Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Tides Brings Visionaries Together to Contemplate the Progressive Future

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted July 17, 2008.


With its one-of-a-kind "Momentum" conference, Tides is tapping the progressive community's brightest minds to tackle the nation's biggest challenges.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Don Hazen

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Tides, the unique hybrid philanthropic institution headquartered at the Presidio in San Francisco, will host its third "Momentum" gathering next Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, July 20-22, at the swanky W Hotel in the South of Market area of San Francisco.

"Momentum" is an invitational gathering of progressive donors and advocates focused on cutting-edge ideas and innovative practitioners in the social change field. "Momentum" aims to create a "forum where some of the most creative minds in the progressive community come together to challenge, inspire and energize each other."

"Momentum" comes at an important juncture, amidst the controversy surrounding the Obama candidacy and his perceived tacking center or rightward as he attempts to appeal to wider audiences after a bruising marathon Democratic primary season. A big question for the innovators and funders who will attend "Momentum" will no doubt be: What are the most creative and pragmatic innovations that need to be teed up in order to address the myriad problems the nation faces, whether it be in health care, mortgage crises, job loss, climate change or many more issues that are crowding the progressive and national agenda?

And perhaps more to the point: Where do progressive ideas and innovative approaches fit into the Obama campaign and potential presidency? How much heat do progressives apply during the campaign leading up to November to ensure that progressive values and vision are in play? And what is the strategy, come Jan. 20, if Barack Obama is in the White House? When Bill Clinton got elected 16 years ago, many thought, mistakenly so, that many of the problems of Republican rule were solved, especially when a lot of their friends and colleagues went into the administration in key policy positions.

While Tides is a nonpartisan entity and no campaigning or endorsements will be part of the "Momentum" proceedings, it seems clear that the potential change of power in the country after eight long years of right-wing conservative rule will serve as the backdrop for the presentations.

To find out some specifics about what "Momentum" is going to be about this year, and who some of the progressive innovators are, AlterNet's Don Hazen sat down with Drummond Pike, the longtime head of Tides and the creative force behind "Momentum."

Don Hazen: Let's start with the big picture: What's "Momentum" all about?

Drummond Pike: "Momentum" is about the intersection of the progressive community and the current social and political landscape. What does it all mean? How can we achieve success? How do we move forward?

"Momentum" is an educational conference where we bring funders, leaders of key nonprofits, think tanks and activist organizations together into the same room and expose them to a set of new and emerging ideas. And there will be updates on things of which we are already very aware. For example, Tanya Harris, the head of ACORN /New Orleans, is coming to tell us, "Here's where things are now in New Orleans, nearly three years after Katrina."

DH: So why Tides as the convener? How does Tides' experience and role enhance this conversation?

DP: "Momentum" reflects the role of Tides as an intermediary. We are engaged in philanthropy. We granted $93 million dollars last year and manage grant-making for more than 400 individual and institutional donors. At the same time, we provide financial infrastructure and management tools to more than 200 nonprofit projects and activities. Tides also promotes the development of green nonprofit centers nationwide.

DH: And how will "Momentum" be structured?

DP: We've decided to do something quite different than at previous gatherings. It's not going to be the conventional, representational progressive conference with three plenaries and 95 workshops on every topic under the sun. We at Tides have a significant reach. We'll be bringing together some of the brightest lights and the new, interesting thinking about some of the central issues of the day. With "Momentum," we are creating a venue that's about new ideas. Take Back America is about every constituency having an opportunity to say, "This is what I've been working on for the last 20 years," and that's great. That is community building and consciousness-raising. But "Momentum" is the only event in the progressive community that really focuses on new, innovative thinking -- ideas that need to be considered and have an audience.

DH: Let's try to get a sense of who some of these innovators are and what they are.

DP: Jacob Hacker, resident fellow at the Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies and a fellow at the New America Foundation, is coming. He is doing some extraordinary work on trying to figure out how we get universal health care: What does it take to get from here to there, legislatively, in terms of policy objectives; what are all the things we have to do to actually move that agenda? That's just one example. We're going to be really pushing some new thinking. Alex Gibney, the Oscar-winning director of the indie film "Taxi to the Dark Side," which examines the controversial death of an Afghan taxi driver at Bagram Air Base, is speaking. He also produced "Enron." Ken Cook from Environmental Working Group is coming as well as Daniel Levy, who has served as an official member of Israeli delegations for peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

DH: At first I got the sense that some of the people you're talking about are slightly below the radar. But I get the feeling that you're talking about some well-known figures.

DP: That's right: For example, John Edwards is going to be there.

DH: Right. He's the kickoff guy on Sunday night.

DP: Yes. The thing that many progressives like about Edwards is that he drove the issue of economic justice into the dialogue, and he aims to keep it there. He's developed a campaign including working with ACORN and other leading groups to keep this issue visible. The big picture goal is to cut the U.S. poverty rate in half in 10 years.

DH: Apparently Obama got Edwards' endorsement in part because he agreed to that 10-year commitment on poverty. Is that going to be part of the dialogue at "Momentum"? How can Edwards and "Momentum" -- assuming Obama gets elected -- help Obama and progressives work together to reach this goal?

DP: That gets into a larger, more general question that I think AlterNet and others are talking about, which is, "OK, we're at this moment in time. There's an opportunity for the kind of change that most of us haven't seen in most of our lives. How do progressives relate to that?" When Carter came in, and again when Clinton came in, the only two Democrats in the White House in last 30 years, the progressive community didn't quite know what to do.

I remember the feeling when Clinton came in, that when progressives go into the administration, everybody tends to get quiet because they are driving the policies from within the administration. But I don't think things work that way. You can have all the best intentions, but without outside pressure, policy change just won't happen. We're looking at a very different situation than when Carter or Clinton came in, with a slim majority that quickly went in the other direction. Besides, today is more like the '30s than the '90s. What do we do? I think we need to be very noisy and to actually drive ideas in a stronger way than progressives have done in the past.

DH: So how noisy should progressives be between now and November, versus how loud on Jan. 20 -- again, assuming Obama is elected, which, of course, isn't a sure thing.

DP: What really matters is going forward after Jan. 20. Tides, of course, is nonpartisan and doesn't endorse candidates.

DH: Here at AlterNet, our readers are hugely interested in the perceived move to the center or the right by Obama. Even the L.A. Times recently had an article about Obama abandoning his brand of change since he became the presumptive nominee. So it's not just progressives who are wondering what's up.

DP: I understand how they would drive toward the center between now and the election. Obama is an African American who has to worry about the Bradley Effect, and there are plenty of other things that could make him vulnerable. But if he doesn't stand for something, he will be in trouble. People have voted for McCain because they thought he stood for something. Voters, even though they disagreed with what he stood for, liked the fact that he had the moxie to stand for something.

Practically speaking, there is not a whole lot people can do between now and the election. Obama should be criticized, appropriately. But what's really going to matter is after Jan. 20, when there are real opportunities to do things. Many are hopeful that there will be a good Congress. In economic and political terms, there are more opportunities for change than there have been for a long time. But to make the gains, the progressive community needs to be loud and impolite. We can't just stand and watch.

DH: What are your criteria for new and innovative? Are there people who have brilliant ideas but nobody knows who they are? Anybody come to mind that you've got coming that you want to talk about?

DP: Well, you know Rob Johnson; you know his background with (George) Soros and the Senate Finance Committee. He'll explain the mortgage crisis. Most of us don't really understand what happened. Rob developed a slide show, which explained how the banks got themselves into this mess. That's one example.

Then, there's a young man, Eboo Patel, who is a Rhodes Scholar, grew up in suburban New Jersey. He wrote a book called Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation about fundamentalists. He grew up as a Muslim in America. As we know, Arabs and Muslims are the new bad guys in our movies, the new pariahs in many social categories. Patel believes that reconciliation or dialogue across religious lines is a really essential part of what needs to happen to change some of our attitudes. He's a really interesting guy, and he founded the Interfaith Youth Core. ... He's very thoughtful about what the American experience uniquely has to offer.

Do you know Angelica Salas? She's a wonderful, dynamic, 30-ish young mom in Los Angeles -- great, thoughtful organizer of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles (CHIRLA). She's one of the people who organized the huge pro-immigration demonstrations. As you know, comprehensive immigration reform was recently defeated in Congress. So the big question is, "Now what are we going to do?" It's interesting seeing this issue from the perspective of someone who walked across the border when she was 5. She has grown up and is now driving voter registration efforts and helping to lead the immigration reform movement. It is challenging to understand what might be the viable elements of immigration reform in the future. Public perception is so important. If you explain to people the details of what would be required by people -- all the steps that would be necessary to get on the path to citizenship -- around 70 percent say they support it.

DH: Yes, the hard-core anti-immigration folks were successful in framing the issue around amnesty, which is not something U.S. voters favor. But, of course, it really isn't amnesty at all. There needs to be far more effective communication on immigration -- communication and organizing.

DP: Then there's the effort to organize the car wash workers, led by Jon Hiatt, general counsel of the AFL-CIO. He's a very smart guy pushing to get car wash workers in L.A., part of the so-called informal workforce, some labor protections including some wage minimums.

DH: You mention the progressive movement. Do we have a movement? Where is it headed?

DP: We have a progressive community. We're not a movement at the moment. People often use the word movement when what they mean is a community of organizations made up of people who care about these issues and are driving an agenda. A movement is when you get people out on the streets supporting your efforts. We have a lot of elements of a movement -- including national organizations, media, online communities and emerging leaders. I'm really excited about the next generation of leaders that I think are coming up, and we're trying to make room for them.

DH: Do you think there is a big problem for the progressive community -- that there are too many of us aging baby boomers standing in the way? Do we have to make room for young people to get in? Do young people need to carve out their own positions?

DP: I think a combination of things needs to happen. I think that young people need to build their own organizations. Not everything was figured out by people like you and me 20 years ago. So yes, new organizations need to emerge: The League of Young Voters is a good example. I do think that there is an emerging generation. I think they need to push us aside and that's great, but I don't think we're holding anybody back. I think there are lots of opportunities, and there is going to be a changing of the guard, even for well-established organizations.

DH: In your materials, you underscore the hard issues of making change. Do you have thoughts about how bringing people together like this increases the chance of change?

DP: What we're aiming to do is to get the right people in the room. A substantial number of the people attending will be part of the funding community, and a large portion will be from nonprofits. And, they will be in a collaborative environment, experiencing the same download of new thinking -- engaged and not in isolation.

This is going to be a different kind of conference. There will be no introductions to speak of; there will be no comments couched as questions from the audience. Everything will be one big plenary session for the presentation of ideas. People will come to announce a new campaign. It's a very different format, which really focuses on content, and there really isn't a venue for that. Hopefully it will be a different kind of experience. I hope people will identify and share their thoughts. The progressive community is only as good as the ideas it promotes.

DH: One of the challenges to change is what we refer to as the silo effect -- this narrowing of issues, the difficulty of connecting various single-issue constituencies on behalf of an overall agenda. One issue that comes to mind is the problem of water, which, so far, has not been central to the climate debate. One of the causes of the problem is funding; many funders fund very specific, narrow issues. If the funding is narrow, and there's no funding to cross-connect among the ideas, we don't get very far. Can you talk a little bit about how the funders and the idea people and activists might grapple with that and think of a broader, bigger vision? One that can get us further than everyone focused on getting a small piece of legislation or small part of an agenda?

DP: Absolutely. I think it depends a little bit on the field. There are some areas that lend themselves to that kind of thing. But I agree. Fresh water is a huge issue. It's a social equity issue, but it's even more than that. It relates to climate change, but it's different and it's huge. Certainly, water politics underlie a lot of what's going on in the Middle East. And people almost never talk about that.

The silo challenge is a huge issue within the entire arena of philanthropy. What I hope we'll bring to "Momentum" are people who are able to connect more dots -- leaders who can see the social dimension of environmental issues or the climate change dimension of an economic issue. I think there'll be some people like Lawrence Lessig, who will be pushing beyond campaign finance reform, to restrict the role of lobbying in the democratic process, to make all sorts of things that lobbyists can take off their taxes have to come out of their firm's profits instead. You know the effect of lobbying in Washington, and the corporate welfare system that it's become. We're not going to get much social change unless we deal with this problem. Donors who fund health who are attending "Momentum" are going to hear about health from a lot of different perspectives that they wouldn't usually run across. And that's the point: to get people out of their normal outlook and into an environment where they can think together.

DH: So to sum up, what's the message? What do you want people to think about the conference? What do you want to have communicated to the audience? Basically, what is it that people should come away thinking about in terms of the progressive vision for the future? How does it all fit together?

DP: This is a moment in history where there's more of an opportunity for change than any other time I can recall in my adult life. Progressives cannot be silent, going into this prospective victory in the fall. If the Democrats do take back the executive branch ... and there's a Democratic majority in Congress, it's a tremendous opportunity. We can't be quiet. And we have to figure out what to be noisy about.

Democrats and progressives been out of power for so long that we are simply used to being the opposition. And we have not authored significant thoughtful strategy about how government can become the solution to social problems and how it can drive the social agenda toward more equity and a more diplomacy-driven international role. We need to create an opportunity where people can come together and talk about these ideas.

Hopefully at "Momentum," we'll encourage a sense of what's possible to do out there and ground it in solid policy discussions, but also ground it in the tools and strategies needed to get it out there. Maybe in the future we'll need to get all of the constituency-based organizations in the same room. But "Momentum" is about new, nontraditional ways of thinking -- new approaches to things that people haven't aired broadly either in the funding community or in the publishing community. Getting them out of the silo and into broader dialogue -- that can become the basis for being noisy in the future.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: tides, momentum, progressive community

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
And Dicussion of a Sustainable Financial System?
Posted by: mmckinl on Jul 17, 2008 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the issues of sustainability are covered extensively by the progressive and liberal press, including sustainable environmental and energy issues but not a sustainable financial system. Our current financial system, specifically debt accumulation and money creation are areas of vital importance to the discussion of a sustainable future.

The problem is our current financial system cannot survive the sustainability challenge. Our money supply and all new money creation exists only because of geometric economic growth in a finite world. Without a stable and growing money supply the economy, whether based on sustainability or growth of consumption, comes to a grinding halt.

Our current mechanism for money creation is fractional reserve banking which is based on the geometric growth of consumption in the economy. New money is only created when there is new debt for the consumption of goods. Money that has already been created has been created by debt so that growth is needed to produce the interest on that debt. So every year new debt is needed just maintain the money supply and that new debt will be created by consumption. Any increase in the money supply by extension needs even more debt created by consumption.

For a sustainable economy we need to create money without debt so that it isn't tied to consumption and actually this is completely possible, even mandated by law, such that the government, not a private corporation such as the Federal Reserve, create our money supply.

The government would create money without having to borrow it from the private Federal Reserve and therefore would not pay interest. This created money would not require consumption to pay interest or grow. Only in this way can we create, sustain and grow the money supply without consumption in a sustainable economy.

Our current system of fractional reserve banking can not survive a sustainable economy. Trying to use fractional reserve banking will result in an economic meltdown that will be blamed on the idea of sustainability rather than the failings of fractional reserve banking.

Ask yourself one question : Why should we (our government) have to pay interest on our own money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Be citizens, not "consumers" Posted by: redceres
A Universal Humane Needs Assessment :: Part 1
Posted by: skizum on Jul 17, 2008 3:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“What are the most creative and pragmatic innovations that need to be teed up in order to address the myriad problems the nation faces…?”

“That is community building and consciousness-raising.”

The overwhelming majority of people in the world, of basic functional capacity, who are alive today and live in the past, no matter what race, religion, political persuasion or cultural indoctrination, all share the same thing motivation; to live a humane and secure lifestyle. The question is, what constitutes a humane and secure lifestyle?

My project idea is meant to develop a basic framework for creating a consensus and conscious awareness of what our most basic human needs are, understand how our experiences and nurture effect our behavior and to empower the individual with the ability to self determinately alter our own human behavior to yield sustainable and humanely balanced lifestyles and communities.

Attacking “the issues” by focusing on specific individual areas of our societal constructs is a great endeavor. Another important perspective to consider and recognize are the common patterns at the roots of these issues that create these imbalanced scenarios.

Let’s just take a quick overview of a few issues like health care, mortgage crisis, climate change, job loss, lobbying, taxes… all of these are issues because the people who have power to steer the issues are working to gain economic advantage at the expense of the masses.

Simply stated, they are trying to secure what they think they need to live a humane lifestyle. In the end of the day, that is what everyone really wants…to be happy and live a fulfilling and secure life. However, there is a clear lack of shared compassion for the fundamental human needs which we all share.

The model of individual gain is accomplished through the accumulation of wealth, which in turn is supposed to give one the resources to obtain or hold what it is that they need to be happy. The real problem is that all of our materialistic needs do not necessarily satisfy our real most basic human needs. I’m sure we are all familiar with the concept that money does not insure happiness.

While, our economic, legal and political systems have continued to evolve to support the motivating forces of individual economic gain, they have not supported the goal of fulfilling our most basic human needs so that we can live humanely.

This scenario has played itself out over and over since the dawn of mankind and is the result of our human behavior, which of course effects all aspects of life. Whereas, human behavior can be defined as the elements of our human nature as influenced by our experiences and nurture.

By focusing on human needs versus economic policy then we can make change directly at the individual level and not have to rely on government, economics and other social organizational institutions. It seems appropriate to not only focus on issues of economic justice but also on human needs justice.

What we need is the power of a movement in this country and the world, but in order for a mass movement to take place there must be a common underlying motive that participants in the movement must buy into. The most fundamental concept that I can think of that binds us all together is that we all want to live humanely…

continued on part 2...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Universal Humane Needs Assessment :: Part 2
Posted by: skizum on Jul 17, 2008 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The challenge then is to understand what it means to live humanely. My reflections and observations regarding this is that we need to first understand what the basic elements of our human nature are, develop a means for understanding how to experience these elements in balance to yield a humane lifestyle, a way for individuals to assess that balance and finally creating links to resources so people can correct any imbalances in more self determinate ways.

This then becomes the paradigm against which all issues can be measured against; how do guidelines x, y and z regarding issue a measure against fulfilling the basic human needs of the individual and community. If the movement supports the most basic needs of the individual then the individual will have the greatest level of initiative to support the movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is Representing Health Besides Hacker?
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 17, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jacob Hacker is smart but not at all a visionary on health care reform issues?

I have some other nominations?

contact me at ralippin@aol.com

Thanks,

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think out of the BOX! Time to build a sustainable, self relient Future!
Posted by: williameon on Jul 17, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The system based on cheap fossil fuels is a thing of the past.
The overly centeralized system The Corpirates created was built for their own benefit:
World Domination.
Local is the wave of the Future.
Cut out the middle man.
A totally localized system of food production, health care, green energy, media, financial/credit unions, manufacturing and education.
Self sustainable, self reliant and GREEN
Conservation and efficiency is the key.
Quality instead of quantity.
Get out while you can.
It's over.
All that is left is the
BU__! SH__!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a thought...... why "party"
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 17, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the Progressive movement seems to be relegated to the back spaces of political parties (at least for now), why do they seem hell bent on attaching themselves to a "party", democrat, that is really no different than the republicans.

It would seem that tapping into both parties, would be a much better way of applying pressure to get agenda's accomplished! I never understood this us and them mindset if one really wants to address America's problems, not just their own!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No need for any of them Posted by: Last Chance
Revolutionary New Initiative that needs voice:
Posted by: channing on Jul 17, 2008 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States needs its own Solar Deserts initiative.

The Earth's deserts alone absorb thousands of times more energy than is consumed by humans from all other sources combined. Not only is the Sun a constant energy source, but it has always been the foundation of life itself and is not an Extracted Energy Resource: Aligning human activity with the Sun's energy eliminates future risks to our energy supplies.

The Solar Desert concept deploys Concentrated Solar Arrays using 20 year proven technology in the deserts and distributes that energy through High Tension Lines. Connected to a global grid, these supplies would alternate 12/12 in supplying demand and would join localized sources such as Roof Top NanoSolar and Wind Farms in providing a truly sustainable and green energy solution. (Note: Though the trecers.net site linked above does not propose a Global Grid of Solar Deserts the research confirms the potential of doing so.)

Though Europe is already on its way in undertaking this concept, the US is almost completely stagnant for no apparent reason other than the Oil, Coal, Gas and Nuclear industries, along with their many high powered lobbyists, a compliant Main Stream Media and a political leadership noted for its Loyalty to Big Conventional Energy are putting all their weight and capital AGAINST it.

Here's a few of the byproducts of Solar Deserts:

- Our National Dialog concerning "Energy Crisis", "Global Warming" and "CO2 Emissions" will turn the corner from "What can we do?" to "The Energy Crisis is Solved". This will effect mood, attitude, investment climate, American Pride, a veritable Light at the End of the Tunnel that gives hope a chance.

- Big Oil, Coal, Gas and Nuclear would lose persuasion over Washington DC without any immediate threat to their continued and important role in the world.

- Solar Deserts will end the reasons used for a "Nuclear Renaissance" because a global solar desert grid would approximate the cost of a few thousand new nuclear plants and be completed in the same time frame or less. Solar Deserts, unlike Nuclear Renaissance, however, will be paying its way during construction and then provide a near-infinite source after construction without Superfund Cleanups etc.,.

- Solar Deserts will create and maintain Permanent Global Green Collar careers for 10's of millions of workers and create a boon in existing manufacturing facilities and material suppliers.

- Solar Deserts, unlike its nuclear renaissance competitor, will not require special classified programs and military apparatus for protection and distribution which will dramatically reduce the cost to society, in fact, Solar Deserts will inspire international cooperation in historical ways along the lines of what the internet has done, making everyone on Earth Safer.

- Solar Deserts employ no unusual Hazardous, Carcinogenic, Toxic materials, technologies or skills and therefore can be expected to improve not only the atmosphere and its biological life, but human health costs as well.

- Concentrated Solar Arrays can be used for Desalinization Programs where ever desired.

Summary:

CO2 and Global Warming... Check

Green Collar Global Economy... Check

Reduced Military and National Security Requirements... Check

Solving the Energy Crisis... Check

Solving the US dependency on Environmentally Destructive Resource Extraction, Processing and Consumption... Check

Desalinization... Check

There are many beautiful ideas out there right now, but none that serve so many so well as making Solar Deserts a real 21st Century Victory for Humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Problem - The Truly Creative "Lone Genius" Is Ignored
Posted by: Liberty G on Jul 18, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a well-meaning effort and includes some people and entities whose work I admire - especially Environmental Working Group (EWG).

But the sad truth is that some of the most out-of-the box, imaginative and exciting ideas don't come from Rhodes scholars and academics, certainly not from corporate think tanks.

The best of the bunch have been conceived by individual innovators who think differently.
And these, unless they happen to be able to squeeze themselves into a conventional box with the "right" academic credentials, are not recognized in our society.

I know, because I married one such person. He has at least 50 inventions, and is struggling now to get even three of them out into the world. If he hadn't also trained himself to write some patents, and scraped up the money to submit them, these three wonderful ideas would be lost - and many of the others may never see the light of day. Quite a few could have significant implications for energy and the environment. We can't afford to put forth any more, and he has to take other jobs for our survival.

There are a lot of others out there like him - and some ideas and innovations that could be of incalculable value to our distressed planet. But nobody is seeking and helping them to contribute these gifts for the benefit of all. They mostly can't even talk about their inventions, since without a patent, they would lose them.

If we cared, someone would set up a Center for Innovation to evaluate such ideas under strict confidentiality, find those with merit, especially for environmental and energy purposes, and fund the patent and development.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Public Brain Trust Posted by: channing
Constitutional Amendment that assures truth in the definition of words and their use
Posted by: common intelligence on Jul 17, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way in which language has been (ab)used as a propaganda tool to deceive the public by spinning the meaning of words has lead to complete societal misunderstandings of simple language.
This should not be a legal issue. As well, the spinning of terms used in order to deceive the public as to what the real meaning is should be not be tolarated. And clarification manditory.

There are obviously thousands of examples to draw from as have been used by the current and privious government administrations. But also language used in advertising are used to deceive and mispreresent the intensions coercing consummers to believe deceptions as reality and truth.

One simple example:
Home "ownership".

The governemment and the financial institutions deceive themselves and contiually lead people to believe that entering a contract with a financial institution with the intension to "buy" a product (whether it is a car or home aor anything) in a loan / lender relationship DOES NOT mean because the agreement takes place that the buyer "OWNS" the property.

This deception is used by politicians , manipulators of all types, misleading people that they own something they do not.

When a whole society is mislead this way it misleads citizens and immigrants a like, that do not understand the screwed up language as it is. Therefore people are mislead and lives are built with false security.

The media reinforces the deception by quoting newsmakers use of the word without qualifiying the meaning too.

If we want to take another word, say torture, Well you get what I'm saying.

In short, Public addresses in any media, using lies and falsely applied meaning, whether intentionally or not due the society as a whole damage that leads to a continues breakdown of the fabric that binds civilization. The cost in waste of resouces, monitarially, energy, human time is beyond calculation. Some may say it is just "politics".
Well, CUT IT OUT !.

This needs to be addressed and brought up as a foundational concern and taken on as core issue not just by progressives but all people.

It shouldn't be a legal issue but a social, moral responsibility and that "truth of the use of language" should be guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Actually this is why the constitution has estabilshed a department of Weights and Measures. That is to assure that when we are told or given anything that it should be what it is. Basically guaranteed in a fixed and agreed upon value in weight, volumn, or measure. "ETC"!

But then we all know what GWB things of the Constitution.......

Therefore all politicians should be made accountable for the language they use and deceive the people by.

I would love to bring this up for discussion at the meeting.
Contact me here by responding if there is any interest in truth!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Tides", "Momentum" Conference Appears to be only for Those that can Afford it
Posted by: common intelligence on Jul 18, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to the links on this conference In SF.
It all appears that "cutting-edge ideas and innovative practitioners in the social change field" have an exclusive on directing the future as much as the NeoCons.

There is a price even to attend this conference. So high is it that we can only conclude here again, this is put on by a bunch of pompous self proclaimed elitists.

It is as though no one but those that will cut loose or can "afford" to drop at least $850 to listen to "chosen" ones can attend.

This disqualifies any "other" truly insightful Americans outside of the "Loop" to participate in what we might say to determine and guide the future in America.

Therefore as the wheel turns, again it appears there is no true democracy, as there is health care, in America except for those that can afford it.

I challenge that Momentum/ Tides program to drop their elitist exclusivity to drop their pompous approach to control how only their visions of a progressive agenda might be projected into the fabric of the country and disqualifying "others".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The foundation of a sustainable social model
Posted by: Gegner on Jul 18, 2008 10:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
starts with the human anti-exploitation law.

Why are our resources being squandered? Because there's a buck to be made doing it.

Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I'll explain that it's not a law intended to prohibit humans from exploiting resources but from exploiting one another.

The thrust of the proposal is to 'outlaw' the practice of earning a living from someone else's 'sweat'...in any form.

As odd as it seems, it is commerce's need to 'profit' from the efforts of others that leads it to denying employment for all members of the community/society that need it.

The relentless push to do 'more with less' has produced a nation of 'marginally employed', rather than shortening the work week or the work day (while maintaining a living wage.)

The culprit here is 'income streams'. The 'decisionmaker' maximizes their income stream by minimizing what they pay their workers.

This must end.

This is not about paying everyone the same rate but paying them the same 'way'. If a paycheck is good enough for 99% of us, then it's good enough for all of us.

Since the human anti-exploitation law prohibits the employer/employee relationship, you might ask who would we work for?

If you're sharp, the answer is obvious...we'd work for the same people we do now, society.

Where would the money come from? the same place it does now...thin air.

Who 'gets' your money when you spend it?

Nobody! it is merely erased from your account.

Why bother with money at all?

Without a 'regulator', there would be no way to prevent shortages.

But we'd need to add one more new 'wrinkle' to money itself...it would be electronic...because all crime is 'cash and carry'.

So there would be no way to transfer funds between individuals. This 'closes the loop', because now 'your money is for you'.

The human anti-exploitation law, an idea you can bet they won't be talking about at Tides...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement