americans oppose it. They support it across party lines. President Bush is threatening to veto it because the far right is demanding he do so.

I ask President Bush to step away from the far right and join us in this common sense center, to show he will be part of this new spirit of national consensus by letting stem cell research go forward.

This week’s events mark our chance to forge a common sense center that embraces an American agenda for reform. As Democratic Leader, I will be working aggressively to advance the work the American people sent us to do. And I hope that Republicans of good faith will join with us to get this job done: To strengthen our national security. To make America energy independent. To restore economic prosperity and opportunity. To help our families and business afford their health care. To boost Americans’ retirement security and protect their Social Security.

In the coming weeks and months, I’ll have more to say on all these fronts. But I pledge today, that in everything we do, the lesson of this week – that we can build on the common sense center – will remain front and center.

The nuclear option could have been another long, sad stride down an ever more slippery slope toward partisan crossfire and abuse of power.

Instead, its defeat marks the moment we turned around and began to climb the hill toward a common politics of national purpose and a rebuilding of America's promise.

This journey is our cause – and reaching the top of that hill will mark our real victory.

Thank you.

Oncall:

Interesting pont. Here was my email response to the editorial staff a few minutes before your response:

Of course you and Ms. Minshew disagree with calling Democrats Socialists is hateful b/c we are all very sure that you and Ms. Misnshew and your editor agree with that assessment. You do a miserable job of keeping comments of calling Democrats Socialists, Communists and every other inane comment that your hate filled Republican friends out of your newspaper.

How about if I send you a letter calling Republicans Fascists, which I wouldn’t. It would rightly deserve to go into your garbage can and not be published to 5 million impressionable readers.

I also have a first amendment right to let bloggers know of your company’s insensitivity towards hate Speech and will urge folks to review these comments in your letters to the editor and cancel their subscriptions. I am sure that means absolutely nothing to the Chronicle if they lose a few thousand customers with such garbage b/c you have weighed the gain of appealing to such like minded haters as being more advantageous to your company’s bottom line.

I have shown that comment to a dozen independent readers and each of them agree that it and similar comments I have cut out from your letter writers constitutes Hate Speech. Keep it up Ms. Minschew. With any luck your paper will go the way of the Houston Post."

Guys I may be wrong but I feel convinced that local newspapers which reach millions of readers like the Houston Chronicle directly effect our local politics and politicians and election results. Until we stand up to southern editorial boards who continue to drive the right wing message machine with local comments like labeling Dems as socialist, they will keep getting the electoral results they want. I hope that I am not alone in this fight.

This is a good strory but I am sure that Prescilla Owens' frinds on the Texas Supreme Cour will make sure that this verdict will be set aside.

DeLay PAC Treasurer Violated Texas Ethics Law, Judge Rules

By Kelley Shannon
Associated Press
Thursday, May 26, 2005; 12:42 PM

"AUSTIN, Texas -- The treasurer of a political committee formed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay violated Texas election code by not reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, a judge ruled Thursday in a civil case brought by Democratic candidates.

State District Judge Joe Hart, in a letter outlining his ruling to attorneys in the case, said the money, much of it corporate contributions, should have been reported to the Texas Ethics Commission.

Free E-mail Newsletters
Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

The ruling means Bill Ceverha, treasurer of the group, called the Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee, will have to pay nearly $200,000. It will be divided among those who brought the suit against Ceverha, five Democratic candidates who lost legislative races in 2002.

The Democrats who sued TRMPAC claimed Ceverha violated the state election law, designed to keep elections free from "the taint of corporate cash."

The Democrats alleged that some $600,000 in corporate money was illegally used to influence Texas House races in 2002, the year Republicans won control of the House for the first time in 130 years.

Ceverha's lawyers argued in court that the group operated legally despite the confusion of state campaign funding laws.

Corporate money can be used by political action committees for administrative purposes in Texas, but it's illegal to use it for direct campaign expenses. But Hart's ruling dealt with the election code reporting requirements, rather than the law governing how the money was spent.

Terry Scarborough, a defense lawyer for the committee, said the case was more about Democrats' anger over losing than about the actions of DeLay or of Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit had sought to tie both men to the activities of the political committee, run by DeLay associates.

The civil case is separate from a separate criminal investigation into 2002 election spending being conducted by a Travis County grand jury. Three of DeLay's top fund-raisers and eight corporations were indicted in September.

DeLay has not been charged with any crime and had congressional immunity from being forced to testify in the civil lawsuit. Ceverha also has not been charged in the criminal case.

Corporate money was spent on such expenses as political research, polling, mailing, fund-raising and conferences, the plaintiffs alleged.

The defendants contended all corporate money was legally spent on administrative purposes.

Hart, in his letter, said the expenditures were made "in connection with a campaign for an elective office" and fit within the statutory definition of "campaign expenditure."

The 2002 legislative victories propelled Craddick, the longest-serving House member, to the speaker's post.

Later, Craddick and DeLay pushed a redistricting bill through the Legislature that ultimately gave the GOP a commanding advantage in the state's congressional delegation and therefore a wider lead in the House as a whole."

[I apologize in advance for the length of this. I couldn't decide how much to snip off.
If you don't have time to read this now, please bookmark it to read later in its entirety. I think it goes to the very heart of what DCP is trying to do, its time to take Lakoff's framing to the next level]

Time for Progressives to Grow Up
Beyond Lakoff’s Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent, A Strong Community Manifesto

by Frances Moore Lappé

The Right, Lakoff points out, is extremely good at selling their policies in clear, easy to understand “strict father” frames. Progressives, on the other hand, too often seem to offer laundry lists of issues lacking any overarching moral framework.

So, it’s easy to see why progressives are rallying around Lakoff’s call to arms. Since polls show majorities actually agree with the progressive agenda on many key issues, including corporate power, the environment and abortion, focusing on “framing” issues in ways that Americans can understand them seems like the answer they’ve been praying for. Certainly, much of Lakoff’s advice about communicating progressive ideas is powerfully insightful and right on target.

But two big dangers loom.

snip~
The question few seem to be asking is: Are “strict father” (Right) versus “nurturant parent” (Left) our only choices, or can we move beyond the nuclear family metaphors?

If the Left is indeed stuck with nuclear-family metaphors, they’re seriously out of luck; in scary times like these “strong father” will win out over what is seen as “soft mother” every time. Thankfully, the narrow, Western psychoanalytic, nuclear-family frame itself is becoming dated.

Maybe we’re entering a new stage that has much in common with eras before the invention of the nuclear family. Maybe, in many respects, we’re moving beyond hierarchy, which any parent-centered frame necessarily must be. Big shifts are underway:

First, the communications-technology revolution is allowing us to experience one planet. Billions of us can now see and converse with people on other continents. We experience the events of 9/11, our fellow humans starving in Darfur, and the battles in Iraqi streets in real time.

Second, the ecological revolution is infusing our consciousness with an awareness of our interrelatedness far wider than our immediate family. Ecology teaches us that there is no single action, isolated and contained; all actions have ripples – not just ripples up through systems in hierarchical flows, but out through webs of connectedness in what we might think of as lateral flows. Ecology teaches us that the world is co-created through complex networks of relationships, no one of which is dominant.

snip~
Third is the “revolution in human dignity.” We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy – from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses – that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high. Besides, few of us – unless we’re scared into it—are prepared simply to take orders.

With “regular people” stepping up as public problem-solvers on every continent and on so many levels, it’s hard to identify this change for the revolution it is. Some measure it in the explosive growth of citizen organizations, now totaling two million in the U.S. alone. In just one decade, the ‘90s, they jumped 60 percent. And they’re being noticed: more national governments, global corporations, as well as the U.N., are inviting citizen representatives to the table.

This growing appreciation of the power of each one of us also means students gaining a role in mediating their own disputes and in school governance; work teams spreading in factories; citizen boards in major municipalities now making significant budget choices from Sao Paulo to St. Paul; and patients increasingly enlisted in their own healing practice. Everywhere, citizens themselves are involved in decisions affecting their futures, the better the outcomes for all.

A desire to break with parentism in favor of fellowship and a hunger for healthy, strong community is not a progressive’s pipedream. It is palpable. It is everywhere. Three far-flung illustrations come quickly to mind.

snip~
New metaphors, new “frames,” are called for to capture these profound changes in ways of seeing ourselves and our world.

We need to ask: What frames best embrace the growing appreciation that human beings are going beyond one-directional communication, moving from “one-to-many” directives toward “many-to-many” multi-logues? What frame suggests mutuality – mutual responsibility, cooperation, teamwork, dialogue, synergy, inter-connectedness, and the co-creation of meaning?

Any parent frame fails the test; it is inevitably one-directional, and hierarchical. So let’s bury the family metaphor and search for a more robust frame—one that suggests communities that work for all because they are connected, responsible, compassionate and therefore strong.

When Lakoff expands on his nurturant parent frame, he also notes that “the basic progressive vision is of community – of America as family, a caring responsible family.” He includes “mutual responsibility” and “community-building” as central pieces of an effective progressive framing, suggesting he, too, chaffs within the limits of the nuclear family metaphor. And his examples of progressive reframing are more embedded in a community than a nurturant parent metaphor: such as the progressive rationale for taxes being “membership dues” contributed in order to reap the benefits of a community to replace the Right’s message of taxes as an affliction for which they offer “tax relief.” Here his progressive frame is about mutuality, not nurturing.

A New Frame: Strong Communities

In times of war, when fear is being consciously stoked to keep a populace in “freeze” mode, the Right’s strict father frame carries strong appeal. Fearful creatures duck for cover. We try to cast out those who might rock the boat. Frightened, we look for a strong protector. And this is precisely why progressives must not fall back on nurturing themes. In addition to holding the radical Right accountable for its mean-spirited, anti-democratic outrages, as mentioned above, we must get tough in at least two other ways.

First, we must more effectively show just how our security is threatened, not secured, by today’s strict-father “protectors.” We can show how dreadfully ill-prepared to defend ourselves we are when anti-government ideology has its hold on Washington, leading to under-funding our “first responders”; to 15,000 highly vulnerable private chemical plants in charge of their own security; and to health care dependent on giant drug companies.

Progressives can also show that society is weak and vulnerable when we are divided, rich against poor, white against Black, Evangelicals against other faiths. Americans intuitively know that divisions weaken us; it’s one reason we’ve responded throughout our history to calls for basic fairness, such as the Civil Rights movement.

Second, in a positive vein, progressives can show that the more engaged and just a community, the stronger and safer we all are. The more we know that we can count on our neighbors, our schools, our health care providers – because we know them and because they are adequately funded—the safer we feel. Immediately after 9/11, a public health expert pointed out an obvious link between fairness and community safety. With over 40 million people lacking health insurance, if there were an act of biological warfare against us, an infectious agent could spread swiftly, he pointed out. For how could it be contained if millions of uninsured delayed seeking medical attention? Obviously a case in which unfairness – the fact that so many can’t afford insurance—threatens everyone’s safety.

A “strong communities” frame might require progressives to stop, for example, talking about the “environment,” which non-progressives can hear as a “soft” distraction in war time, and frame ecological challenges as threats “to safe air and water and food.” We might stop talking about poverty, and alleviating it, which evokes images of do-gooders, and talk about “fair-chance communities.” Stop talking about reforming criminal justice and talk about results-based crime prevention.

Let’s salute George Lakoff and his colleagues for rallying progressives to frame our “issues” in a compelling moral vision. But rather than reacting to the “strict father” frame by searching for a better use of a “nurturing parent” frame, let’s reframe the entire conversation to one that begins with a definition of citizens as responsible grown-ups, not helpless children. In this progressive moral vision we strive to live in strong communities—safer and more viable than ones that rely on a strict father, who on deeper examination may turn out to be only a stubborn loner, a bully bringing on the very threats from which he claims to protect us?

Let’s choose frames that capture what most people intuit: We all share one small – shrinking – planet, and our real hope therefore lies in creating strong communities.

please read entire article~
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0526-28.htm

This is a good story, but I am sure that Prescilla Owens' friends on the Texas Supreme Court will make sure that this verdict will be set aside.

Stan Greenburg's latest poll:
1. Only 41% of the country wants to keep going in Bush's direction
2. Only 1/3 say Economy going in right direction; 1/3 of country believe war was worth it and only 1/3 of country agree with Bush's SS plan
3. Congress is Overreaching say a large majority and Dems should be there as check on Repubs
4.Schiavo debate pushed moderates away from the Republican party and by a 20% majority self described moderates now support Dems
according to Greenburg's latest polling results

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at May 26, 2005 01:30 PM

That's a great article... would you cross-post that in the forum, Choosing the Words We Use, as well? Here's the link:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showforum=69

Thanks

Grassley also says an increase in the retirement age — maybe to 67 — "has got to be part of the package."