Van Jones speaking to the faithful at this year's Netroots Nation conference in Providence, RI - June 9, 2012.

On Thursday, June 7, as hundreds of online journalists and activists gathered in Providence, Rhode Island for the seventh annual Netroots Nation conference to discuss what were deemed the most pressing issues of the day, a smaller group made up of nuclear industry representatives and officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Department of Energy got together 400 miles south to discuss matters they thought even more urgent. While the attendees in the Ocean State were getting training on “how to navigate the action-packed schedule at Netroots Nation [and] survive on two hours sleep (and still be alert for a day of panels!),” owners of the nation’s aging nuclear facilities pursued doubling the length of new operating licenses, floating the possibility that reactors will be allowed to run into their 80th year–twice the original design life of most plants.

As bloggers, organizers, pundits and politicians were discovering the charms of the Beehive of Industry (yes, that is one of Providence’s nicknames), inspectors at Davis-Besse, the oft-discussed, always troubled nuclear power plant near Toledo, Ohio were reporting what they termed a “pinhole” leak releasing about a gallon of radioactive coolant every 10 minutes. The reactor had been shut down for refueling, maintenance and safety inspections, but was supposed to restart last week. . . before the leak was discovered in a pipe weld. (Though the reason behind the leak has yet to be determined, FirstEnergy, Davis-Besse’s owner, has now resumed the restart. . . without so much as a raised eyebrow from regulators.)

This incident at Davis-Besse comes not so very long after the Ohio primary, where the safety of the plant and trustworthiness of its owners and regulators was an issue in the race between two sitting Democratic members of Congress–Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur. Forced to run against each other because of redistricting, the plight of Davis-Besse became a defining issue between the two, with Kucinich calling for the plant to remain off-line until the cause of cracks in the containment structure was determined, while Kaptur affirmed her faith in FirstEnergy. Kaptur argued that the failing facility meant jobs for the struggling district–a district that was drawn to favor Kaptur’s old base–and in the end, beat Kucinich for the Democratic nod.

Read the rest of this entry →

Watch this episode at YouTube

This week, I am at Netroots Nation #6 in Minneapolis, and I had planned to bring you a video all about one of the themes I saw running through the first day of panels, speeches and briefings. . . I had planned to bring you video, but I am only here through Sunday and that is probably not enough time to upload my usual eight-or-so minutes because the speed of the internet connection here is pre-millennial. . . again.

This is actually another common theme, one that runs through pretty much every one of the NetNats I have attended. The internet is either not free, not fast, or both. I can remember running down to a lobby to get a connection one year, balancing my computer on the mini fridge near the door of my room another. And always, the waiting—the spinning, gray-barred, “sorry, you are not connected to the internet” waiting.

Now, obviously, the conference organizers cannot really be held responsible for the internet in the hotels—and the wifi in the convention center is certainly an improvement over last year—but damn! Every year I come to the largest concentration of netizens on the planet, and it is like we are suddenly the cast of some cyber version of “Survivor.”

It’s, like, practically “Lord of the Flies.”

OK, perhaps I exaggerate just a tad, but it is a constant—every year a consistent struggle to break through to the super tubular interwebs we remember from home.

Which is also kind of serendipitous because the theme from this year that I wanted to note was that everyone seems to be expressing a frustration with the inability of progressive ideas to break through—break through to the legacy media, break through the establishment-policed, corporate-driven narrative, break out of our bright, shiny ghetto of liberal thought. It seems that, after being quite obviously on the outside during the infancy of the blogosphere, progressives expected a nurturing embrace after the presidential election of 2008—or at least expected not to be punched—and now, not feeling the love, the natives are restless.

I hear the frustration—hell, I feel it, too—but I am not sure if I have yet heard the answer to it. A popular (dare I say) “mantra” is that we have to break out of our silos. The idea is that the left is fractured—fractured over strategy, over tactics, over goals, over issues. It is the belief that, so far, we have not done enough to find commonality among theoretically different movements inside the broader progressive one.

There is probably some, or plenty, of that sort of problem, but it just doesn’t feel, to me, like it is the problem. Fracturing is actually pretty much the way of all revolutions—from 1848 to the present—and heaven knows the right, whose narrative we are trying to crash, has plenty of fissures, from hairline cracks to continental divides.

Another “answer” I heard was that the left needs to be more daring. (“Bold” is one mighty over-used word these days.) And it needn’t be a big production—glitter bombing Newt Gingrich (and, just yesterday, Tim Pawlenty) broke though for one shining moment—it just needs to be original and, ideally, telegenic (think: singing to the president about Bradley Manning). Dan Choi, speaking on a Thursday panel, said we have to be willing to get crazy, “And crazy is not a limited resource among activists.”

I am not against that, but I see three problems. First, the brevity of the breakthrough, second, the need to continually ratchet up the “crazy” to get attention, and third, the fact that crazy often plays right into the establishment stereotypes of lefties. You might get them to cover your action, but being daring does not prevent the legacy media from marginalizing your position.

I also heard several mentions of the need for the left to build its own media complex to compete with the corporate behemoths that now have an iron grip on the narrative. This “tactic,” I’m afraid, seems to be idle dreaming—as far off as say, my ability to stream video at this hotel.

Better, I think, would be a search for the next social organizing tool. The twitter or what-have-you of 2013. Something relatively cheap to use and so new that it has not yet been commandeered by right wing activists or co-opted by capitalists. I am thinking this is possible, but, of course, I am thinking about something I cannot really describe, except to say it will be the next big thing.

And finally, only touched on today, the idea that we need to think beyond silos on the left and attempt to find alliances across traditional boundaries. Looking for what the establishment might think of as “strange bedfellow” pairings to flummox the forces that find it easy to wall-off and marginalize issues embraced solely by the familiar left. That is, real, results-oriented “bipartisanship,” as opposed to the process-driven kind. (Jane has called this “transpartisanship.”)

Yes, I would have talked about all of that in my video—but I cannot upload anything even remotely that long. Once again, progressive ideas marginalized and shut out by the media. . . or, maybe in this case, the medium.

*button courtesy of Emptywheel devotee Rosalind (photo: G Levine).

No FDL alumns on this panel, but it is a topic that should be near and dear ro many readers’ hearts.

Obama’s Social Security "Death Panel": Engaging Activists to Defeat the Drive to Cut Critical Social Programs

This panel will detail the push by anti-government organizations and the president’s debt commission to solve the “deficit problem” by slashing Social Security and other critical federal programs. It will describe the real factors driving the federal deficit, including tax cuts for the rich, two wars, rising health care expenditures and the Great Recession. The panel will debunk the most basic falsehood of the debt commission: that Social Security contributes to the deficit. Panelists will expose the hypocrisy of addressing the deficit without considering deep cuts to the bloated military budget or increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Panelists also will describe a newly formed coalition working to blunt attacks on Social Security and other domestic programs and how activists can get involved online and offline.
PANELISTS: Nancy Altman, Eric Kingson, Robert L. Borosage, Digby, Laura Clawson

Bob Borosage is first up. . . .

Bob is describing how, after the small stimulus passed, Obama fell pray to advisors telling him that people were concerned about deficits. Obama proposed a three-year freeze on domestic descretionary funding and a special panel to examine cuting the budget. Thus, Obama gave life to the rightwing frame and unleashed the Blue Dogs and deficit hawks.

We don’t have an entitlements crisis–our projected deficits are all from escalating healthcare costs.

During the last depression and after the war, leaders asked how can we build a robust, new economy that can provide for our citizens. They looked at taxes and encouraging new growth. Today, the only question is "How can we balance the budget?"

Eric Kingson is up. . . .

There is PowerPoint!

Point one: Social Security Works!

Eric quotes a couple of sages who explain that a) Legislators who offload responsibility to a commission are not worth their station; and b) Eisenhower once prediced that Soc. Sec. was so imporant to the American fabric that if anyone tried to cut it, their party would fall off the face of the earth. . .

Ike kinda maybe got that one wrong.

Why Soc Sec works:

Nothing provides more secure life, disability & retirement insurance for America.

(Many more points, Eric is speeding through the slides–not fair!)

The so-called funding crisis is very manageable. Right now everything is just fine through 2075.

Soc Sec has wide support among electorate.

3/4 of Tea Party types support Social Security.

Funding model was tweeked in the ’80s and is now fine, so right looks for new lines of attack.

They now argue that they are eviscerating benefits to "protect the young." Arguing there are priorities now that need spending.

Focus on deficit is a red herring debate made by people who don’t need the kind of support social programs provide.

Leninist deconstruction of attack: Tell the old we won’t touch their security; tell the young that their benefits will not be there.

He closes with–"We need the blogs" to raise awareness about this.

Laura Clawson now up. . . .

People want jobs, want jobs creation legislation–but when they don’t see a jobs bill, then deficit reduction creeps in as an issue.

If they don’t expect a fix for job situation, they figure, well, if I am not going to have a job, then please at least fix the deficit (for esoteric reasons? Not wuit sure she explained what people think deficits do to them. I know the arguments exist, but speakers on this panel are having to rush through).

Important for left to counter the deficit hawks, fill the info vacum.

Digby is up.

THIS IS THE BATTLE OF OUR LIVES. rw has it out for Social Security.

Shock doctrine–this crisis is giving guys like Pete Peterson an opportunity to roll out what he has been working on for years.

We need to learn from previous fight to stop privaization.

Saying there is no problem will not break through. Digby suggests "Strengthen SocSec, don’t cut it."

Right has rolled out a bunch of myths.

Age myth–people live longer today. Well, childhood mortality brought down avg. age, but the folks designed Soc Sec actually gamed out the system really well.

Other myth: not enough workers for all retirees. . .

Social Security planners figured this one out, too. We have been at roughly the same ratios for a long time, and things are functioning fine.

Be prepared to counter these myths. Go forth, do battle.

Question time!

Why not just raise the cap on taxable income?

Yes, says Nancy Altman, that would work. It would have to be phased in on the lower portions of the new tazable income. But it would fund it past the horizon.

Next question: Since this wil take a 2/3 vote (uh, no, that’s actually an old float that did not carry through to this catfood commission) and it will get folks kicked out of congress if they vote for it (um, hence the lame duck session that will take thsi up), isn’t this just a fake out by Obama–a distraction for the deficit hawks?

[picking jaw up off the floor]

Eric and Nancy respond. The commissionis stacked with like minds–and they are out to evicerate the program. Not just tweek, means test, etc. Kill it.

Bob adds: Even if we (the left) do win, and save the program, it will require massive energy and money–that, itself is a huge victory for the right.

Someone in the crowd yells out: Why, with a democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President, do we even have to worry about this?

It is an angry question. . . a split emerges in the room with grumbling on one side saying give me a break and defending obama, others saying damn straight!

Bob Borosage jumps in to defend the president. Obama’s sermon on the mount at G-town about the new economy was. . . well, hell, Bob just called it "The Sermon on the Mount."

Someone asks about the frame–no one will say they are cuting Soc Sec. Eric adds that the indexing will be a third cut on young workers; older people will feel a pinch, too, as a balance to the cut on the young.

What can we do to hellp? is aksed–urge all to go to town hall meetings, ask all your candidates about this, and try to bring in young people. Honor 75 anniversary of SocSec coming in August. Go to OurFuture and StrengthenSocialSecurity.

(I might add that FDL ain’t gonna let this one go gently.)

(and, speaking of that, I see that David has a new post up that exposes how America Speaks inflated the number of people that favor a raising of the retirement age.)

Someone is asking about how to answer the argument that SocSec is theft, because they do not inherit a dead spouse’s money paid in to the program.

SocSec is an insurance plan. . . answer to that was rushed, I’m afraid.

And we are done here! Thanks all.

Have just landed in the convention center for this panel/training session:

Covering Congress: The Art of Insider Citizen Reporting

THURSDAY, JULY 22ND 10:30 AM – 11:45 AM
TRAINING, MIRANDA 7
We all know about the infamous “Beltway Bubble” and the information divide between political professionals and the rest of us. That divide is not, however, an immutable rule of nature – a relatively modest number of independent citizen journalists can have a huge impact in neutralizing the insiders’ advantage in knowledge of both congressional process and policy details. In this training, a few of the intrepid folks engaged in just that mission, operating from both inside and outside Washington, will share their experiences. The panelists will also offer concrete tips to help those interested in entering the field find their niche.

Panelists include FDL’s own Marcy Wheeler and Dave Dayen, as well as Mike Stark, David Waldman, Jeremy Koulish, and Donny Shaw.

This is not being streamed, but I see cameras and we will try to get you some clips later.

Please follow along in the comments, and I will add some salient moments up top.

David Waldman up first–David deciphering the info provided by Congress on upcomming votes.

David turns it over to Donny Shaw of OpenCongress (a project of the Sunlight Foundation).

Civic engagement is good for democracy (natch!) so focus is on bringing folks into the system & demystifying.

Jeremy Koulis, Executive Director of Main Street Insider, now talking. Being on the hill, getting noticed by staffers and members is important. Counterpoint to lobbyists from private firms.

Lobbyists pay "line sitters"–folks that are paid by lobbyists up to $1K just to hold a space, sometimes overnight, so the lobbyists can get front row seats. FDL go involved in exposing this during the healthcare reform hearings.

You can now watch Cap Hill online. Most committees now livestream, but there is no standadrd format or way to find them. Main St. Insider is trying to standardize and provide one stop shop for this info.

BTW: Progressive Punch is hiring folks to do Bill summaries. Contact Josh Grossman.

Mike Stark up. He got a call from Jane (you know, Hamsher) who sent him up to the Hill with a flip cam to ask Reps about the public option. Mike asked members of the progressive caucus to "take the pladge" to insist on PO in HCR bill. With one exceptiion, Mike got what Jane called "Weasel Words." Mike made a lot of new enemies that day. . . .

Mike tuned in to Hardball that night and saw a birther going off about Obama’s birth certificate, so Mike got an idea to ask GOP members about whether they believed the president was a US citizen. That was huge.

Mikes says he has an amazing lack of self awareness. He didn’t realize how agressive he came off on film. He has dialed that back lately, or he was not going to get folks to talk to him–plus, it is nice not to "seem like a dick." (Mike’s words)

Mike’s site is Stark Reports.

Marcy up now. . . . Read the rest of this entry →