Last night I attended a showing of the Motherhood Manifesto documentary. This documentary highlights the work of MomsRising.org, a growing movement with over 50,000 members - and particularly their effort to end employment discrimination against mothers.

I'm all for ending that discrimination - my own mother was denied a job because she was asked a question to determine whether she had daughters or sons (one of the benefits the employer offered would have been considerably more expensive for daughters). Yet I was left with a subtle feeling of increased anomie after the show. 24 hours of thinky thoughts later, I think I know the source of my discomfort, and I also have a new outlook on business and labor law.

After reading the WaPo article on the YouTube Whistleblower, I hope this statement from the Project on Government Oversight gets the widest dissemination possible:

The formal systems that whistle-blowers are expected to use have failed. That's why you're seeing people be creative like this...This is a tremendous way for someone brave enough to do it to say something directly and not have to go through a filter.

In my humble opinion, "filter" is not a strong enough word: perhaps "impregnable barricade" would be more accurate.

This diary was written expressly for Daily Kos, but I thought other progressive bloggers might find it interesting.

Yesterday I was devastated. A friend told me my favorite TV show Stargate, had been cancelled. This was actually announced last week, but I'm not involved in online fandom, so I had to get the 411 the old fashioned way. My friend is entrenched in online fandom, so I guess I'm in the second tier for info propagation from Stargate fandom ground zero. This is approximately where I would put myself in the progressive politics information stream, as well. Not in the room, but an interested party with my nose stuck to the window.

The word "devastated" might strike some as grotesque hyperbole in the context of a cheesy sci fi show. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for me to be devastated over Darfur or the warehousing of the poor in the U.S.? I've been pondering this for the last 24 hours, and I believe I've come up with some insights that may be of use to Kossacks and other people involved in political campaigns.

I just read the NYT article about the stained glass ceiling for women in the church, and I was especially struck by this comment:

...in the marketplace of ideas and values, men matter most and...by definition, women have to take a back seat...

Why do men matter most in the marketplace of ideas?

After reading about various interesting events that had taken place in virtual venues within the world of Second Life, it finally sunk in. This might have a potential as a civic space, where I could talk to people all over the world about the idea of dignity as a human right.

Second Life is a massive virtual reality environment. It's not so much a game as a global conference call that takes place in fantastic imaginary settings. All sorts of activists could set up kiosks around the virtual public square. People with common interests could meet and coordinate for political action. One day there might even be ways to facilitate voter registration. Enthralled by the vision of cyber-democracy, I set up an account.

The strangest thing happened while I was on BART (the San Francisco commuter train) on Friday. The girl standing next to me, who had been complaining loudly about the over-crowded train, spit at the people standing on the platform right before the door closed. Her friends immediately started doing a victory dance, singing "Boo-boo-be-doo - we spit on you!"

The fact that all these kids immediately knew how to celebrate the spitting on random commuters made me wonder if this is part of an evolving subculture. It's probably not that far a leap from spitting to the pyrotechnic subculture. Random violence seems to be bubbling up from the ground. Yet because it's happening in a familiar setting, we're striving for labels other than "terrorism". Our children aren't terrorists. They're just confused by hormones. Only "other people" are terrorists.

Democrats are divided over whether appealing to the moderate center or galvanizing their progressive base is the better strategy. Given the public's declining confidence in Republican leadership, either strategy may enable Democrats to win at the polls. But neither approach will give them the electoral mandate required to govern effectively and retain the public's support once they're in office.

Fortunately, choosing between these two strategies is unnecessary. There is an alternative to left-right politics and by adopting it Democrats can remain true to progressive principles while attracting millions of voters from the non-ideological middle.

The step beyond the "New Deal," the "Fair Deal," and the "Great Society" is a "Dignitarian Society." The slogan is Dignity For All.

When it comes to politics, new language and new thinking are different things. Whatever new language progressives used in 2004 failed to change the electoral outcome, and at most it'll help them eke out a few victories in the coming years. New language is like changing the window treatment, not the window, not the view, not the perspective.

What's required for social change, and it could come from either party, is the kind of political realignment we get once every 50 years. Such realignment pulls a sizeable majority from the vast non-ideological, sensible middle of the political spectrum, and creates a real mandate for fundamental social change. Like those that FDR and LBJ presided over. Like the universal health care and campaign finance reform that we need now.

Both political parties know that a unifying core value expressed in a pithy slogan translates into votes. FDR's Democrats had "The New Deal"; LBJ's party advanced "The Great Society." Republicans rally to "lower taxes," "smaller government," "strong defense," and "family values."

What core value, what slogan, could move us beyond the toxic standoff that paralyzes American politics today?

The answer lies in a single word--Dignity.

This core value takes wings on the inclusive slogan: "Dignity For All." The bumper sticker reads "Dignity4All," and it will soon begin appearing on cars across America.

The idea of a universal right to dignity may at first seem too simple to pull together the disparate elements of this divided nation, but it's not. Dignity is what people want, on the left, on the right, and most importantly, in the vast, non-ideological middle.

The diary below was originally posted on my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal, on May 20th.

Progressives are struggling to synthesize a movement that can rise above identity politics and mobilize people under a unified theme. Robert W. Fuller, Ph.D. argues in his newly published book, All Rise (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.), that simple dignity is an elusive need that cuts across demographics of race, gender, age, and class. Fuller attributes this void to a culture of "rankism" which he defines as "abuses of power associated with rank." In his writings Fuller advocates for a grassroots effort to establish a "dignitarian society."