Previous month:
December 2004
Next month:
February 2005

January 2005

The Person-Centered Society

Analysis of the Democratic Party's messaging is a tired topic.  And yet the problem remains, there is currently no unifying message for the American Progressive movement.   Ask any two Progressives what they're even fighting for and you'll probably get ten answers.

I'll boldly suggest that the movement can be summarized with a simple concept:

"The Person-Centered Society."

Everything we are fighting for falls under this umbrella: a better quality of life, individual freedom, justice, individual opportunity, education, health care, and the environment.   Even the Green movement will gain momentum when it is tied back to the concept of the Person-Centered Society.  The pitch would go something like this:

"For too long, you've been forced to live in a world that is increasingly unlivable.  Jobs are going away, wages are falling, good education is more expensive, and so much of what makes life worth living is being destroyed.

That's because Republicans have created a Corporation-Centered Society...a society where people are not only ruled by corporations in their professional lives, but where the government can only pass legislation that is approved by corporations.  In a Republican-controlled America, when it is a choice between the bottom line and you...the bottom line wins every time.

It is time for a Person-Centered Society.  A society that is designed around the needs of human beings.  Where quality of life is more important than productivity.  Where your family's safety is more important than a corporation's desire to pollute.  Where your children's opportunity to live up to his or her potential is more important than expensive military misadventures.  Where freedom of choice and freedom of expression cannot be encroached upon for any reason.  In short, its time for a society designed around the idea of creating a world that is everlasting and worth living in."

I'm not talking about a Democratic Party message here...but a vision for all of us to believe in.

Posted by Mark Manney.

Ending the grip that Democrats and Republicans have on Americans

I originally authored this post at a time when everyone's focus was on the Presidential campaign.  It is time to recognize, once and for all, that no Democrat or no Republican is going to do anything to end the destruction of the world or improve our lives in any way.

American politics is hopeless, but life is much bigger than politics.  Like religion, the established political system will only control us as long as we allow it to...as long as we continue to put our faith in it and work within its framework.  Thought is three-dimensional.  Life is three-dimentional.  Our options are not simply left, right, or center.

There are things that I think we can do...things that do not involve door-to-door canvassing and surely don't involve giving money to politicians.

Posted by Mark Manney.

The never-ending faith of loyal Democrats

Time and again, we are let down by Democratic leaders. Yet as soon as the next promise comes along, we're all over it...and if that promise doesn't pan out, we'll find something else to believe in. And the cycle continues.

When, I ask, is the LAST CHANCE? For me, it was the 2004 Presidential election. I have no more faith. I think a lot of people feel this way. Now they have to earn my trust with action, not with promises. And they'll probably have to do it without the tremendous grass-roots support they have enjoyed for a few years now.

Posted by Mark Manney.

Anti-Semitism and how it differs from connecting the dots

Is it anti-semitic to point out that, for example, Ronald Lauder (American heir to the Estee Lauder fortune and the major stakeholder behind the most popular TV Networks in Eastern Europe ), is a Jewish Zionist who essentially believes that Israel has the right to do whatever it wants in the world without consequence?  Is it anti-semitic to suggest that his network's programming might be biased and slanted in favor of Mr. Lauder's self-proclaimed prejudices?  Is it anti-semitic to point out the obvious connection between his wanting to control the media as part of his extreme Zionist agenda?  And more importantly, is it anti-semitic to suggest that Jews are no more human than Palestinians?  I think not.

Anti-semitism is an illogical and immoral hatred toward every Jewish person.  But hating a person because his Judaism happens to influence him such a way that his actions end up having a negative impact on others cannot be called anti-semitism.  It is called hating the sin, not the sinner.

Two hours ago the Associated Press published this story, which claims "rising anti-semitism" because of the "stereotype of Jews as manipulators of the global economy."  Is it still a stereotype if it is true?  It's interesting that the Associated Press itself is under the control of its Jewish Vice President and Managing Editor, Michael Silverman.  It's understandable that his staff would publish propaganda designed to prevent us from connecting these dots.  Read the article carefully and you'll see exactly what I mean.

I'm not suggesting that only Jews are manipulators of the mainstream media and world economy.  There are plenty of Zionists who aren't Jews (the non-Jewish Neoconservatives).  I'm also not suggesting that there's anything wrong with supporting a Jewish homeland...but when when extreme Zionism becomes the predominant theme in world politics, consequences be damned, there's nothing wrong with pointing out who is responsible. 

Posted by Mark Manney.