Sign up for updates in your city.
Click here for other Liberally programs
Submitted by Josh Bolotsky on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 12:00am.
by Justin Krebs & Josh Bolotsky
These are very exciting times for Living Liberally: our upcoming 5th anniversary, the launch of brand new groups like Shooting Liberally and Knitting Liberally, our preparations for Netroots Nation and various other summer events. However, as exhilarating as these projects might be, they pale in comparison to our latest roll-out. Today, we'd like to announce the biggest undertaking in Living Liberally history. Something we like to think might change progressive politics for the better. Something which will transform Drinking Liberally forever.
So, let's get right to it:
Abstaining Liberally, our newest group.
Please learn more after the jump.This was the right decision, and a long time coming. After almost 5 years and 50 states of liquor-inspired liberal organizing, we're figured out how to really shift the game for our NEXT 5 years - and that's not do anything. Well, at least no drinking.
After all, as our detractors point out, what do we ever do besides get drunk and make fools of ourselves? (They know us so well!) It's not like we inspire people to blog or otherwise take part in citizen journalism. And we're certainly not getting new voters involved in primary campaigns or the larger election season, or consolidating a scattered liberal community.
So goodbye to tonics, spirits and pick-me-ups. Abstaining Liberally will meet in senior centers, not bars, and we'll serve water and juice, not gin and vodka. But this doesn't mean we'll no longer have fun. (Just you wait to see how badly I beat you in the water-drinking contest.) It'll just be teetotaling fun.
So, this April 1st, let's say goodbye to Drinking, and hello to Abstaining!
Submitted by Gina-Louise Sciarra on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 12:00am.
When we started the flagship Knitting Liberally chapter in Northampton, MA last October, we knew that we wanted it to be a fun, social group combining our two passions: knitting and liberal politics. We also wanted it to be an accessible way for people to get involved in the community.
We are thrilled to be completing our first Knitting Liberally Giving Project.
We knitted toys for the New England Learning Center for Women in Transition (NELCWIT), a wonderful organization nearby in Greenfield, MA that helps women and children who have survived domestic violence or sexual abuse. NELCWIT was excited by the prospect of being able to give the children they serve beautiful, hand-made toys to hug and love at such a vulnerable time for them. And we really couldn't imagine something more fun to knit than toys. Webs, the world-renowned yarn emporium that we are spoiled enough to have as our local yarn store, generously donated the yarn for the project, making this the perfect collaboration of three local groups.
Visit us at KnittingLiberally.com to read about the ways that yarn and politics collide for our members. You can also check on the progress of our next group project, which will be our contribution to a social justice knitting project that will have a big visual impact in support of LGBT equality in the Presbyterian Church. If you are interested in participating in the project or the website, join KnittingLiberally.com and start posting or drop us an e-mail. Knit. Vote. Blog.
Submitted by Josh Bolotsky on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 12:00am.
Drinking Liberally Shot of Truth
As far as I can tell, this is the first time that the Open Society Institute is doing a direct fellowship program along these lines:
I'll start with the facile, gut reaction: obviously, it's great to see another partner in the family of progressive-movement-builder fellowship programs, alongside great, under-heralded initiatives like the Drum Major Institute's DMI Scholars and the whole host of Young People For projects. In a lot of ways, I feel that these programs are both a huge extension of and a substantial improvement over what the Century Institute was aiming at a few years ago before it faltered unexpectedly.
However, there are two important differences here between the proposed OSI program and these other examples. For starters, the OSI project is somewhat unique in its focus on a global progressive perspective, as opposed to some variant of domestic policy - I say 'somewhat' because I don't want to overlook the great work being done by the participants in those aforementioned programs who've chosen to focus on issues of international concern - e.g. Alex Hill, a current YP4 fellow, and his astonishing work with S.C.O.U.T. B.A.N.A.N.A.:
But, secondly, a quick look at the guidelines reveals that this is not a strictly-for-students program - a real distinction, and an interesting choice on OSI's part.
Like so much of the frenzied progressive infrastructure-building of the last few years, much of the netroots support for these types of activist-in-training programs comes from the often correct perception that given the huge amount of ground left to cover in catching up to what the institutional right has done, we better get cracking on "the progressive version of" whatever given aspect of conservative advantage we seek to emulate - if we can just start with our own progressive version, in other words, we'll be on the right track. As someone who spent time as the Chair of a major College Democrats state federation, I can anecdotally attest to the kind of forced comparison points you often hear from frustrated students - that Campus Progress is or should be "the progressive version of" Young Americans for Freedom, or the Center for Progressive Leadership is or should be "the progressive version of" the Leadership Institute, and so on. In other words, we're so frustrated at how far behind we are in the race that we're looking for the reflexive response, which is a counterpart above all else - just as we might look at, say, Air America Radio to be "the progressive version of" right-wing talk radio.
All of which is not just well and good, but, I think, quite necessary - it's wonderful that we are moving towards having these counterparts. But as a first step - then you start moving towards innovations. All of which makes the choice of OSI to make eligibility open to all, student or no, all the more striking: along with projects like YP4's Young Elected Officials Network, it's a unique take on the format, one that isn't a reaction to any kind of adult-training-program that the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is cooking up.
It'd be less than honest not to admit that I have a personal take on this as well, and a personal bias - as someone transitioning into a full-time role in Living Liberally from a fellowship in YP4's Leadership Academy, another program I'd categorize as post-first-step in its innovative qualities, I can speak from deep experience about how these type of fellowship programs can be a hugely empowering experience. It is not an advertisement for myself or YP4 to note that while a lot of the problems within long-term progressive movement building might seem obvious and oh-so-lamented by now, it doesn't make them any less pressing, or the actions of those organizations that are taking them on any less commendable.
There is an enormous difference between learning skills piecemeal, between one election campaign here and one speaking class there, and having them integrated on your behalf in a planned program, and in all the aforementioned frenzy of the last several years, perhaps we don't take the time on occasion to note how amazing it is that we're getting there at all. I'm just glad that it won't just be fellow students taking the plunge.
Submitted by KAT on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 12:00am.
by Amanda Milstein, Living Liberally
I went to sit in on a class at a Public Policy program that I might attend next year, and decided to do the assigned reading, as I find few things to be duller than sitting in on a class when I have no idea what is going on (also I wanted to procrastinate doing my calculus homework). The book for the class was Understanding Affirmative Action by J. Edward Kellough, which is not only a clear guide to legal cases that have dealt with affirmative action, but also an excellent size to whap people with should they persist in not agreeing with your affirmative action views, whatever those may be.As an extremely small child my brother must have been exposed to a conservative news program between bouts of playing with Thomas the Tank Engine, as he would wander around the house complaining that white men were being oppressed. "How will I get into college?" he asked us angrily waving Thomas around. "How will I get a job?"
"How would you your sister to get paid seventy five cents for every dollar that you get paid? Does that seem fair?" I demanded.
I wish Understanding Affirmative Action had existed then in order to read it to my brother until he fled, and so that my pro-affirmative action arguments would have been more nuanced then "You're just WRONG!" I'm glad that I've read it as now I'll be able to argue more effectively because I understand the legal history of affirmative action, why some states decided to get rid of affirmative action, and various arguments on both sides of the issue. The next time I get into a discussion about it I'll be able to recite court cases until my face is as blue as Thomas the Tank engine — and I'm looking forward to it.
Submitted by Katie Halper on Tue, 03/25/2008 - 12:00am.
Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying
Last week, because the batteries in my remote were dead and I was too tired to get up, I was treated to an hour of Anderson Cooper, replayed 12 times. This meant that I had the pleasure of watching the special feature on Cooper. Technically, it was more like 7 minutes of Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, over and over and over, learning something new each time. The first thing that struck me was Anderson Cooper's introduction to the feature:
Now, I like Anderson Cooper more than most media stars, not just because he went to my school (which explains why we both "go forth unafraid/strong with love and strong with learning.") The first time I heard his introduction, I was appreciative of his nuanced and brave questions -- is there any story here, does it even matter? The second or third time, I heard it, I started to methink he doth protest too much perhaps -- about the story not mattering. The fifth or sixth time, what came through was the way Cooper explained why the story does, in fact, matter: "We're running it because, like it or not, legitimate or not, it has become an issue."
The seventh time, I noticed something disturbing on a grammatical and syntactical level. Style and grammar advisers, from Orwell to MLA warn us against the passive voice and other impersonal constructions. And I know that by the seventh grade at the school we had both attended, our teachers had shaken the passive/impersonal construction habit out of us. But it wasn't just the dis to Dalton teachers that got to me, of course. The impersonal construction was misleading; saying something "has become an issue" is a convenient cop-out. There is no agency, no responsibility, no guilt, no intervention. Nobody turns it into an issue; the issue issues itself, in an almost natural and inevitable process. The impersonal construction allows Anderson to side step the very personal and active role of the media in turning Reverend Wright into an issue. Thanks to his hedging device Cooper doesn't have to say, "We're running the feature because, like it or not, legitimate or not, we in the media have made it an issue." So, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, the media determines what becomes an issue by claiming it has become an issue. Cooper is hardly the worst issue-creating wolf in issue-reporting sheep's clothing. In fact, Anderson's disclaimers suggest his discomfort with the issuelessness of the issue. We sense that Anderson knows that the media is blowing this out of proportion, creating a story where there isn't one, and an issue where there wasn't one. Anderson seems to fear that we, the audience, might be onto him, which is why he inflates the story's significance with a dramatic introduction, explaining to us that, like it or not, legitimate or not, this really is a story, you are not being manipulated, we are not creating a conflict, we are merely reporting on it. Like the sales clerks who can't accept your exchange because "We don't make the rules, we just work here", the pundits can say, "We don't make the issues, we just follow them."
Of course the warning about the over-the-top pastor backfires as we brace ourselves for a racist madman, who calls on his flock to sacrifice Hillary Clinton at an altar to Fred Hampton Jr. and slay white women, children and babies. Instead, what we see is an angry black man who has some beef with America. What on earth for? (Or, to be more accurate, an angry black man quoting an angry white man who has some beef with America.)
During the post-mortem Cooper and his fellow experts decide -- I mean observe -- that "look, obviously, his remarks are incendiary. It comes at a particularly bad time... Obviously, it is [fair game] because, again, you have someone who is closely aligned with the senator in terms of being his pastor." Cooper's conscience flickers once more: "Well, it's also frustrating just from a news standpoint, because, on the one hand, I mean, people are talking about it. It's clearly an issue that is bubbling up on the campaign trail, so we end up covering it. But, at same time, it does feel just completely off track."
But, of course, the issue is still being talked about and thus the powerless media is forced to talk about it.
This reminds me of when, like it or not, legitimate or not, the controversial comments made by McCain allies became an issue. Of course, we all know that I'm referring to the HUGE media response to McCain's relationship with John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, who said that "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans" for planning "a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the?? Katrina came." Who can forget how the press crucified McCain for his alliance with Hagee? And we all remember when the media demanded that McCain break all ties with his "spiritual guide" Rod Parsley, senior pastor of World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, who said "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001 was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
If you're having trouble remembering the media frenzy that followed McCain's advisors' outrageous and inflammatory statements, that may be because there was no media frenzy. If you want to hear about Jeremiah Wright, just turn on your television. If you want to learn about Hagee or Parsley, you'll have to go to Media Matters or Mother Jones. More offensive than the words Wright has uttered are what the media hasn't said about the homophobia, intolerance, and xenophobia coming out of McCain's camp. But in all fairness to the media, a black "angry" pastor who talks about history and politics is a racist. But white civilized men who preach hatred and promote ignorance and pseudo science just aren't that scary. They're kind of adorable.
Submitted by KAT on Mon, 03/24/2008 - 12:00am.
by Kerry Trueman, Eating Liberally
The "Reverend Wright is Wrong" refrain has been repeated endlessly this past week as pundits on both sides weigh in on the racial and religious controversy that's rocked the Obama campaign. Martin Luther King, Jr. touched on this not-so-divine divide 45 years ago:
"We must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America. At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation."
Sunday morning in our household is, by contrast, the one time during the week when we suspend our secular segregation and tune in to the hot air from beltway blowhards on both sides of the partisan divide. On rare occasions, we even agree with an aside from George Will or a point made by Pat Buchanan.
But Wall Street Journal pundit Peggy Noonan literally gave us pause on Meet the Press yesterday when she responded to a question from Tim Russert about Obama's seminal speech so reasonably that we had to grab the remote, rewind, and relisten:
Tim Russert: Is Obama uniquely situated to talk bluntly to both the white community and the black community?
Upon hearing this, my husband Matt and I looked at each other in absolute amazement. To hear Noonan, a former Reagan speechwriter, give the kind of response that you'd expect from, say, Donna Brazile, was a minor Easter miracle, a resurrection of rationality after a week of crucifixion from conservatives.
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Fri, 03/21/2008 - 12:00am.
We typically subtitle these types of posts, "Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying," a bit tongue-in-cheek. Tonight, we provide a slightly more literal look.
Laughing Liberally found itself in an interesting position this past Wednesday: making dedicated progressives laugh on the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War, not once, but twice, with both an afternoon show at the Take Back America conference, and an evening show at our biweekly Laughing Liberally Labs in New York City. No further commentary - we'll let you decide how we did with a few videos with which to begin your weekend.
At TBA, in addition to an awesome Tuesday performance by Lee Camp, we were lucky enough to have James Adomian with us, doing his best...well, you'll see.
Thoughts? Opinions on mixing the political tragic with the comedic? Consider this an open thread.
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Thu, 03/20/2008 - 12:00am.
Reading Liberally Page Turner
When I was a small child, my father, who often votes for Republicans, was explaining to me the difference between Democrats and Republicans. "Republicans want you to keep the money you worked for, and Democrats will take it from you and give it to people who never worked a day in their lives and make you live on the side of the road in a cardboard box. Mommy votes for Democrats — why don't you ask her why she wants you to live in a cardboard box?"
Thankfully I developed a slightly more nuanced view of the American political system. For those who still believe my father, Myth of the Welfare Queen, by David Zucchino, the story of two welfare mothers who are doing anything but living the high life, comes to the rescue by providing a detailed look at the lives of welfare mothers during the Clinton administration.The book follows Odessa Williams and Cheri Honkala, two welfare mothers in North Philadelphia who know that welfare reform might snatch the benefits they depend on at any moment. Odessa's children are all adults, but she is saddled taking care of a plethora of grandchildren, many of whom have serious health problems. Cheri runs an organization that seeks to bring attention to the plight of Philadephia's poor and works tirelessly but sometimes inefficiently to gain attention for her cause. We find out later in the book that she and her son are able to eat because of her late-night gigs as a topless dancer — that is the only way she can think of to support herself while being a full-time activist.
Odessa is the heroine of the book — we follow her as she visits her son in prison, sells people rides in her car, goes fishing to stretch her food budget, and picks through trash bags in order to cloth her many grandchildren. Odessa's children aren't always on the ball — one son is imprisoned, one daughter is a prostitute whose children live with Odessa, and one of her granddaughters keeps on having children while refusing to further her education or find a job. Not everyone in North Philadeplia is eligible for sainthood — but Odessa is doing everything she can to straighten out the lives of her family members while Cheri works to make people aware of the plight of urban poor people.
The story takes place in the Clinton years under the shadow of impending welfare reform—the women know that they system they rely on is going to end, and they cannot quite imagine their worlds without it. They are anything but lazy, but Odessa, who is ill, cannot possibly work and care for all of her grandchildren and children simultaneously, and Cheri knows how important welfare is to the many families involved with her advocacy group. The Myth of the Welfare Queen does an excellent job of creating empathy for the extremely hard working women who require welfare to allow them to support themselves and their families in an economy that won't give them many feasible alternatives besides starving in a cardboard box.
Chapter leaders... Please login here.