Invitation to a Meeting on Democracy Dollars Proposal for COMMUNITY ADVOCATES: Monday, January 8 from 4:45 PM to 6 PM at 309 East 11th

An important message from Martha P. Cotera for Austinites that care about democratizing elections further via "Democracy Dollars."  The innovators refer to these as "vouchers" which in this case does not at all mean privatization, but the direct opposite as you can read for yourself below.  If we can call these "dollars," rather than "vouchers," a lot of people can feel positive about this more quickly. 

Most importantly, I think that this is potentially an exciting direction in local politics.
 

From Martha P. Cotera

To: COMMUNITY ADVOCATES

Date: January 6, 2018

Please join us Monday, January 8 from 4:45 PM to 6 PM at 309 East 11^th (Public Citizen’s Conference Room) to hear how Seattle’s public voucher campaign system could empower Austin’s 10-1 system by allowing district council candidates to run with small $25 vouchers from their district rather than the three affluent West Austin ZIP Codes that currently dominate giving.  Paul Ryan of Common Cause D.C. (who is an expert on and helped write Seattle’s law) and Executive Director Wayne Barnett (head of Seattle’s Ethics and Election Commission; check out their 2007 Election Report), will discuss Seattle’s system and answer questions.  These two experts are in town to discuss with the charter revision commission this Monday night at City Hall. 

Check out this related piece by Aly Chu (below) and consider listening to the video discussion of this, too.  I like how excitied folks sound about this in the recording.

Democracy Dollars, my friends.  Consider this innovation wherever you reside and are registered to vote.

Angela Valenzuela 

Democracy Vouchers: How Seattle’s Campaign Finance Experiment Aims to Transform Local Politics 

 

A look at how democracy vouchers work and what they could mean for the future of politics.

By Aly Chu

Video produced by Matt Mills McKnight

March 2, 2017

Sheley Secrest, a Dist. 8 Seattle City Council candidate, describes democracy vouchers as “bringing down barriers.”

Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, says the idea behind democracy vouchers is meant to be “very inclusive.”

Former Seattle City Council candidate Tammy Morales is hopeful that democracy vouchers will bring change to the system.

In January, Seattle residents started receiving envelopes in the mail containing $25 certificates known as “democracy vouchers.” The certificates, which resemble Monopoly money, are sent by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) and are the key component of Seattle’s campaign finance reform program. In fact, they are central to a remarkable effort to reform the way candidates fund campaigns for local office — one designed to level the playing field for people who may not otherwise be able to afford to run for office.
“This movement is about bringing down barriers,” says Sheley Secrest, a staffer for the King County NAACP who hopes to use vouchers this year in a run for City Council Position 8. “It’s about lifting up voices from those who’ve been told in the past that they don’t belong. This movement is about getting in — all hands in — and really changing the things that we want to see in Seattle.”
Secrest is optimistic about the opportunities the program creates. She believes that democracy vouchers will give her and other neighborhood leaders a way to get into city politics. To a certified candidate, they will be the same as cash, although campaigns can only spend them in a limited numbers of ways.
But not everyone is so upbeat and there has been a lot of confusion surrounding the vouchers. With that in mind, here’s what you should know about democracy vouchers:

Why democracy vouchers?

“Back about 10 years ago, when we first went to the state legislature and sought the authority to put in place a public financing scheme, there was the issue that incumbents were raising significantly more than their challengers,” says Wayne Barnett, executive director of the SEEC. “The theory was that making public financing available could give a challenger an opportunity to mount a credible campaign in a way that they had not yet been able to so.”
That led to a citizen-led initiative known as “Honest Elections Seattle,” or I-122, which passed with 63 percent of the vote in Nov. 2015. It created stricter contribution limits on high-dollar donors and introduced democracy vouchers.

How do they work?

On the first business day of each election year, the SEEC will mail four $25 vouchers to every eligible voter and applicant in the city. Recipients designate a participating Seattle City Council or City Attorney candidate to receive their vouchers, sign, then mail them directly to candidates or the SEEC. After the signatures are confirmed to be legitimate by King County elections, they return to the SEEC, which dispenses money to the candidates. As with all campaign contributions, democracy voucher contributions will be public record.
Some restrictions do apply: Candidates are not allowed to pay people for their vouchers, for example, or make political contributions of their own. In addition, they agree to a total spending cap for the primary and general elections.
City Attorney and City Council district candidates have a spending limit of $150,000. Those running for city at-large council seats, such as Secrest, can spend up to $300,000. Beginning in 2021, mayoral candidates will have a ceiling of $800,000. Those caps can be raised if a competitor who has opted out of the voucher program surpasses a voucher user’s expenditures.
For participating candidates, the maximum amount they can accept from any individual donor (not including democracy vouchers) is $250. Those who choose not to opt in to the program are still limited to a maximum of $500 per individual contributor, but lack an overall spending cap.

Why are they important?

Tammy Morales, who lives in Seattle’s south end and ran for District 2 on the Seattle City Council in 2015, hopes that the vouchers will allow people to become more involved in their local politics.
“I had many conversations with people who said, ‘I’ve lived in this neighborhood, I’ve lived in this house for 30 years. You’re the first candidate to knock on my door,’” she says. “And there’s a problem with that.
“Particularly now, in this unsettling political climate where we really don’t know what’s going to be happening at the federal level, we’re going to be more and more reliant on our local governments to make decisions that affect us every day,” Morales continues.

What are the risks?

Others have expressed concerns about the potential for corruption and the increased property taxes used to fund the program.
One concern is “bundling” — the collection of large numbers of vouchers by organizations or individuals possibly affiliated with candidates.

“There is the matter that state law does bar people from serving as intermediaries for contributions,” explains Barnett. The state’s Public Disclosure Committee (PDC) has concluded that while organizations may not bundle democracy vouchers, individuals are permitted to, even if they are not registered with the SEEC as a candidate’s representative.

Jordan Royer, who ran for City Council Position 8 in 2009, foresees “bundling” becoming a significant issue with democracy vouchers.

Jordan Royer, who ran for City Council Position 8 in 2009, foresees it becoming a significant issue in the future. “If you’re a large organization that has a lot of members who live in the city of Seattle and you have workers who can go out there and go door-to-door and put large voucher parties together, you’re going to do that because it’s an easy way for you to use taxpayer funding to get your position across,” he says.
Royer refers to the financing plan behind the democracy voucher program, a voter-approved property tax increase of $30 million over 10 years — $3 million per year. The average Seattle homeowner who owns a property worth approximately $500,000 will now pay about $11.50 per year towards the reform. Commercial, business and residential properties are all affected. Any money left over at the end of elections is held for the next year.

What happens next?

Registered Seattle voters were automatically mailed their vouchers after Jan. 3, but anyone who meets the prerequisites can apply to receive their vouchers and redeem them up until Nov. 30, 2017. To be eligible to receive the vouchers, applicants must be residents of the city of Seattle, at least 18 years old and either U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals or lawful permanent residents.
“If a candidate does knock on your door and you can’t find yours, we are trying to make it as easy as possible for you to get a replacement,” emphasizes Barnett. “Right now, we’re just asking people to call us, email us — just reach out to us in any way you can to let us know that you can’t find your vouchers.”
Morales, who is not currently running a campaign, remains hopeful that the democracy vouchers will bring change to the system.
“I think the real goal of this is to strengthen our voices and make sure that we’re holding our [elected officials] accountable to the people whom they want to represent. Not to wealthy donors, not to lobbyists, but to the people they will actually represent.”
“It’s a relationship,” concludes Secrest. “And this voucher program? The very thing of its success is building that relationship.”

SUPPORTED BY

Aly Chu

Aly Chu is a production intern at KCTS 9 and a freshman at the University of Washington. Currently a contributor at the UW’s newspaper, The Daily, she enjoys visual storytelling and hopes to major in communications. In her free time, she works as an illustrator and creates webcomics.

 

Surge of Texas women seeking office mirrors national trend

Exciting!  Here's what the folks at Emily's List report:

 In the four weeks after the 2016 election, 1,000 women came to the group’s website to learn about running for office. That number has now surpassed 26,000. By comparison, the group was in contact with 960 women for the previous election cycle.

 It's interesting to think that it took a misogynist Trump presidency to get us to this place.

-Angela

Surge of Texas women seeking office mirrors national trend

• Staff and Wire Reports
American-Statesman Staff

5:50 p.m Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018 Texas News & Politics

LM Otero Lianna Stroster posts a sign directing to a women’s candidate training workshop at El Centro College in Dallas. EMILY’S List, an organization dedicated to electing candidates at all levels of government who support abortion rights, is conducting a national recruitment effort looking to train candidates and potential candidates in more than 20 states. LM OTERO / ASSOCIATED PRESS

Inside a classroom at a community college in downtown Dallas, a group of two dozen women took turns sharing their names, hometowns and what they hoped would be their future titles: Congresswoman. Dallas County judge. State representative.

It was part of a training held by EMILY’s List, an organization dedicated to electing women at all levels of government who support abortion rights. During the presentation, one of the PowerPoint slides flashed a mock advertisement on the projector screen: “Help Wanted: Progressive Women Candidates.”

A record number of women appear to be answering that call, fueled largely by frustration on the Democratic side over the election of President Donald Trump and energized by Democratic women winning races in Virginia in November. Experts say 2018 is on track to be a historic year, with more women saying they are running at this point than ever before.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List. “Every day, dozens more women come to our website, come to our Facebook page and say, ‘I am mad as hell. I want to do something about it. What should I do now?’”

In the four weeks after the 2016 election, 1,000 women came to the group’s website to learn about running for office. That number has now surpassed 26,000. By comparison, the group was in contact with 960 women for the previous election cycle.

Whether all that enthusiasm will result in full-fledged campaigns and translate to gains in the number of women elected to office remains to be seen.

Although women are more than half the American population, they account for just a fifth of all U.S. representatives and senators, and 1 in 4 state lawmakers. They serve as governors of only six states and mayors in roughly 20 percent of the nation’s most populous cities.

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK: Our Lone Star Politics page brings Capitol news to your Facebook feed

For Sarah Riggs Amico, the executive chairwoman of a major auto hauling company, last year’s Women’s March in Atlanta ignited her interest in running for office.

“It was something that really lifted me up and made me want to demand better from my government,” said Amico, who recently announced plans to run for lieutenant governor in Georgia.

Sol Flores has been walking in marches with her mother in Chicago since she was a little girl, but never thought she would run for office. Now 44, Flores said she was enraged by Trump administration policies and decided to jump into a crowded Democratic primary for Illinois’ 4th Congressional District.

Flores said her network of friends has been crucial to helping her navigate the realities of being a first-time candidate and the challenges of fundraising and gathering signatures for qualifying.

“Women are really good at this, saying, ‘Let’s sit down and figure this out. You raised your hand, and let’s win. Let’s go to Washington, D.C.,’” said Flores, the executive director of a nonprofit helping homeless families and at-risk youth.

Texas female candidates

One hundred women, Democrats and Republicans, have filed to run for Texas legislative seats this year, compared with 76 women in 2016, according to Patsy Woods Martin, executive director of Annie’s List, whose mission is to recruit, train, support and elect progressive, pro-choice female candidates in Texas.

Woods Martin said that in 2017, 800 women participated in the organization’s candidate training programs, up from 550 in 2013.

As of now, Annie’s List has endorsed two candidates — Beverly Powell and Julie Johnson. Powell is seeking to beat state Sen. Konni Burton, R-Colleyville, in Senate District 10, for the North Texas seat formerly held by Wendy Davis, who surrendered it in 2014 to run for governor. Johnson is looking to oust state Rep. Matt Rinaldi, R-Irving, one of the most conservative members of the House, in House District 115.

READ: Willett leaves Texas Supreme Court for federal bench

While the statewide slates of both parties will be dominated by men, Kim Olson, a retired Air Force colonel, with a ranch in Mineral Wells, is the lone Democratic candidate for agriculture commissioner, and Republican Christi Craddick is seeking to keep her spot on the Railroad Commission.

There are also quite a few Texas women running for seats in Congress, including Mary Jennings Hegar and Christine Eady Mann, two of the four candidates seeking to win the Democratic nomination to take on Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, in U.S. House District 31.

Hegar of Round Rock is a former Air Force helicopter pilot who won a Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor and a Purple Heart for her bravery in Afghanistan, and led a successful suit against the Pentagon over excluding women from combat.

Mann is a family practice physician in Cedar Park and co-captain of Wilco Indivisible, part of a national network of activist groups formed in reaction to Trump’s election as president.

Prime opportunity

The last time the U.S. saw a surge in women running for office was 1992, in the wake of Anita Hill’s testimony before an all-male U.S. Senate committee weighing the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was called the “Year of the Woman” because women were elected to the U.S. House and Senate in record numbers.

The number of women in office has held steady in recent years, but experts say conditions are ripe for an increase in 2018 — especially if more politicians are forced to step down or retire amid the growing #MeToo movement that began with accusations of sexual misconduct against Hollywood megaproducer Harvey Weinstein.

One U.S. senator and four congressmen have so far announced plans to retire or not seek re-election after allegations against them, presenting a prime opportunity for women to compete for their open seats. For example, seven women have expressed interest in an April special election for an Arizona congressional seat. In Texas’ Congressional District 27, transgender activist Vanessa Foster is one of four Democrats running to replace Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, who announced last month he wouldn’t seek re-election amid sexual harassment claims.

The increase in female candidates is largely being seen in U.S. House and governor’s races next year and driven primarily by Democrats, said Debbie Walsh, who leads the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. In addition to the 50 Democratic and 10 Republican congresswomen expected to run for re-election, there are 183 Democratic women and 14 Republican women running in primaries to challenge their current U.S. representative.

These can be uphill races, but many of the women running say they were encouraged by what happened in Virginia in November, when 30 percent of the women who challenged their state representative won.

Katie Hill is among those seeking to oust her local congressman, Republican Rep. Steve Knight in California’s 25th Congressional District, a key Democratic target this year.

As an advocate for homeless people, Hill recalled the joy she felt on the night of the 2016 election when voters in Los Angeles passed a $1.2 billion bond measure for housing and services for homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless. But that was quickly tempered by the outcome of the presidential election.

“November made us all realize that our country is not where we need to be,” Hill said. “And that’s the point when people start to stand up and say, ‘If no one else is going to fix it, I’m going to.’”

Republican push

It’s not just Democrats. First-time Republican and Libertarian female candidates are also jumping into the mix.

Republicans launched an effort in 2012 that is focused on electing women. Under the “Right Women, Right Now” program, 390 new GOP women have been elected since then.

“Twenty-five percent of state legislators are women, and that’s clearly insufficient,” said Matt Walter, head of the Republican State Leadership Committee. “That’s a Democratic and Republican number, and something we really felt strongly was something we needed to change.”

On the state level, 36 governor’s races will be contested in 2018. The Center for American Women and Politics says 49 Democratic women, including former Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez in Texas, and 28 Republican women have indicated they will run for those gubernatorial seats. There has never been more than nine women serving as governor at the same time.

Even if all the women who have reached out to groups such as EMILY’s List do not end up running, they are expected to play key roles in supporting those who do.

“This is the next decade of candidates,” Schriock said.

Includes material from The Associated Press and American-Statesman staff writer Jonathan Tilove.

Urgent Matter: Bipartisan Dream Act deal is Within Reach

A reasonable, bipartisan deal is indeed within reach.  Please reach out to your Congressperson and let them know how you feel.  
-Angela

For Immediate Release     Contact: Michael Earls at 202-494-8555 or press@americasvoice.org

January 2, 2018  

 

Five Key Factors Driving the Dreamer Debate

 

Washington, DC – Before the holidays, Congress enacted a stopgap measure to continue federal government funding through January 19. This continuing resolution failed to address the urgent crisis facing Dreamers. Ahead of the upcoming busy weeks of negotiations, here are five key factors driving the Dreamer debate:

1. Dreamers need urgent relief now and Members of Congress need to keep their word: Dreamers are having their lives upended by an unfolding crisis of the Trump Administration’s making. The deadline facing DACA recipients is not, as some Republican Leaders like to claim, in March; it was months ago. Nearly 15,000 DACA recipients have already lost their DACA status and an estimated 122 DACA recipients lose their status every day. The examples of young people like Osman Enriquez and Brittany Aguilera are prime examples. Everyone from President Trump to key members of both parties have pledged to protect Dreamers. Now’s the time for elected officials to keep their word.
    
2. The public wants Congress to act: Americans overwhelmingly support keeping Dreamers in America, and they expect their elected representatives to deliver a solution. In poll after poll, more than 8 out of 10 Americans want Congress to find a way for young immigrants to remain in America; 2 out of 3 Republicans want the same. The only place where this issue seems to be the least bit controversial is among some Republicans in Washington, DC. As CNN political commentator Ana Navarro said today, “Only in America – only in Washington and this dysfunctional, paralyzed government – can everybody want a solution and not reach one.” It’s time for that to change.
    
3. Beware of poison pills from Rep. Goodlatte and the usual crowd of anti-immigrant suspects: The news that House Homeland Security Chair Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) led a group of House Republicans for an Oval Office meeting on immigration before the holidays and is now working on accompanying legislation should be viewed for what it is: hostage-taking that is more likely to scuttle a deal than to advance one. Rep. Goodlatte has worked his entire career to kill common sense immigration reform measures and to promote a hard right anti-immigrant agenda. No wonder he is loved by NumbersUSA, a nativist group and member of the John Tanton network, receiving a “Blue Ribbon” award from the organization in 2010. In 2014, Goodlatte said of Dreamers, “Whether they came in illegally or whether they entered the country legally and overstayed a visa or a visa waiver, they should be required to leave. That’s what the law says and that’s how the law should be enforced.” View any bill that Goodlatte’s crew puts forward as a batch of poison pills designed to imbalance the debate so that Republicans set up a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation: either hardcore Republicans get all of what they want in exchange for taking Dreamers hostage — a wall, turbocharged interior enforcement, and deep cuts to legal immigration — or they blame Democrats for not paying the ransom. 
    
4. A reasonable bipartisan deal is within reach: The fact is that Democrats have leverage in January, and Republicans need Democratic votes in January. Republicans have also promised to solve the crisis that Trump created when he ended DACA. So, if Democrats insist on the Dream Act being a priority, and, if Republicans are willing to negotiate a decent, bipartisan policy approach, it will happen. Sure, if Democrats signal weakness or if Republicans insist on poison pills, we could end up with a blame game and not a breakthrough. But given the strong support in both chambers of Congress and on both sides of the aisle, plus the need for Democrats to deliver and Republicans to govern, we believe that however difficult the process, a reasonable bill that combines the bipartisan Dream Act with a bipartisan approach to enhanced border security is within reach.
    
5. History is watching: As Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, recently stated: “Dreamers are Americans. They grew up here. They contribute here. They belong here. Anything less than enacting legislation to recognize these truths will degrade and diminish who we are. History is watching.”

 

Follow Frank Sharry and America’s Voice on Twitter: @FrankSharry and @AmericasVoice

America's Voice – Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform

 

www.americasvoice.org

 

###

The Republican Party: Off the Deep End

According to Bruce Bartlett, longtime aide to Ronald Reagan and Republican adviser, "the Republican Party needs to die, it's already a zombie. It's brain dead". (According to Insider, the Republican Party Needs to Die). It is no wonder that longtime republican party insiders are deeply troubled by the move of the republican party from the conservatism that once advocated for small government, minimal government regulation, and a conservatism that erred on the side of not making major changes without popular support by the majority of Americans, to a party that can only win elections through gerrymandering, voter suppression of the elderly, people of color, young students, and women as these voters pose a threat to republican power. Today's republican party, openly allows racist rhetoric to define its identity.

As the article describes, the media plays a fundamental role in the transformation of the American political landscape, especially where republicans and conservatives are concerned. Republicans and conservatives have abandoned their once libertarian inclinations to and now embrace authoritarianism and fascism.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, which required news coverage to offer equal time to the opposing views of liberals and conservatives, allowed for informed citizens to make responsible voting decisions. The end of the Fairness Doctrine enabled special interests to masquerade as news to advance their political agenda. Fox News is the primary example.

The effect of the Citizen's United Ruling further diminished the citizen's voice. For removed from uniting citizens, the republican controlled Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling made it so that a corporation's voice amounted to more than the voice of the individual citizen. Nothing could be more authoritarian, un-American or un-Democratic.

The failure of the American News media to reveal right-wing extremism has lead to decline. The failure of media by allowing right-wing extremism to become normalized has transformed a great nation into one corrupted by tabloid news sources, where racism is normalized, and where critical thinking becomes a threat to the establishment. The term liberal has become so demonized by by the right-wing media that dyed-in-the-wool liberals now condemn other liberals for being liberal as this term has been re-branded into something different.

2017 Was the Year I Learned About My White Privilege, by Max Boot

These kinds of testimonies are always helpful since the truth of privilege for the privileged is often more easily heard from a peer, if you will. I discovered this piece titled, "2017 Was the Year I Learned About My White Privilege" from Kenneth Bernstein's blog (aka teacherken).  

It is very encouraging to read this piece in the new year as it may signify a social awakening of a kind and to a degree. Indeed, recently, Christian Bale made just such a statement:  "We’d Be Better Off If ‘White Dudes’ Weren’t Running Everything.

Hopefully, this awareness spreads to all corners of our society and the world.  After all, it's a global issue and not just a North American one.

Angela Valenzuela

c/s

A terrific piece about white male privilege

By teacherken  

Thursday Dec 28, 2017 · 10:29 AM CST

308 Comments (308 New)

 

RSS

written by Max Boot and appearing yesterday in Foreign Policy.  It is titled 2017 Was the Year I Learned About My White Privilege and has the subtitle “I used to be a smart-alecky conservative who scoffed at “political correctness.” The Trump era has opened my eyes.”

Boot is an immigrant of Jewish background from Russia, or to be more accurate, from what was then the Soviet Union. He was born in Moscow in 1969, and has been an adviser on foreign policy and similar topics to the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio.  Unlike a lot of those on the Conservative side of our politics, he holds a number of views that might make him comfortable on the liberal side — pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-abortion and pro-immigration.   He is fiscally conservative and very much for an active role for the US militarily around the world.

He has been a significant voice as an author and adviser, and has increasingly appeared on MS-NBC as one of the more notable Never Trump conservative voices.

The new Foreign Policy piece is quite open in acknowledging things to which he has previously been oblivious, on matters of race and of gender.
As he write:

A quarter century is enough time to examine deeply held shibboleths and to see if they comport with reality. In my case, I have concluded that my beliefs were based more on faith than on a critical examination of the evidence. In the last few years, in particular, it has become impossible for me to deny the reality of discrimination, harassment, even violence that people of color and women continue to experience in modern-day America from a power structure that remains for the most part in the hands of straight, white males. People like me, in other words. Whether I realize it or not, I have benefitted from my skin color and my gender — and those of a different gender or sexuality or skin color have suffered because of it.
This sounds obvious, but it wasn’t clear to me until recently. I have had my consciousness raised. Seriously.

Boot provides many examples of how his consciousness has been raised. Let me offer a few of his very pointed comments.
We are seeing pushback by some Trumpistas on how white men are the real victims, to which Boot responds

It is even more pernicious to cling to the conceit, so popular among Donald Trump’s supporters, that straight white men are the “true” victims because their unquestioned position of privilege is now being challenged by uppity women, gay people, and people of color.

On how Police actions that are inappropriate and totally out of control disproportionally affect minorities he writes

I am ashamed to admit I did not realize what a serious and common problem this was until the videotaped evidence emerged. The iPhone may well have done more to expose racism in modern-day America than the NAACP.

He makes clear that the problems of racism are not limited to police, telling us of a friend, “a well-educated, well-paid, well-dressed woman”  who was unwilling to be carrying a pair of jeans she was planning to give to another friend late in the day in her purse when she went into a department store:

Why not? Because she was afraid that she would be accused of shoplifting! This is not something that would occur to me, simply because the same suspicion would not attach to a middle-aged, middle-class white man.

As to the impact of Trump’s election, including on how the police act, Boot offers the following parenthetical remark:

(Far from being concerned about police misconduct, which disproportionately targets people of color, Trump actively encourages it.)

He references the terrific piece in Atlantic by Adam Serwer on Trumpism (about which I wrote in this Daily Kos post) that examines the nature of Trump’s base, then tells us

That doesn’t mean that every Trump supporter is a racist; it does mean that Trump’s victory has revealed that racism and xenophobia are more widespread than I had previously realized.

As to his advantage to being male, he tells us that

As with the revelations of police brutality, so too with sexual harassment: I am embarrassed and ashamed that I did not understand how bad the problem is.

and admits

I now realize something I should have learned long ago: that feminist activists had a fair point when they denounced the “patriarchy” for oppressing women. Sadly, this oppression, while less severe than it used to be, remains a major problem in spite of the impressive strides the U.S. has taken toward greater gender equality.

He brings it home in a concluding paragraph, of which I will only offer the second half:

But I no longer think, as I once did, that “political correctness” is a bigger threat than the underlying racism and sexism that continue to disfigure our society decades after the civil rights and women’s rights movements. If the Trump era teaches us anything, it is how far we still have to go to realize the “unalienable Rights” of all Americans to enjoy “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” regardless of gender, sexuality, religion, or skin color.

I think this is a very thoughtful, very honest, and very powerful piece by Boot.
I urge people to read the entire piece.

Powerful Hollywood Women Unveil Anti-Harassment Action Plan

Both of these pieces need to be read in this order.  First, is this one titled, "700,000 Female Farmworkers Say They Stand With Hollywood Actors Against Sexual Assault." The second one is titled, Powerful Hollywood Women Unveil Anti-Harassment Action Plan.  It's exciting to see ideas and rhetoric—in this case, the #MeToo movement, addressing the issue of workplace harassment against women—turned into action because of the 700,000 female farmworkers' plea for visibility to the work conditions that they similarly face. 

Such an encouraging way to start the new year in this country.

Check out their website:  https://www.timesupnow.com/

Thanks to Emilio Zamora for bringing this to my attention.

Angela Valenzuela 

c/s

700,000 Female Farmworkers Say They Stand With Hollywood Actors Against Sexual Assault

By TIME Staff

November 10, 2017

In the lead up to “The Take Back the Workplace” march in Los Angeles on Nov. 12, Latina farmworkers have written a letter of solidarity to the brave women and men in Hollywood who have come forward with their experiences of sexual harassment and assault in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. The upcoming event is organized by the Feminist Majority Foundation, Civican, and We for She. It aims to shed more light on instances of sexual harassment in the workplace and call out those who commit it, allow it and help cover it up.
 

Dear Sisters,
We write on behalf of the approximately 700,000 women who work in the agricultural fields and packing sheds across the United States. For the past several weeks we have watched and listened with sadness as we have learned of the actors, models and other individuals who have come forward to speak out about the gender based violence they’ve experienced at the hands of bosses, coworkers and other powerful people in the entertainment industry. We wish that we could say we’re shocked to learn that this is such a pervasive problem in your industry. Sadly, we’re not surprised because it’s a reality we know far too well. Countless farmworker women across our country suffer in silence because of the widespread sexual harassment and assault that they face at work.

We do not work under bright stage lights or on the big screen. We work in the shadows of society in isolated fields and packinghouses that are out of sight and out of mind for most people in this country. Your job feeds souls, fills hearts and spreads joy. Our job nourishes the nation with the fruits, vegetables and other crops that we plant, pick and pack.
Even though we work in very different environments, we share a common experience of being preyed upon by individuals who have the power to hire, fire, blacklist and otherwise threaten our economic, physical and emotional security. Like you, there are few positions available to us and reporting any kind of harm or injustice committed against us doesn’t seem like a viable option. Complaining about anything — even sexual harassment — seems unthinkable because too much is at risk, including the ability to feed our families and preserve our reputations.

We understand the hurt, confusion, isolation and betrayal that you might feel. We also carry shame and fear resulting from this violence. It sits on our backs like oppressive weights. But, deep in our hearts we know that it is not our fault. The only people at fault are the individuals who choose to abuse their power to harass, threaten and harm us, like they have harmed you.
In these moments of despair, and as you cope with scrutiny and criticism because you have bravely chosen to speak out against the harrowing acts that were committed against you, please know that you’re not alone. We believe and stand with you.

In solidarity,

Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas is an organization comprised of current and former farmworker women, along with women who hail from farmworker families.

Powerful Hollywood Women Unveil Anti-Harassment Action Plan

By CARA BUCKLEYJAN. 1, 2018

 

Some of the women who have established Time’s Up, clockwise from top left: the actresses America Ferrera and Eva Longoria; the lawyer Nina L. Shaw; the actress Reese Witherspoon; the producer Shonda Rhimes; and the lawyer Tina Tchen. Credit Clockwise from top left: first two photos, Brinson+Banks for The New York Times; Oriana Koren for The New York Times; Jimmy Morris/European Pressphoto Agency; Brinson+Banks for The New York Times; Alex Wong/Getty Images

Driven by outrage and a resolve to correct a power imbalance that seemed intractable just months ago, 300 prominent actresses and female agents, writers, directors, producers and entertainment executives have formed an ambitious, sprawling initiative to fight systemic sexual harassment in Hollywood and in blue-collar workplaces nationwide.

The initiative includes:

— A legal defense fund, backed by $13 million in donations, to help less privileged women — like janitors, nurses and workers at farms, factories, restaurants and hotels — protect themselves from sexual misconduct and the fallout from reporting it.

— Legislation to penalize companies that tolerate persistent harassment, and to discourage the use of nondisclosure agreements to silence victims.

— A drive to reach gender parity at studios and talent agencies that has already begun making headway.

— And a request that women walking the red carpet at the Golden Globes speak out and raise awareness by wearing black.

Called Time’s Up, the movement was announced on Monday with an impassioned pledge of support to working-class women in an open letter signed by hundreds of women in show business, many of them A-listers. The letter also ran as a full-page ad in The New York Times, and in La Opinion, a Spanish-language newspaper.

“The struggle for women to break in, to rise up the ranks and to simply be heard and acknowledged in male-dominated workplaces must end; time’s up on this impenetrable monopoly,” the letter says.

The group is one answer to the question of how women in Hollywood would respond to cascading allegations that have upended the careers of powerful men in an industry where the prevalence of sexual predation has yielded the minimizing cliché of the “casting couch,” and where silence has been a condition of employment.

Time’s Up also helps defuse criticism that the spotlight on the #MeToo movement has been dominated by the accusers of high-profile men, while the travails of working-class women have been overlooked.

This was highlighted in November, when an open letter was sent on behalf of 700,000 female farmworkers who said they stood with Hollywood actresses in their fight against abuse. Time’s Up members said the letter bolstered their resolve to train their efforts on both Hollywood and beyond.

“It’s very hard for us to speak righteously about the rest of anything if we haven’t cleaned our own house,” said Shonda Rhimes, the executive producer of the television series “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Scandal” and “How to Get Away With Murder,” who has been closely involved with the group.

“If this group of women can’t fight for a model for other women who don’t have as much power and privilege, then who can?” Ms. Rhimes continued.

Other Time’s Up members include the actresses Ashley Judd, Eva Longoria, America Ferrera, Natalie Portman, Rashida Jones, Emma Stone, Kerry Washington and Reese Witherspoon; the showrunner Jill Soloway; Donna Langley, chairwoman of Universal Pictures; the lawyers Nina L. Shaw and Tina Tchen, who served as Michelle Obama’s chief of staff; and Maria Eitel, an expert in corporate responsibility who is co-chairwoman of the Nike Foundation.

“People were moved so viscerally,” said Ms. Eitel, who helps moderate Time’s Up meetings, which began in October. “They didn’t come together because they wanted to whine, or complain, or tell a story or bemoan. They came together because they intended to act. There was almost a ferociousness to it, especially in the first meetings.”

Time’s Up is leaderless, run by volunteers and made up of working groups. One group oversaw the creation of a commission, led by Anita Hill and announced in December, that is tasked with creating a blueprint for ending sexual harassment in show business.

Another group, 50/50by2020, is pushing entertainment organizations and companies to agree to reach gender parity in their leadership tiers within two years. It already can claim a victory. In early December, after Ms. Rhimes pressed him, Chris Silbermann, a managing director at ICM Partners, pledged that his talent agency would meet that goal.

“We just reached this conclusion in our heads that, damn it, everything is possible,” Ms. Rhimes said. “Why shouldn’t it be?”

There is also a group ensuring that minorities and gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people are heard. “No one wants to look back and say they stood at the sidelines,” said Lena Waithe, a star of the Netflix series “Master of None” and part of that working group.

Another group is devising legislation to tackle abuses and address how nondisclosure agreements silence victims of sexual harassment. “People settling out in advance of their rights is obviously something that can’t continue,” said Ms. Shaw, a prominent lawyer whose clients have included Lupita Nyong’o and Ava DuVernay.

Ms. Tchen is spearheading the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which is administered by the National Women’s Law Center’s Legal Network for Gender Equity, and will connect female victims of sexual harassment with lawyers. Major donors include Ms. Witherspoon, Ms. Rhimes, Meryl Streep, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw, and the talent agencies ICM Partners, the Creative Artists Agency, William Morris Endeavor and United Talent Agency.

Time’s Up has also been urging women to wear black at the Golden Globes on Sunday, to use the red carpet to speak out against gender and racial inequality, and to raise awareness about their initiative and the legal fund.

“This is a moment of solidarity, not a fashion moment,” Ms. Longoria said. A vast majority of the women who had been contacted and planned to attend the ceremony pledged to participate, she said.

“For years, we’ve sold these awards shows as women, with our gowns and colors and our beautiful faces and our glamour,” Ms. Longoria said. “This time the industry can’t expect us to go up and twirl around. That’s not what this moment is about.”

Time’s Up was formed soon after The New York Times reported in early October that the producer Harvey Weinstein had reached multiple settlements with women who had accused him of sexual misconduct.

As more women stepped forward, and more men were accused of abuse, a group of female talent agents met at Creative Artists to discuss the problem and explore solutions. The group soon expanded to dozens and, eventually, about 150 participants (it has since doubled as the actresses who joined expanded to New York and London), who meet weekly at the agency and in living rooms across Los Angeles, as well as for daylong workshops.

Katie McGrath, who runs the production company Bad Robot with her husband, J. J. Abrams (both are also major donors to the legal fund), said that the women realized from the start that they needed to figure out “what we wanted out of this moment, and what was going to be required in order to shift and pivot from this horror to structural change.”

Several of the women said their work with Time’s Up presented a rare opportunity to meet regularly and pool efforts with other powerful women. In an industry overwhelmingly dominated by men, they said, they were usually one of the few actresses on set, or one of the few female writers or producers in a room.

“We have been siloed off from each other,” Ms. Witherspoon said. “We’re finally hearing each other, and seeing each other, and now locking arms in solidarity with each other, and in solidarity for every woman who doesn’t feel seen, to be finally heard.”

No one can predict whether this burst of energy will lead to lasting changes. Time’s Up members said the meetings had brought disagreements and frustrations as well. “It’s not as satisfying as finding a silver bullet,” Ms. Ferrera said. “We all recognize there’s no such thing.” But, she added, “not taking action is no longer an option.”

Ms. Rhimes said working with the group of women reminded her of a feeling she got as a child, when her mother took her around the neighborhood in a wagon to register black women to vote. “We’re a bunch of women used to getting stuff done,” she said. “And we’re getting stuff done.”

Follow Cara Buckley on Twitter: @caraNYT.

A version of this article appears in print on January 2, 2018, on Page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: 300 Strong: Hollywood Women Unite to Fight Harassment. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

Exciting New Journal | Intersections: Critical Issues in Education

Now here is a new journal out of the University of New Mexico that sounds amazing in its conceptualization!

Visit the journal of Intersections: Critical Issues in Education at http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/intersections

Angela

Raise the Age: 17-Year-Olds in the Criminal Justice System

Thanks to University of Texas at Austin, Plan II undergraduate student, Annie Albrecht, whose Plan II thesis I co-supervised with McCombs School of Business professor Dr. Melissa Murphy, I am fairly up to date on this issue and am convinced that not only should 17-year-olds enter the juvenile justice—as opposed to the adult criminal justice—system, but that this is a human rights issue, as well.

The age could even be arguably higher.  No chance of that right now, it appears, so we should at least raise the age to 18.

Research on brain development, particularly the underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, finds, as reported herein, "that youth are inherently less likely to consider the outcomes of their actions, more prone to risky behavior, and more vulnerable

or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures."  Most importantly, 17-year-olds would get treated as juvenile offenders, rather than as adult criminals, giving them access to rehabilitation.

More of us need to join efforts with Texas Appleseed, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, the ACLU, Texans Care for Children, Right on Crime, and Senator Harold Dutton who championed this legislation during the last legislative session that Sen. John Whitmire opposed.  It is unfortunate that this bill didn't pass last legislative session.  Hopefully, it will pass next session.

Also, take a close look at this research brief for more detailed information.  

-Angela Valenzuela