This is part of an ongoing series I’ve been posting over at Daily Kos that I thought might be interesting to post here as well –Julie

---

Sometimes it’s complicated to talk about creativity in terms specifically of activism.  So today I’m going to talk a bit about creativity of other sorts: artistic inventiveness, creativity and exploration, with a nod towards the end about how it applies to activism and political work.

But first, about the picture.  There is no Photoshop effect at work here.  This is a light sculpture (see Eric Staller’s work for the original concept of light sculptures– the man’s a genius) which I created through a fairly simple process using long exposure shutter work.  For technical explanations of long exposure work, I’ve written two pieces, one for digital SLRs and another for non-digital SLRs.  The much shorter explanation is that you set the camera up in very dark settings and leave the shutter open for a long time, allowing the light that hits the camera’s film to take prime focus in the frame.

In this case, I was in a parking lot that had very little light surrounding it and pulled out a couple of those glow-sticks you see people selling at fireworks displays and similar events (believe it or not, I keep some in my trunk for just such an occasion).  I moved them into different positions, would hold them there for a moment to get the exposure, and then move them again.  First I did them around my head, curving them, and then straightened them out to do form the lattice work grids.

My intent is to do a lot more of this, using all sorts of light sources: sparklers, torches, light-up toys.  There are tons of possibilities here and lots of room for experimentation.  Winter is perfect for this: when the nights are long, the darkness is my friend for this sort of shot.

So how does this apply to politics & political movements? 

Read on…

There’s a concept I teach my students called “functional fixedness.”  The idea is that we often think of what we’ve got in front of us as being fixed and rigid in its purpose.  A butter knife is for a specific set of tasks, but when you find yourself without a screwdriver, it might do in a pinch.  A lot of us simply don’t think of this, because we don’t think beyond the obvious.  Realizing that I could use a camera to take pictures not only of what’s there at the time I click the shutter and what’s going to be there ten seconds later has transformed my sense of what photography is.  My camera is no longer a way to document and capture moments.  It’s a way to render the passage of time; not through animating images but instead through capturing the whole path of light, and the way that light reflects off of mist, and how that light curves and bends.

In the picture shown, I captured the same light source multiple times, in different positions.  You see very little of the movement of the light because it’s such a low-strength source that it wouldn’t capture it except when still for long enough to show up on the image.  In politics, we often can’t see the effect that what we’re doing is happening.  We don’t know how much of an impact we’ve had until we see the whole picture.  But with experience, we can get ideas as to what works and what doesn’t. 

With politics, however, our greatest enemy can be the expectation that comes with experience: not knowing how to move beyond expectations because we’re so used to them.  A variation on that functional fixedness keeps us from thinking of new and different ways to approach people about issues. 

And before I continue, I will explain that I fully admit to bias here: I’m personally oriented towards creativity and my willingness to expand my own ideas beyond the obvious is probably my primary survival skill.  For a living, I find ways to take complicated concepts and integrate them in fashions which make them clear to people who don’t need to fully understand them but need to understand the basics.  I’m one of the few people I know who can translate easily between geek and non-geek.

So for me, being creative is key to everything.  I’m drawn to works that challenge my assumptions and I’m drawn to works that inspire me to create new material.

So, to politics: as activists, we’re often stuck in a bad situation: we have numbers, but not nearly the resources of large, multi-national, corporations.  We can’t afford to launch high-profile PR campaigns and because we’re smart people who like to think, we don’t just fall into line with daily talking points, so it’s harder for us to get a coherent, specific, and simple message into the media meme the way that conservatives (who, preferring to just repeat the same talking points over and over again, because it presumably shouts out the screaming voices from deep inside the recesses of their blackened, dying souls) are able to do.

But here’s the thing: if we approach these problems with enough inventiveness and creativity, we don’t need to act like conservatives in order to get our messages out there.

Three years ago, global warming was viewed by the mainstream media as just a theory but it doesn’t take an advanced degree in climatology to realize that when “An Inconvenient Truth” came out, it really did change things for people.  It didn’t do this through just providing good, solid, information.  It did this through providing it in an creative and engaging fashion.

Think about that for a moment: people paid money to go see a lecture about climate change presented by a guy who, when he ran for President in 2000, was just not a particularly engaging presence on the campaign trail.  Don’t get me wrong: I like Gore, but prior to an Inconvenient Truth, I would never have thought I’d be able to sit through more than ten minutes of Gore speaking without falling asleep. 

It was creativity that took this presentation of his and turned it into something much bigger.  It was looking beyond the message itself and thinking about the delivery system that changed things.  Now we’ve got a transformed debate.  No one’s pretending its not real any longer.  We’ve got people pretending it’s not bad but now no one’s pretending it doesn’t happen. 

For me, what this boils down to is that we’ve got a lot of really smart, clever and sophisticated people on our side.  But we don’t use those skills well enough.  We write.  We argue.  We fume.  We seethe.  But what are we going to do that’s going to step outside of the comfort zone?  What are we going to do that draws attention to big issues in a way which engages people without scaring them off?

There aren’t easy answers to this but it does sometimes involve a lot of patience.  Daily Kos started small, and started primarily because Markos and his merry band of Orange Heathens were willing to speak truths that no one else was willing to do at the time.  They were representing a voice which was seldom heard at the time.  This separation from the norm helped garnish enough attention and power to be derisively attacked by Bill O’Reilly.  Admittedly, being attacked by O’Reilly is a low bar, but clearly he’s in some fashion threatened by ‘Kos.

And really, although I joke about it, it’s pretty amazing that this site has attracted some major attention from high-profile (even if insane) media figures.  It’s not because ‘Kos is backed by large finances or a strategic ad campaign.  It’s because ‘Kos set up something which gives people the ability and choice to contribute in whatever way they see fit and allows us the choices to promote, recommend and/or ignore whatever content we so desire.  We use it to get informed, to inform others, to share ideas and it’s free to use for those of us who don’t chose to purchase a subscription.

There’s something revolutionary about this that pushes it to a new level of creativity.  Anything we can place online we can include in Daily Kos.  Think about  the youTube video that Ms Laura posted which outlines the writers strike.  It’s simple.  It’s clear.  But it’s funny and clever.  And I know about it because of Daily Kos.

Back to art: how many of you viewed this diary because of the unusual photo on the preview?  I included partially to talk about art and creativity, but I also included it because I knew it was something most people don’t see every day and I knew it would intrigue some people.

This isn’t something surprising or original; I used a hook.  The only unusual part is that I’m not trying to sell anything.  I’m just trying share my own experience and hope that someone finds it useful.

I think, for me, it’s that I see so many people who are afraid of trying things that will make them look foolish– I see us all wanting to find ways to create change but not having the resources to do so.  We’re stressed out, tired, not sure where to turn and our representatives capitulate to the Bush administration too often. We try things and fail and we get discouraged.

All of this is valid and understandable.  But sometimes we try so hard against those brick walls without thinking that maybe we’re seeing a wall where it doesn’t exist or that it just doesn’t look like it really appears.  We push and get frustrated and discouraged and feel isolated.  We get lost in the morass of corruption and insider politics and don’t know how to break through to the people who are supposed to be representing us.

And we forget to give ourselves the room to look at problems in new light.  We forget to give ourselves the mental space to find new and creative ways to look at the world around us.  We get so caught up in the day to day struggles that we forget that so much change happens through art and exploration and that change happens in subtle ways that aren’t obvious on the surface.

Look at that picture again.  Each of those lines of light that appear in it took time.  No one watching me create that picture would have imagined what it would look like after the fact.  I wasn’t even sure myself.  I was experimenting.  And out of the two dozen experiments I tried that evening, that’s the only one I liked enough to post.  People watching would see me hold a light then move and then hold it somewhere else.  Over and over again.  People watching would probably think I’m a bit odd and have no idea what the hell I’m trying.  But that’s because you can’t see the big picture when you’re in the day to day struggle. 

So we work.  And learn.  And experiment.  And explore.  And sometimes it works.  But when you try to get a message across, and do so in a creative fashion, somewhere with someone it probably takes hold.  That makes the message more available to people the next time they hear it.  And then when it gets presented again in a different fashion from another venue, they’re a little more ready to hear it.  And again, they may not be ready to take it in yet.  It takes time. 

I will end this with a summary of a story that most of us know, to show just how presentation can change how it impacts our recollection of the story:

A work of fiction which was written, which has been presented as a musical, has shown up in many movies, has experienced many parodies on sitcoms, has appeared as multiple plays, including a one-man play in which Patrick Stewart plays every part:

When Scrooge was first visited by Marley, he was unable to take in what Marley had to say.

When he was visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past, he chose to ignore his history and did not want to hear it.  He left the better part of himself behind, unable to learn from his mistakes.

When he was visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present, he was affected, but not enough to influence change.  He still resisted.

When he was finally visited by the Ghost of Christmas Future, he was forced to come face to face with the direct consequences of his own behavior and his own choices.  It wasn’t until that path was drawn for him that the connections were made. 

What we’ve done that can not be changed.

What we’re doing now that we can change.

What will happen in the future should we refuse.

And what happens to others when they make the wrong choice.

Until we find ways to tie these messages together in ways that the rest of our country can understand, we’re still, as a nation, heading towards an abyss.  But we can influence the messages.  We can convey to our people that there is no question that waterboarding is torture.  We can communicate to our friends and colleagues that with our decisions on the environment come consequences that we’ll only escape by not surviving long enough to bear witness to them.

We can learn from our mistakes, but we have to be open to learning and we have to be open to finding new and unusual ways to communicate those mistakes to others and draw on the motivation that comes from wanting to change.

And when we harness that interest in change, we have to be ready to present real and meaningful alternatives.  In “An Inconvenient Truth” we were not just presented with information about the horrors of global warming.  We were presented with alternatives and things we can do right now to reduce the damage to the planet.  When we find creative ways to change our world, we also need to present ways that people can tap into that change and be part of the solution. 

What’s all this take?

Creativity.

In Cryptograms, every letter represents some other letter, and it’s consistent throughout the puzzle.  I.e., if you determine that the letter “A” represents the letter “X” at some point, it will represent the letter X throughout the entire puzzle.  In this case, I compiled a list of things that all have something in common.  The two word phrase at the top is the description of the list and each line has its own item for the list.

What is this a list of?

LCPSZSYMP LMKZSIG:

• MFIKSYMW WMHS
• YCFFAWSGZ
• XIFCYKMZSY
• VKIIW
• SWXILIWXIWYI
• PMECK
• PSEIKMP
• PSEIKZMKSMW
• WMZAKMP PMN
• LCZ LMKZJ
• KIBCKF
• KILAEPSYMWG
• GCYSMPSGZ

Yep, there's still an election going on… some of the latest from the tubes:

TPM has the Ultimate Kerik Scandal List, because there's just so many to keep track of. Rudy's boy is in some deep water. 

And speaking of Mr. “A Noun, a Verb, and 9-11”, Rudy's come up with a surefire method of explaining the reason the military is stretched to the brink… it's Bill Clinton's fault! Can you believe they're still using that one?

Barack Obama has a soft spot in his heart for mining companies. Apparently the 4 percent royalties they currently pay to extract from our public lands is good enough, and he's opposing a recently passed House bill that reforms the Mining Act of 1872 that would raise royalties for new operations to 8 percent.

In other Dem news, Obama and Edwards have cut into Clinton's poll numbers in NH. 

The GOP wedge issue of immigration didn't treat them as well as they thought it would in VA elections last week. As the Right's Field points out, Giuliani thinks that nativism is still a winning strategy.

The man who has been and continues to be wrong about everything in the universe, chickenhawk Bill Kristol, knows who he'd like to see in the GOP VP slot. Can you guess who it is? Hint: he's already run for VP once this century…

And finally, Dave Johnson over at Smirking Chimp lays out the various scenarios that the GOP will try to lay out for the 2008 elections, and why it's important that progressives get their act together now to counter the messages.

HAve a good week, and don't forget to make it to the meeting with Peter Welch about the war, today (Sunday) at the Aldrich Public Lirary in Barre at 1:30 if you can.

Well, for better or worse, Anthony Pollina announced at the Progressive Party convention today in Royalton that he “expects and intends” to run for governor. From WCAX:

Pollina, a Progressive, made the widely anticipated announcement this afternoon at the Progressive's annual convention. He is the first candidate so far to unofficially challenge incumbent Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican. 

Pollina made the announcement before an enthusiastic gathering of over 100 supporters at the Progressive Party's annual convention in South Royalton at the Vermont Law School.

  He also said he is actively seeking the support of Democrats and would accept the nomination of the Democratic party.

  “I would accept the Democratic nomination and I would be pleased to run as a Democrat-slash-Progressive because I think that's what it's going to take to bring people together to make sure we can defeat Jim Douglas,” said Pollina, who says Douglas would undoubtedly easily win a fourth-consecutive term if Democrats and Progressives each run a challenger.

At the very least, it's good to know somebody is running against Douglas, and it's also good to finally hear an acknowledgement that a three-way race mans 2 more years of Whinin' Jim. Whether Pollina's got what it takes this time remains to be seen, but at least there's now a race to talk about. More to come… Poll below the jump.

I'm way too tired to post today, but I wanted to call a discussion question…

Glenn Greenwald has stated, again, what we've all been thinking in light of the Mukasey nomination.

First off, let's acknowledge what a disgraceful display by Washington Democrats this whole vote was. All the Senators running for President managed to hide from the vote (and yes, I'm sure they all happen to have just dandy excuses, how-dare-I-complain), and you have the spectacle of the head of the DSCC up there saying that the now-Attorney General of the United States is “wrong on torture,” but he should be confirmed anyway. My god, are civilized people in generations to come likely to look back on someone like Schumer with anything other than absolute scorn and contempt after that? 

But Greenwald's point is:

   Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they “tried”), the excuse they gave was that they “need 60 votes in the Senate” in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general “60-vote requirement” for everything.

So why would 44 Democratic Senators make a flamboyant showing of opposing confirmation without actually doing what they could to prevent it?

So, the question is: with our Constitution in shreds, and our congressional leadership pacing nervously while the Republicans are dancing tangos on the pieces, are cloture votes now the only REAL votes that have any meaning on Constitutional matters (and don't try and tell me the Mukasey nomination wasn't a Constitutional matter)? Is it all or nothing on such votes, when dealing with the Bush GOP?

Should we even care about how our Senators vote, or otherwise speak out, if they aren't doing everything in their power – including filibuster – to protect us from things as serious as legalized torture? I'm having a hard time imagining how that answer could be anything but 'no.'

(Don’t know that it’s “the best” argument, but it’s a damned fine one. – promoted by JulieWaters)

The best written argument I have read thus far on the marriage issue.  As a Justice of the Peace recently presiding over my first marriage, this is how I read the JoP manual and understand the law. 

Enjoy one and all. 

From today's Times Argus letters: 

Civil versus religious marriage 

November 9, 2007 

Though religion is an essential component of marriage for many couples, legal marriage in this country is a secular institution. 

The required license does not mention God, faith or children. It establishes a state of legal, not holy, matrimony. It confers no divine blessings, but provides hundreds of civil rights, protections and benefits, among the greatest of which is the word “marriage” itself. Opponents of same-sex marriage would like to read capability of procreation and Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations into the civil marriage laws, but they are not there, either overtly or by implication. 

Couples who want religious wedding ceremonies of course have every right to them, but this does not mean that religious marriages may be substituted for civil ones. The state invests the clergy with the authority to sign marriage licenses and thus to perform the civil and religious marriages simultaneously. The religious ceremony may be more important to couples and their families, but it is immaterial to the state. The legal part of the marriage is the civil portion only. 

The essential point is this: a duly executed state marriage license is valid without a shred of religious ceremony or any ceremony at all; a religious marriage is not legal without a civil marriage license. 

Members of the clergy must never be compelled to perform marriages which violate their religious principles, but neither may they force their convictions on other clergy — a steadily growing number — who believe differently, or on civil marriage law, which must always remain secular. A slight change in wording will make the standard state marriage license equally applicable to same-sex and heterosexual couples. There is no defensible reason not to make the change. 

Judy and Michael Olinick  Middlebury

Well, then. Turning up the heat does seem to work sometimes. Peter Welch has agreed to have a meeting to discuss the war, this Sunday, November 11th at the Old Labor Hall Aldrich Public Library in Barre. The meeting is open to the public, so I'm hoping you'll attend if possible, and more importantly, spread the word to anyone you know who would be interested. As Odum pointed out earlier, the next few votes on Iraq funding will be here shortly, and Welch is definitely running out of chances to back up his words with action and refuse to sign on to anymore war funding. As you probably know, patience is starting to run rather thin lately. Hope you can make it.

UPDATED–See below 

 

For the last year, Windsor County State's Attorney Bobby Sand has been trying to start a public debate on the costs and benefits of marijuana prohibition in Vermont. You may remember that when Nixon ordered a look at this very question thirty-five years ago he didn't like the answer, so he suppressed the results. Yes, thirty-five years ago we were on the road to legalization.

So just maybe, when one courageous State's Attorney decides that his office has more important things to do than throw pot-smokers in jail, it can open a debate on marijuana prohibition in Vermont, right?

ll across Vermont Democrats are wailing, gnashing their teeth, and hoping that their one big pre-Christmas wish will come true: a strong challenger to Republican incumbent Jim Douglas. Somebody, maybe one of our top statewide office-holders, to step up, take the big political risk, and tell the voters of the state the truth: that Douglas is an empty suit, someone who looks like a governor, dutifully shows up at ribbon-cuttings, but is a nay-saying do-nothing when it comes to doing anything positive for the people of Vermont.

Attorney General Bill Sorrell is one of those statewide office-holders, and on occasion he has been willing to take independent stands that Governor Scissorhands wouldn't support.

So when Douglas decides, predictably, to take the low road and order the state's game wardens and other law enforcement personnel to bypass State's Attorney Bobby Sand and refer their pot cases to the AG or the feds, what the hell does Sorrel do?

Does he take the opportunity to stand up for Sand, and point out the fact that the so-called war on drugs is diverting vital law enforcement efforts from other, real crimes? Does he talk about the financial costs of confing productive citizens in prisons for enjoying an activity that hurts nobody and is far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, or the Big Mac you can get legally all over the state? Or does he join Douglas and demagogue the issue?

I wish he could take a position that would actually move Vermont ahead, but I'm afraid not.

I guess we need to look somewhere else for a principled Democratic leader.

 

As it turns out Sorrel may not be such a big fan of Douglas's move after all. Here's what he said on VPR this morning:

Sorrell says that's within the law – but unusual.

(Sorrell) “It's the first time that in a particular county that a sitting governor has directed the law enforcement that answers to the governor to refer certain cases to the AG's office, rather than the county state's attorney.''

(Sneyd) Sorrell says he's sure the governor's position will not sit well with prosecutors.

(Sorrell) “Is this a slap in the face? If I was a county prosecutor, I wouldn't be happy about this action by the governor.''

In fact, Ross Sneyd couldn't find anyone for his story to support what Douglas is doing, and both Dick Sears, chair of Senate Judiciary, and Jeffrey Shields, dean of Vermont Law School, were pretty critical. 

The newest star of the Vermont blogosphere doesn't have a blog (although he has been known to post a bit on less traveled sites). He's Doug Hoffer, go-to guy when you need a hard core, progressive policy wonk in Vermont.

And by hard core, I mean hard core. As in, the guy other hard core wonky types such as former Representative and Act 60 architect Paul Cillo look to when they need someone to do some heavy lifting.

In recent years, Hoffer has been taking full advantage of the small pool that is Vermont. By being smart, persistent, efficient and omnipresent, he has become to the left what John McLaughry pretends at being for the right. Unlike McLaughry, though, Hoffer actually does the work, as opposed to regurgitating canned, simplistic and intentionally myopicly dogmatic drivel from the Heritage Foundation and it's allies.

In a political environment where most self-proclaimed lefties have internalized the corporate line, and mope around in a funk of fiscal and ideological self-doubt, Hoffer has the tools and the wherewithal to virtually single-handedly stand up for Keynesian economics – and manages to do so in a way that seems open-eyed and common sensical, rather than doctrinaire. If you haven't heard his name, trust me, you've heard of his work. He was behind the recent study that showed Vermont taxes as among the most progressive, dropping a bomb right into the Republican election narrative. Here he is at uber-wonk Paul Cillo's counter-Ethan Allen Institute, Public Assets Institute. Here he is with Cillo putting the McJobs facts to Douglas's job growth claims. And here he is all over the freaking place at the interfaith/labor/community coalition site High Road Vermont.

The problem with Hoffer's work has been the problem with intellectual leftism in general; that is, it'ss a total “if you build it, they will come” presentation. Some great position papers, a chat with a reporter or two and a pretty website – followed by no attention whatsoever and little counter to the effect of politics on public policy.

But Mr. Hoffer has taken his show on the blog road lately in, what to a policy professional, is the most mundane and low-brow of media; blog comments. And in the process, he's been not only stirring up quite a few online kerfuffles, but in the process is beginning to make quite the name for himself…

His favorite points of contact are in the sites rigged for anonymous posting that do not require registration. You know, the ones where you often think you might want to get in on the discussion, before you reconsider the wisdom of diving into such a mosh pit of anonymous nastiness, insults, vulgarities and dueling poster-outings.

Hoffer, however, is fearless, and dives right in (generally) with aplomb.

Here he is going after usual suspect right-wing automaton “bubba” at vtbuzz recently:

  Doug Hoffer  said…

“a small, struggling state with an aging demographic, a rising tax burden…”

I guess you didn't read the figures I provided on manufacturing job losses in the states that have “lured” big foreign auto plants. You guys still don't get it. As much as you want to bash VT, it's not just us.

The “aging demographic” is a reality in many states, not just VT.

A “rising tax burden”? I guess you didn't read the JFO tax study. And please don't tell me about how it doesn't include property taxes. Find me another state where the education property tax is based on income.

“Narrow minded isolationist points of view” did not got us to where we are today. Huge job losses all over America are the result of many factors having nothing to do with what happens in VT. In fact, the architects of NAFTA and other “free” trade agreements have helped create the situation – and that includes lots of Republicans and Democrats. Are they all isolationists?

bubba  said…

Hoffer's figures on manufacturing state that they are from the “last” recession. Is that the one Bush inherited from the Clintons or some other? In any case, NAM web site does list Manufacturing employment gains/losses from 2001-2006. A few: Alabama +42.4%; Vt: +13.8%; Tennessee: +29.9%; MS: +8.9%. You can find all the others at their web site. Just a note to show how far off Hoffer can be!

 

  Doug Hoffer  said…

Bubba – I'm glad that you did some research. Good start. But you didn't do it right. Information from the NAM is not official; it's a lobby group after all.

The ONLY source for jobs data is the U.S. Dept. of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statstics (BLS – every state uses exactly the same methodology). You will not find a reputable economist who uses anything else (unless they're paid lobbyists and then they're not reputable).

The figures I provided are correct. Please check these sites if you don't believe me. And if you prefer 2001, that's fine with me. They STILL show manufacturing job losses in every state I listed. I used Sept. to Sept. because that is the most recent data, but the annual data tells the same story.

Alabama
http://data.bls.gov/…
Kentucky
http://data.bls.gov/…
Mississippi
http://data.bls.gov/…
S. Carolina
http://data.bls.gov/…
Tennessee
http://data.bls.gov/…
Vermont
http://data.bls.gov/…

Furthermore, it is clear that you misread the NAM data. The figure you provided is NOT for jobs. Read it again. It says “manufacturing share” – not job growth. The figure you / they presented does NOT mean manufacturing jobs grew 42.4% in Alabama from 2001 – 2006.

Look at the tables. On the left it shows 299,800 jobs in manufacturing in July. That is correct – it's from the BLS (see the site noted above). But if you look at the site, it shows that manufacturing jobs in July 2001 were 322,000. That's a loss of 22,200 jobs (7.4%). You thought that NAM said it was a gain of 42.4%. that's absurd. Do you see it?

In fact, the NAM site only says “manufacturing growth” – so we don't know wxactly what it means. I suspect they are refering to the growth of manufacturing GDP as a % of total state GDP (unadjusted for inflation to make it look bigger – that's a trick used by lobby groups like the NAM).

Bottom line: As I stated, manufacturing jobs in Alabama (and all the other states discussed) is down. That's a fact.

I appreciate that you tried to nail me, but you got it wrong. You really need to let go of your belief that I misstate the data. I never do that.

BTW – The remarks in the previous post about the need for and value of investing in people is right on. That is a much better way to use public funds then wasteful tax credit giveaways to large corporations.

 “Bubba” collapsed almost immediately, falling back on his mantra  of dogmatic conservative talking points as a life raft.

It didn't help.

  bubba  said…

“Giveaways” to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal. Auto makers are only one example of what can be done if a state is business-friendly. You cannot imagine what a Nissan plant does for Mississippi, or a Hyundi parts plant for Georgia. The WRONG way to go about it is to be so anti-business like Dean and pals, then panic, and end up giving a special deal to less-than-legitimate outfits like Husky, who I imagine got away with exaggerating claims of employment. In any case, no matter what the shortcomings of the free enterprise system,if left alone, it benefits workers far more than a bunch of Montpelier environmentalists, social engineers, and paid book-cookers spending taxpayer dollars trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. As a final comment (only here) I saw where some writer stated that the JFO was an “independent” group! Sure, like CNN is “Fair and Balanced”!

6:30 PM, November 03, 2007

 

  Doug Hoffer  said…

Nice

When you are proven wrong, you revert to Rush-speak.

Is it so hard to just admit that you were wrong?

Go ahead, admit that the “Leftist” hired gun was right. If not – in the face of inescapable facts – you have nowhere to turn but the same old tired Right Wing baloney.

Are you willing to learn something or are you so stuck in the ideology that you can't see the truth?

You said that “Giveaways to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal.”

B____hit. Refute the facts or just shut up.

Chuckle. And so it goes. Hoffer actually works with and understands what the numbers are saying, as opposed to just some other guy with a chip on his shoulder and access to Google. Making him even more of an asset to the Vermont left is his apparent equal comfort working with the Peace & Justice Center, archetypal Vermont Dem Paul Cillo, and posting on the Prog Blog.

But he doesn't just swoop in to set people's numbers straight. H e also gets into the knock-down-drag-outs on rhetoric and general viewpoints. He and “the other 'Vermonter'” got into a back and forth that ended with this uncharacteristicly deferential comment by Freyne Land's “Vermonter:”

First, I acknowledge that you are a good debater and I appreciate that.  We disagree, but hat's off to you anyway.

Second, I'll just have to disagree with your belief that the Governor's events are lowly PR events and the Senator's are (apparently) altruistic “community outreach” events. One is venal and the other is high-minded? Sorry, I don't buy it. Different style, but same intent and same result. I also can't believe you would say that Bernie's events aren't covered. One cannot pick up the Freeps without reading about another so-called town meeting or media event by Bernie. You can't.

Third, you say that the editorial positions of the two largest media outlets in the state have been openly anti-Bernie for years. That may be historically true for CAX, but I think the case of the Freeps is much grayer, to say the least. Certainly in recent years. The Freeps covers him all the time. And leaving aside the Freeps and CAX, at least be honest and ackowledge that the “one reporter” is pro-Bernie. He reports on his doings in generally positive, if not glowing, terms almost every week.

Finally, I'll acknowledge that in my frustration I have lashed out against Bernie and the blog host. I apologize to Bernie and Peter. You may be suprised that I actually agree with many of Bernie's policy positions, if not his style.

Posted by: vermonter | Oct 28, 2007 5:20:58 PM

 

Yeah, you won't see that too often.

Unfortunately, we need to appreciate the show while we can, as Hoffer will likely burn out quickly if he continues to engage in that sort of debate.

Further down the same thread, though, is this smackdown of conservative activist and blogger Curtis Hier repeating Douglas talking points:

Curtis

According to the data, Jim does not equal jobs.

Private sector job growth has been significantly lower in the last three years than in the 1990s. [Note: I focus on private sector job growth because state economic development policy is not directed to and has little impact on public sector jobs.]

Not only is Vermont's annual rate of private sector job growth weak compared to the `90s (0.6%), but it is only half the national rate of 1.2%. And Vermont's rate has been lower then the U.S. rate for the last 3 years. Since September 2004, U.S. private sector jobs have grown 5.3% while Vermont's rate was 1.5%.

Furthermore, a significant percentage of the jobs being created are low wage (which the state Dept. of Labor fails to tell you each month in their press release on unemployment and the labor market).

Obviously, The Gov. is not responsible for the large economic forces beyond our control, but his policies are not helping.

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 7:16:02 AM

Doug,

Our latest unemployment rate is at 4.0 percent, which puts us at 19th and below the national unemployment rate. Your job growth comparison is based on the net number of private sector jobs. Our labor force in Vermont is shrinking as Vermonters are retiring and there aren't younger workers to take their place. Governor Douglas has been trying to address that.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the public sector is growing so much and the private sector is shrinking. (From my perspective as a teacher, it seems like everyone in town is becoming an instructional aide here at school.)We can't pay for that forever. I feel that the Republicans would do a better job of addressing that problem. I'm wondering why you picked September 2004.

Posted by: Curtis Hier | Nov 1, 2007 7:47:01 AM

Curtis

The unemployment rate sounds great but it's been below the national rate for the last 30 years and, therefore, has nothing to do with Jim Douglas' policies. And for the record, it's 4.2%, not 4%.

Furthermore, the median number of private sector jobs created annually in the `90s was over 4,000. In the last three years, the figure is under 1,300. These figures don't lie.

I picked September because it's the last month available to show year – to – year figures. That's exactly what the Dept. of Labor does every month.

Moreover, I track these numbers for my work and it doesn't matter what month you pick. Job creation is – and has been – anemic since the last recession.

As for Republicans doing a better job, we have had a Republican governor for the last 5 years. It is HIS Dept. of Economic Development carrying out HIS policies. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, this is the same pattern in most other states (regardless of the party in power). The Gov. is attempting to use old “tools” to solve new problems. It's not working.

And of course we've had a Republican President for the last 7 years, with a Republican Congress for most of that time. U.S. job creation is also anemic.

It's not about Jim Douglas per se. He just represents old thinking that is out of step with new realities.

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 8:06:06 AM

 

So Hoffer continues to provide content that is often more informative and useful than the entries he's commenting on. Very cool, and as I said, we should enjoy it while we can, especially after this comment:

I understood blogs to be free of the corporate filter that determines most of what we see & hear. That people could speak their minds freely. Those two criteria are met.

But I didn't expect this level of personal antagonism, anger or pettiness. 

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 7, 2007 9:08:19 AM

 

Heh. 

Welcome to the blogs, Doug.

Now somebody pass me the popcorn. 

 

 

Number of people currently held at Guantanamo: approximately 320

Number of Guantanamo detainees who were sent to Albania: 8

Number of people who have been held in military detention at Guantanamo: 778

Number of Guantanamo detainees who were sent back to their home countries: nearly 450

Number of Uighurs (members of an ethnic minority from Western China) who were sent from Guantanamo to Albania: 5

Number of other people in Albania who speak the Uighur language: 0

Age of the oldest prisoner ever held in military custody at Guantanamo: approximately 75-78 (As he put it, “How could I be an enemy combatant if I was not able to stand up?”)