judycalman

judycalman https://www.dailykos.com/user/judycalman/rss/index.xml News Community Action Copyright 2005 - Steal what you want Mon, 27 Jan 2020 04:14:43 +0000 Mon, 27 Jan 2020 04:14:43 +0000 Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) To the Democratic Party, on the Day of Trump's Inauguration https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/20/1622895/-To-the-Democratic-Party-on-the-Day-of-Trump-s-Inauguration I’d like to think I have legit Democratic Party credentials. I grew up in Washington DC, and my entire family are progressive Democrats. Even before they were officially “Democrats”, my father’s parents and grandparents were active members of New York’s Socialist Party during the first half of the twentieth century. My mother’s grandfather was a doctor who gave out free health care to people who couldn’t pay for it during the Great Depression and afterwards. My mother and aunt protested the Vietnam War, and one of my earliest memories is of listening as my parents talked about how much they disliked Reagan, and them explaining to me that we were Democrats. I remember my dad taking me with him when I was six years old to vote for Michael Dukakis, and letting me stay up late when I was ten to watch Bill Clinton win in 1992. I rebelled plenty as a teenager, but never against our family’s collective identity as Democrats. On my own in college I worked tirelessly for Howard Dean, and later for President Obama. I spent two terms on my state’s Democratic committee, and I’ve been a precinct chair. And while I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary in 2016, I dutifully voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election, although without much enthusiasm. I feel deeply disappointed in the Democratic Party right now. Not just because we lost the election (although that does hurt plenty), but because the Party is not appearing to take the lessons of that loss, and previous losses, to heart. There were many factors at play in 2016, all of them probably having some effect on the election’s outcome. Russia, racism, frustration with government, and gerrymandering all absolutely helped Trump win. Those things should all be analyzed and corrected as much as possible (although that won’t be much over the next two years at least). Those things deserve blame, and I’m not saying they don’t. But they’re not the only factors which deserve blame. I think the Democratic Party has lost some of its soul. Not only that, but it is terrible at communicating (and standing up for) the soul it has left. If the Party can’t fix this problem, it will keep losing elections. Over the past decade Democrats have pretty consistently lost more and more Congressional seats, more and more Governorships, and more and more seats in state legislatures. Part of this of course is gerrymandering, but that can’t be all of it. Congressional seats were being lost before the last round of redistricting, and losses have happened in plenty of states without weirdly drawn districts. One of the most obvious takeaways from the soaring popularity of both Sanders and Trump was that regular people are tired of things as they are. They wanted something different, and they wanted someone to buck the system. Many of us could see that Trump’s version of bucking the system is completely psychotically dangerous, and also that he has no idea what he’s talking about and is willing to change his mind about subjects five times a day if that’s what his audience needs (adding to the danger). And so we voted for the only real alternative, knowing that in that moment, it was the only ethical thing to do, even if it was for the wrong candidate. And I call her the wrong candidate for several reasons. I admit that the attacks against her were incredibly harsh, completely unfair, and generally unjustified. But it’s also true that she was not the candidate it was so obvious people wanted (and still want). Her version of the Democratic Party is a sort of milquetoast, middle of the road version. Somehow she was standing behind the nonsensical notion that politicians, and the Party itself, could take in millions and millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies and banks and oil companies, and still create and pass strong regulations on those very industries (when has that ever happened?!). She didn’t stand for anything bold. She wasn’t passionate about causes. She didn’t get people excited. She didn’t convince people that she herself was actually excited. What she exuded was the idea that it was just her “turn”, and that her Presidency would have meant at best more of the same and sometimes much worse. People understandably have the perception in this country that corporations have more power than they do and that it impacts their lives and personal economies negatively. On paper, the Democratic Party is against this becoming more and more of a reality, but it isn’t doing enough to actively combat it. People notice this. The thing that drives me nuts as a 4th generation progressive, is that there ZERO reason that the Democratic Party platform wouldn’t appeal to literally 90% of America. Other than racists, religious extremists, and some billionaires (but not all! Here’s to you Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Bill Gates!), who wouldn’t want to close corporate tax loopholes and have better health care, better schools, more civil rights, fewer wars, and less climate disruption? When Americans are asked questions about public policy without being told which answer belongs to which party, they are overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic policies. The numbers would easily overcome the gerrymandering and all the rest of it. So why can’t the Democratic Party communicate those policies effectively to voters? I believe part of that answer is a lack of passion on the part of many elected officials and presidential candidates about those principles. And part of it is the Democratic Party itself. We should all be ashamed of the way the DNC operated during the election cycle. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s behavior ran completely counter to what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for. When elected officials and candidates and the Party itself benefit financially from a system of corporate and lobbyist donations, it gets really hard really quickly to take meaningful, passionate stands against that system. So much so that the Party itself favored the candidate that would continue that system, even when it meant not listening to the needs and wants of its own members. I was so sad to read articles from the debate for DNC chair which occurred on January 18th. It appears the DNC and the Party is not learning its lesson, and is poised to repeat the same mistakes again. The candidates, even the most progressive ones, could not commit to reinstating the ban on lobbyists giving the Party money. Could not agree that the Party made mistakes in 2016. If we’re not going to be doing anything differently, why should we expect to win the next election? Why should ordinary Democrats want to support the DNC if its goal isn’t to have a different strategy next time? At the rate it’s going, the Democratic Party will not only keep losing elections, it will start losing a chunk of its loyal members--you know, the ones who actually go out and canvass, volunteer, register people to vote, and contribute financially to the Party. I, a deeply loyal Democrat, wouldn’t give the DNC money right now. Doesn’t that tell you something? It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to get to a scenario where the Party loses more and more every-day funders, and makes up the difference by accepting more and more donations from special interests, losing more credibility and backbone by the day. And losing more and more elections until there really isn’t a difference between Republicans and Democrats, or until the Party dies out. But there’s another way. Look at Bernie Sanders’ campaign. When Democrats are inspired, they take out their wallets. We don’t need money from corporations. We need candidates with passion and drive and ethics and goals. The Party cannot afford another DNC chair like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The DNC needs to realize what’s happening outside the Party Establishment and elect the most progressive DNC chair possible, or it will reap the consequences in two years, and in four. rss@dailykos.com (judycalman) 2016 BernieSanders Democrat DemocraticNationalCommittee DNC Ellison Inauguration Progressive trump _1622895 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:31:54 +0000 Hostile Takeover of Wildlife Refuge is part of a much larger Movement. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/25/1474388/-Hostile-Takeover-of-Wildlife-Refuge-is-part-of-a-much-larger-Movement A few weeks ago, a group calling itself a “militia” took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon and are now standing guard there with guns, saying they are prepared to stay for years, to stand and fight, to die if necessary. While they initially stated they were there to protest the prison sentences of two people who were convicted of setting federal land on fire, it quickly became clear that like rancher Cliven Bundy last year, they are simply there to protest federal land management, and perhaps even the existence of the federal government itself. This is of course ironic when you consider, as some in the media thankfully have, that this same group of people leases federal land for grazing at approximately 1/16th market value, and takes advantage of a myriad number of other federal programs. You might think that what’s taking place in Oregon is far removed from New Mexico’s deserts and mountains, but it is startlingly close. Anti-federal sentiments and even legislation have been rampant in New Mexico and across the west for several years now. It stems, like the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980’s, from a complete distrust of the federal government, a belief that resource development should not have limits, and from a desire to see the public lands which belong to all Americans in the hands of the states or even counties. This would, of course, mean these lands would be opened up for more activities like oil and gas, because the land would not be subject to federal environmental laws which require balanced and relatively sustainable use. Thankfully, these goals would be nearly impossible to achieve without a Constitutional amendment or at the very least an overhaul of federal laws. But Western states have still been attempting to pass bills over the last few years which would demand federal lands be handed over. These legislative campaigns are openly funded and organized by groups like ALEC. Utah is so far the only state to pass such a bill, and it has been mired in litigation ever since, but New Mexico and other Western states have seen similar bills introduced in each legislative session since 2012. New Mexico’s State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn and Governor Martinez have both expressed some support for these bills, and several New Mexico counties have officially joined national campaigns to push the agenda forward. Whether they know it or not, these groups are doing the work of large oil and gas and timber companies who like the rules about development better on state lands than on public lands. On public lands, federal agencies have to consider public input, come up with some sort of sustainable balanced approach to land management, and must implement federal environmental laws. There are generally no such requirements on state lands in western states, where mineral production is often directly linked to revenues for specific programs. This creates a scenario where there is a direct financial incentive for more development on state lands. Unfortunately, some groups believe it is legitimate to go beyond legislative efforts and resort to a different tactic: force, and revolt. Last year a group of people in the Lincoln National Forest removed a gate the Forest Service had installed to protect a spring in order to allow their cows to access it, saying the agency had no authority over the land. Congressman Steve Pearce has gotten on board, stating his support for the legislation and even urging illegal woodcutting on the Lincoln National Forest in 2011. Federal public lands are a legacy unmatched anywhere in the world; it’s remarkable that large swaths of forests, rivers, mountains, and deserts are literally held in trust for future generations of Americans in perpetuity. They belong to all of us, and to the species that live there, and we all benefit from them by visiting them, hiking on them, fishing on them, and where appropriate, by developing resources within them. But decisions about what to do with them should not rest on a few shoulders; they should be made carefully, taking into consideration the best available science and the input from the public. While held in trust, this does happen, and we should oppose any attempt to end it. Americans overwhelmingly support and love public lands. Now is the time to make sure your representatives, at every level of government, know that you want those lands held by the public permanently. rss@dailykos.com (judycalman) Bundy NewMexico PublicLands sagebrushrebellion vanillaisis YallQaeda _1474388 Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:19:58 +0000 Open letter to the Obama Administration regarding the Wildlife Refuge Siege https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/23/1474087/-Open-letter-to-the-Obama-Administration-regarding-the-Wildlife-Refuge-Siege My name is Judy Calman, I'm an attorney for an conservation non-profit in New Mexico. I am extremely familiar with the Bundy/anti-federal/Public land takeover movement, and have been working against it for many years in the Southwest. I am becoming increasingly angry that the Justice Department and Administration (I'm sending this email to the Justice Department too) has not taken ANY action regarding the illegal seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. Trust me, I completely understand the desire to avoid a violent confrontation, and I agree with that goal. I also understand that it's a complicated issue, and that they should not be turned into martyrs for their "movement" in any way. That being said, I am completely baffled as to why the Administration has done NOTHING while a community is terrorized, while active threats against the US Government are being made, while they're trying to recruit others to revolt, while federal employees are forced out of their jobs, and perhaps most importantly, why land that is supposedly publicly owned and publicly accessible to all Americans is now held at gunpoint by an insane militia group and not open to the public. This whole thing has been exacerbated by the Government's so-far refusal to prosecute Cliven Bundy, and this anti-government/anarchy movement has Westerners really scared. And it's not going away. Allowing this to continue convinces these people that they can get away with things like this. Because clearly they can! I am not necessarily suggesting anything drastic. But the week this started the Administration said it was going to shut off power to the refuge and so far I don't believe it has. Why not? Most disturbingly, how on earth is it possible that this group of people has been allowed to come and go off the refuge with no arrests?! How are they able to attend community meetings (armed!) and go get pizza (armed!) and return to the well-lit, well-heated refuge?! I can't for the life of me think of a reason that these people are not being quietly arrested when they leave the refuge. I am a lifelong Democrat, two-time Obama voter, and I still greatly support him. But this is extremely disconcerting to me and many others, and I do not think the Administration is handling this correctly. Public lands belong to all Americans. It is a treasured legacy that should never be under violent threat. PLEASE do not let these people get away with this. Thanks for your time. rss@dailykos.com (judycalman) Bundy DepartmentofJustice malheurnationalwildliferefuge Obama Oregon PublicLands Recommended vanillaisis YallQaeda _1474087 Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:27:27 +0000