I read that earlier. Pee tape changes nothing. We all know that Trump is a sleazy guy. Hell, a solid chunk of the people who voted for him don't believe he's a good person. Russian hookers peeing on one another changes nothing. Instead, give me video of the President personally asking for Russian help. Would that even do it though? Putin polls much higher than even President Obama amongst Trump voters. They'd probably give even that a pass. We can't impeach the guy over a sexual act...no matter what Newt and Ken Starr think.
We can't expect things to change if we just complain and don't do something. Me included.
From reading this, I had a thought. I can't speak for others, but I know for myself, it's hard for me to consider getting behind a grassroots effort for one simple reason: without large enough scale participation, the impact seems negligible, and when put against the power of those with nefarious intent on the opposite side of any grassroots efforts, the impact seems even less.
If anyone here has used Kickstarter or Indiegogo, or seen the cheesy thermostat on a charitable fundraising effort - you've seen that there are usually a few commonalities: an observable/quantifiable gauge of a person's impact (what have I done?), an observable/quantifiable gauge of momentum (yesterday had $27,000 to go - today has $25,000 to go, etc - why should I be excited or working harder?), an objective (why do I care?), and a clear deliverable once the objective is met (what can I remember I participated in?). Today, it's not about the money per se - the fundraising efforts to create political change require pledges of other scarce commodities as you've pointed out, Brian: time, letters sent to political offices, presence at city council meetings, discussions with political opponents, etc.
Part of me believes that the lack of simple branding of 'progress' as a project is what's overwhelming people to either perceive and/or believe they have no power to bring upon change. Maybe it's time to get to the core, find the themes that can unify the masses, and present the tangible and trackable ways to accomplish - just like any project to be managed.
I'd say the project deliverable is a government which acts in ways which are morally just and right. If we can find a path, no matter how crooked, and identify the roadmap that leads there - I don't believe there will be any difficulty convincing moderates like myself and many others to play a part in getting there.
Edit: I forgot to add my standard disclaimer after long-winded absurdly hopeful comments - or, maybe this is a particularly good batch of greenery.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
We can't expect things to change if we just complain and don't do something. Me included.
From reading this, I had a thought. I can't speak for others, but I know for myself, it's hard for me to consider getting behind a grassroots effort for one simple reason: without large enough scale participation, the impact seems negligible, and when put against the power of those with nefarious intent on the opposite side of any grassroots efforts, the impact seems even less.
If anyone here has used Kickstarter or Indiegogo, or seen the cheesy thermostat on a charitable fundraising effort - you've seen that there are usually a few commonalities: an observable/quantifiable gauge of a person's impact (what have I done?), an observable/quantifiable gauge of momentum (yesterday had $27,000 to go - today has $25,000 to go, etc - why should I be excited or working harder?), an objective (why do I care?), and a clear deliverable once the objective is met (what can I remember I participated in?). Today, it's not about the money per se - the fundraising efforts to create political change require pledges of other scarce commodities as you've pointed out, Brian: time, letters sent to political offices, presence at city council meetings, discussions with political opponents, etc.
Part of me believes that the lack of simple branding of 'progress' as a project is what's overwhelming people to either perceive and/or believe they have no power to bring upon change. Maybe it's time to get to the core, find the themes that can unify the masses, and present the tangible and trackable ways to accomplish - just like any project to be managed.
I'd say the project deliverable is a government which acts in ways which are morally just and right. If we can find a path, no matter how crooked, and identify the roadmap that leads there - I don't believe there will be any difficulty convincing moderates like myself and many others to play a part in getting there.
Edit: I forgot to add my standard disclaimer after long-winded absurdly hopeful comments - or, maybe this is a particularly good batch of greenery.
Regarding Kickstarte, Indiegogo etc, yes, those are great and have done good things. ike many of us here, I've supported some of those efforts and that's a great feeling.
Regarding: "Part of me believes that the lack of simple branding of 'progress' as a
project is what's overwhelming people to either perceive and/or believe
they have no power to bring upon change," I suspect part of that is simply from lack of not getting involved and trying. We don't always win. I've seen some disheartening defeats- number one, thus far with regards to climate change. But I've also been in on some victories at the state and county levels and those count for a lot (government is not all feds). And when you do participate in a winning cause that is kick-ass feel good motivation. If more of us actually got in there and became more active in the process, we would see change. That's what my experience has been.
And yes, it often seems like the odds are against us so why should we keep trying? This quote from Captain Paul Watson illustrates why:
"One of the most valuable lessons of my life was learned while
serving as a medic for the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee in
1973.
We were outnumbered ten to one by hostile troops. I asked
Russell Means how we could possibly win? The odds against us were
overwhelming. He said to me, “We are not concerned about the odds
against us, nor are we concerned about winning or losing. We are here
because it is the right place and the right time to be here. We stand
strong in the present to change the future.”"
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
So, after a day full of criticism, he says he will resist the issue in 6 months if congress can't pass anything.
Didn't the Third Reich deport people they considered "illegal" or "undesirable?" Just asking.
Deport? No Send to the gas chambers? Yes
Today Sarah Huckabee kept using the term "permanent solution". Which was how hitler wanted to deal with the Jews and other "undesirables".
It was called the Final Solution.
Potato, potato Tomato, tomato Alt-right, Nazi
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
There's no truth to the rumor that Trump pronounces DACA, Dachau or that when he says DACA he thinks of his vacation cabin in the birch forests of the Russian hinterlands.
I can't wait to see which Congressperson votes against innocent children -- otherwise known as "by-products," according to a Trump defender a few pages back.
Today marks a low, low point for humanity.
That was me and I'm not a Trump defender. Sorry if my description offended you.
I'm not offended. I'm disgusted. I've always thought it was bad enough to call people "illegal." People cannot be illegal. They can perform illegal actions, but it is never a crime to be a human being. Now we have children being called "by-products" from someone agreeing with Trump's decision to rescind the order (definition of a defense? Idk what that word means if not that).
I guess it's just my personal involvement with multiple dozens of students over multiple decades of teaching that tears my heart up over this. How do I, in serving my country, look a group of teenagers in the eye and tell them that "In America, you can be whatever you dream to be. Do your work, get a good education . . . Oh, wait. Not you, or you, or you. You're going back to El Salvador to be gang raped."
How lucky we native-borns are to have experienced the accident of our birth.
Disgusted that I used a term besides children to simplify the explanation for conversation purposes? I could have typed it all out, but was trying to save the excessive use of words that weren't necessary. Just like when someone shortens illegal immigrants to illegals. It isn't being done to demean or lessen them as human beings.
Again, I am not defending Trump's decision. Labels and groupings are ok when it fits your narrative, but not when it goes against your narrative of the world. If you find it easier to put me in a box and label me a Trump defender, that's your choice, but much like DACA, it's not so black and white. It's easy to blame Trump because he's a blundering jackass with no moral compass; however, many non-Trump supporters also don't think DACA as an EO was a legitimate and legal solution. I see the positive intent it was created for, but skirting around a true legal answer was never going to hold up.
I've worked in higher ed at a handful of different institutions for almost 20 years at various levels, the current one being an urban Tech and Community college with a diversity rate at around 60%. They may not be the traditional "kids" you are referring to, but they are mostly young and eager early twenty-somethings or late forty-somethings looking for a start to their new life in this country or a 2nd chance and a do over from the hardships of this country and elsewhere. How do you look them in the eyes? The same way you always have. You have a serious conversation about what is happening. You explain to them where the rule of law and moral decision have met a crossroad that doesn't have a simple solution. Tell them that they should get out and make their voices heard and do what they can to make sure our lawmakers do their due diligence in resolving the disconnect between what is morally right and legally allowed. The more people who speak up, the better. It does not mean that any of this will change in the next 6 months, but it definitely won't without the voice and actions of the masses. It is our duty to influence changes in laws and policies. Living in a democratic society doesn't mean we always get what we want or that we get it right as a whole, but we sure as hell need to keep trying.
I can't wait to see which Congressperson votes against innocent children -- otherwise known as "by-products," according to a Trump defender a few pages back.
Today marks a low, low point for humanity.
That was me and I'm not a Trump defender. Sorry if my description offended you.
I'm not offended. I'm disgusted. I've always thought it was bad enough to call people "illegal." People cannot be illegal. They can perform illegal actions, but it is never a crime to be a human being. Now we have children being called "by-products" from someone agreeing with Trump's decision to rescind the order (definition of a defense? Idk what that word means if not that).
I guess it's just my personal involvement with multiple dozens of students over multiple decades of teaching that tears my heart up over this. How do I, in serving my country, look a group of teenagers in the eye and tell them that "In America, you can be whatever you dream to be. Do your work, get a good education . . . Oh, wait. Not you, or you, or you. You're going back to El Salvador to be gang raped."
How lucky we native-borns are to have experienced the accident of our birth.
Disgusted that I used a term besides children to simplify the explanation for conversation purposes? I could have typed it all out, but was trying to save the excessive use of words that weren't necessary. Just like when someone shortens illegal immigrants to illegals. It isn't being done to demean or lessen them as human beings.
Again, I am not defending Trump's decision. Labels and groupings are ok when it fits your narrative, but not when it goes against your narrative of the world. If you find it easier to put me in a box and label me a Trump defender, that's your choice, but much like DACA, it's not so black and white. It's easy to blame Trump because he's a blundering jackass with no moral compass; however, many non-Trump supporters also don't think DACA as an EO was a legitimate and legal solution. I see the positive intent it was created for, but skirting around a true legal answer was never going to hold up.
I've worked in higher ed at a handful of different institutions for almost 20 years at various levels, the current one being an urban Tech and Community college with a diversity rate at around 60%. They may not be the traditional "kids" you are referring to, but they are mostly young and eager early twenty-somethings or late forty-somethings looking for a start to their new life in this country or a 2nd chance and a do over from the hardships of this country and elsewhere. How do you look them in the eyes? The same way you always have. You have a serious conversation about what is happening. You explain to them where the rule of law and moral decision have met a crossroad that doesn't have a simple solution. Tell them that they should get out and make their voices heard and do what they can to make sure our lawmakers do their due diligence in resolving the disconnect between what is morally right and legally allowed. The more people who speak up, the better. It does not mean that any of this will change in the next 6 months, but it definitely won't without the voice and actions of the masses. It is our duty to influence changes in laws and policies. Living in a democratic society doesn't mean we always get what we want or that we get it right as a whole, but we sure as hell need to keep trying.
As for your bolded statement above - yes, it absolutely is done to demean and lessen their importance. Making people "the other" is absolutely part of the discussion, and such actions get taken.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that everyone points to Mexicans as the only ones that lose on this?
Last I checked DACA was for ALL illegals so our neighbors south of the border aren't the only ones that will suffer, no?
And if daca involved 90% white people, we woudn't be having this discussion. The issue would've been resolved already.
84% Hispanic. Crazy.
Definitely not surprising.
It is surprising considering all the travel that I have done here in the US and all the people I've worked with from other countries that have legal documents, work visas and citizenship.
Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that everyone points to Mexicans as the only ones that lose on this?
Last I checked DACA was for ALL illegals so our neighbors south of the border aren't the only ones that will suffer, no?
And if daca involved 90% white people, we woudn't be having this discussion. The issue would've been resolved already.
84% Hispanic. Crazy.
I may be misunderstanding your point, but it's not surprising to me. After all, geographically speaking, it's the people from Mexico, Central and South America who realistically have a chance of illegally traveling across the border by land or sea, which, though still risky, is significantly easier than illegally entering by air. Probably not too many Canadians motivated to try this.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I can't wait to see which Congressperson votes against innocent children -- otherwise known as "by-products," according to a Trump defender a few pages back.
Today marks a low, low point for humanity.
That was me and I'm not a Trump defender. Sorry if my description offended you.
I'm not offended. I'm disgusted. I've always thought it was bad enough to call people "illegal." People cannot be illegal. They can perform illegal actions, but it is never a crime to be a human being. Now we have children being called "by-products" from someone agreeing with Trump's decision to rescind the order (definition of a defense? Idk what that word means if not that).
I guess it's just my personal involvement with multiple dozens of students over multiple decades of teaching that tears my heart up over this. How do I, in serving my country, look a group of teenagers in the eye and tell them that "In America, you can be whatever you dream to be. Do your work, get a good education . . . Oh, wait. Not you, or you, or you. You're going back to El Salvador to be gang raped."
How lucky we native-borns are to have experienced the accident of our birth.
Disgusted that I used a term besides children to simplify the explanation for conversation purposes? I could have typed it all out, but was trying to save the excessive use of words that weren't necessary. Just like when someone shortens illegal immigrants to illegals. It isn't being done to demean or lessen them as human beings.
Again, I am not defending Trump's decision. Labels and groupings are ok when it fits your narrative, but not when it goes against your narrative of the world. If you find it easier to put me in a box and label me a Trump defender, that's your choice, but much like DACA, it's not so black and white. It's easy to blame Trump because he's a blundering jackass with no moral compass; however, many non-Trump supporters also don't think DACA as an EO was a legitimate and legal solution. I see the positive intent it was created for, but skirting around a true legal answer was never going to hold up.
I've worked in higher ed at a handful of different institutions for almost 20 years at various levels, the current one being an urban Tech and Community college with a diversity rate at around 60%. They may not be the traditional "kids" you are referring to, but they are mostly young and eager early twenty-somethings or late forty-somethings looking for a start to their new life in this country or a 2nd chance and a do over from the hardships of this country and elsewhere. How do you look them in the eyes? The same way you always have. You have a serious conversation about what is happening. You explain to them where the rule of law and moral decision have met a crossroad that doesn't have a simple solution. Tell them that they should get out and make their voices heard and do what they can to make sure our lawmakers do their due diligence in resolving the disconnect between what is morally right and legally allowed. The more people who speak up, the better. It does not mean that any of this will change in the next 6 months, but it definitely won't without the voice and actions of the masses. It is our duty to influence changes in laws and policies. Living in a democratic society doesn't mean we always get what we want or that we get it right as a whole, but we sure as hell need to keep trying.
As for your bolded statement above - yes, it absolutely is done to demean and lessen their importance. Making people "the other" is absolutely part of the discussion, and such actions get taken.
Not everything is about putting down "others". So if I say illegals, it is an offensive term because illegal immigrants is what I should say, so by not including that word I am lessening their importance? Give me a break. It's all about context. We are so fucking focused on everything that can be interpreted as divisive and divided lately it's out of control.
Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that everyone points to Mexicans as the only ones that lose on this?
Last I checked DACA was for ALL illegals so our neighbors south of the border aren't the only ones that will suffer, no?
And if daca involved 90% white people, we woudn't be having this discussion. The issue would've been resolved already.
84% Hispanic. Crazy.
I may be misunderstanding your point, but it's not surprising to me. After all, geographically speaking, it's the people from Mexico, Central and South America who realistically have a chance of illegally traveling across the border by land or sea, which, though still risky, is significantly easier than illegally entering by air. Probably not too many Canadians motivated to try this.
I never thought of the logistics of it though that they are the closest neighbor. In my travels I've met lots of different people from other countries.
Take a cab in NYC and they aren't from Central or South America. There is a huge influx of West Indian, Indian and African out here in NY.
Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that everyone points to Mexicans as the only ones that lose on this?
Last I checked DACA was for ALL illegals so our neighbors south of the border aren't the only ones that will suffer, no?
And if daca involved 90% white people, we woudn't be having this discussion. The issue would've been resolved already.
84% Hispanic. Crazy.
I may be misunderstanding your point, but it's not surprising to me. After all, geographically speaking, it's the people from Mexico, Central and South America who realistically have a chance of illegally traveling across the border by land or sea, which, though still risky, is significantly easier than illegally entering by air. Probably not too many Canadians motivated to try this.
I never thought of the logistics of it though that they are the closest neighbor. In my travels I've met lots of different people from other countries.
Take a cab in NYC and they aren't from Central or South America. There is a huge influx of West Indian, Indian and African out here in NY.
Just my observation.
If you take a cab in DC or NY, you're likely to get a driver from Kenya or Ethiopia. Tons of them on the road.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.inquisitr.com/4476398/donald-trump-pee-tape-dossier/?utm_content=inf_11_3140_2&source=se&utm_source=se&utm_campaign=se&utm_medium=fb&tse_id=INF_4f979740921611e7a7253d7eefa2109b
Instead, give me video of the President personally asking for Russian help. Would that even do it though? Putin polls much higher than even President Obama amongst Trump voters. They'd probably give even that a pass.
We can't impeach the guy over a sexual act...no matter what Newt and Ken Starr think.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
If anyone here has used Kickstarter or Indiegogo, or seen the cheesy thermostat on a charitable fundraising effort - you've seen that there are usually a few commonalities: an observable/quantifiable gauge of a person's impact (what have I done?), an observable/quantifiable gauge of momentum (yesterday had $27,000 to go - today has $25,000 to go, etc - why should I be excited or working harder?), an objective (why do I care?), and a clear deliverable once the objective is met (what can I remember I participated in?). Today, it's not about the money per se - the fundraising efforts to create political change require pledges of other scarce commodities as you've pointed out, Brian: time, letters sent to political offices, presence at city council meetings, discussions with political opponents, etc.
Part of me believes that the lack of simple branding of 'progress' as a project is what's overwhelming people to either perceive and/or believe they have no power to bring upon change. Maybe it's time to get to the core, find the themes that can unify the masses, and present the tangible and trackable ways to accomplish - just like any project to be managed.
I'd say the project deliverable is a government which acts in ways which are morally just and right. If we can find a path, no matter how crooked, and identify the roadmap that leads there - I don't believe there will be any difficulty convincing moderates like myself and many others to play a part in getting there.
Edit: I forgot to add my standard disclaimer after long-winded absurdly hopeful comments - or, maybe this is a particularly good batch of greenery.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Regarding: "Part of me believes that the lack of simple branding of 'progress' as a project is what's overwhelming people to either perceive and/or believe they have no power to bring upon change," I suspect part of that is simply from lack of not getting involved and trying. We don't always win. I've seen some disheartening defeats- number one, thus far with regards to climate change. But I've also been in on some victories at the state and county levels and those count for a lot (government is not all feds). And when you do participate in a winning cause that is kick-ass feel good motivation. If more of us actually got in there and became more active in the process, we would see change. That's what my experience has been.
And yes, it often seems like the odds are against us so why should we keep trying? This quote from Captain Paul Watson illustrates why:
"One of the most valuable lessons of my life was learned while serving as a medic for the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee in 1973.
We were outnumbered ten to one by hostile troops. I asked Russell Means how we could possibly win? The odds against us were overwhelming. He said to me, “We are not concerned about the odds against us, nor are we concerned about winning or losing. We are here because it is the right place and the right time to be here. We stand strong in the present to change the future.”"
Weakness personified.
Send to the gas chambers? Yes
Today Sarah Huckabee kept using the term "permanent solution".
Which was how hitler wanted to deal with the Jews and other "undesirables".
Tomato, tomato
Alt-right, Nazi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Poles_by_Nazi_Germany
Forced resettlement. Sound familiar?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/white-house-memo-daca-recipients-leave/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Last I checked DACA was for ALL illegals so our neighbors south of the border aren't the only ones that will suffer, no?
Again, I am not defending Trump's decision. Labels and groupings are ok when it fits your narrative, but not when it goes against your narrative of the world. If you find it easier to put me in a box and label me a Trump defender, that's your choice, but much like DACA, it's not so black and white. It's easy to blame Trump because he's a blundering jackass with no moral compass; however, many non-Trump supporters also don't think DACA as an EO was a legitimate and legal solution. I see the positive intent it was created for, but skirting around a true legal answer was never going to hold up.
I've worked in higher ed at a handful of different institutions for almost 20 years at various levels, the current one being an urban Tech and Community college with a diversity rate at around 60%. They may not be the traditional "kids" you are referring to, but they are mostly young and eager early twenty-somethings or late forty-somethings looking for a start to their new life in this country or a 2nd chance and a do over from the hardships of this country and elsewhere. How do you look them in the eyes? The same way you always have. You have a serious conversation about what is happening. You explain to them where the rule of law and moral decision have met a crossroad that doesn't have a simple solution. Tell them that they should get out and make their voices heard and do what they can to make sure our lawmakers do their due diligence in resolving the disconnect between what is morally right and legally allowed. The more people who speak up, the better. It does not mean that any of this will change in the next 6 months, but it definitely won't without the voice and actions of the masses. It is our duty to influence changes in laws and policies. Living in a democratic society doesn't mean we always get what we want or that we get it right as a whole, but we sure as hell need to keep trying.
I may be misunderstanding your point, but it's not surprising to me. After all, geographically speaking, it's the people from Mexico, Central and South America who realistically have a chance of illegally traveling across the border by land or sea, which, though still risky, is significantly easier than illegally entering by air. Probably not too many Canadians motivated to try this.
I never thought of the logistics of it though that they are the closest neighbor. In my travels I've met lots of different people from other countries.
Take a cab in NYC and they aren't from Central or South America. There is a huge influx of West Indian, Indian and African out here in NY.
Just my observation.