Ben Adler is a staff writer for The Politico and has discontinued his blog since starting work there. He wrote this blog from September of 2005, when he began at CampusProgress.org as associate editor to September of 2007 when he left as editor. Prior to joining Campus Progress Ben was a reporter-researcher at The New Republic, an editorial intern at The Nation and The American Lawyer magazine, research director for special Issues at mamm magazine and production intern for PBS (WNET). His writing has also appeared in Newsweek, The American Prospect Online, The Washington Examiner, In These Times and The Washington Monthly among other publications.
I'm going to be a reporter at The Politico. My beat will encompass youth politics so I hope you all will keep this blog active so I know what the kids are up to these days. It's been an amazing experience these last two years working at Campus Progress. Everyone, including the bloggers and commenters who I've never met in person, have been an important part of my daily life and I will miss you all.
Yesterday afternoon I participated in a blogger conference call with Senator Ted Kennedy about the soon to be passed Higher Education Access Act (HEAA). The bill will give an additional $20 billion in financial aid to students without costing taxpayers a penny by cutting excessive lender subsidies. That's the good news. The bad news is that an even stronger proposal, Student Aid Reward Act (STAR) stands no chance of passing, and Senator Kennedy was very frank as to why, saying, "Lenders are too powerful in the U.S. Senate -- I’m sorry to say, among Democrats as well as Republicans -- for that to get passed." STAR would create an incentive for universities to cut lenders and their wasteful government subsidies out of the program altogether by encouraging schools to switch to direct lending, in which the federal government provides the loans itself. So students and taxpayers will see a small improvement when the HEAA is passed, but will continue waiting indefinitely for more basic reform. You can read my recent Washington Monthly article on the higher education lobby for a more complete rundown of STAR and why it hasn't passed.
Via Ezra, a new bill in Virginia seeks to prohibit public universities from accepting undocumented students. As Ezra points out, this is a great idea because the last thing we need to is to educated immigrants and allow them to contribute to our economy. Brilliant.
My article in the college issue of the Washington Monthly on the higher education lobby is now available online. Here's the nut graf:
The same lobbying muscle they’ve often put in the service of worthy causes they’ve also used to thwart promising reforms. On a range of issues, higher ed has stood up for its own narrow strategic or pecuniary concerns, rather than the broader interests of students or the country at large. In short, though it represents institutions that loudly proclaim a mission of public service, the higher education lobby more often acts like any other Washington trade group. Today, one of the most significant roadblocks to fixing many of the pressing problems of our troubled system of higher education is the higher education lobby itself.
In my review of The Simpsons Movie for The Guardian, I mentioned the libertarian impulse to falsely equate the harmless foibles of liberals with the nefarious proclivities of conservatives. As if to prove that point Michael C. Moynihan, a blogger for Reason, opines in response that the main argument of my piece, (that liberal Simpsons fans should be forewarned that though the movie is funny and worth-seeing it has a streak of politically conservative humor) makes me the equivalent Brent Bozell.
Having actually covered Bozell's shenanigans I seriously resent the comparison. Bozell, like most conservative media watchdogs, does much more than write light-hearted columns gently critiquing a little political message he does not support. Bozell leads campaigns to berate corporations out of promoting content he finds offensive for political or moral reasons. As Moynihan may have noticed I didn't call for a boycott of The Simpsons movie. In fact, I encouraged readers to see it. Apparently, though, in Moynihan's simplistic way of thinking all criticisms are equal, and all political/cultural critics are equally dim-witted and illiberal regardless of what they actually say. I suppose Moynihan thinks no one should write op-eds discussing the political implications of cultural products at all. That's very open-minded indeed.
I'm probably going to take some serious flack from commenters for saying this, but I think the most important idea to come out of Saturday's candidate forum at Kos was Hillary Clinton's suggestion that the War on Terrorism be re-labeled the War on Terrorists. Like so many liberals I've been frustrated by what Clinton correctly identifies as the peculiarity of fighting a war on tactic. And the shorthand "War on Terror," which technically means war on an emotion is so illogical as to be completely meaningless. I've never had quite the right alternative though. Some have suggested that after September 11th, President Bush should have simply declared war on Al-Qaeda. I think a restrained approach like that would have been acceptable, but in recent years so many Islamic jihadists groups have sprung up in the Middle East, Asia and Europe that are not explicitly part of Al-Qaeda but share its goals and methods. So I think Clinton's suggestion that we re-conceive the war as focused on them collectively is the correct response for liberals both as a matter of politics (it's tough but sensible) and policy.
Campus Progress contributor Matt Singer had some interesting thoughts on youth voter mobilization at the youth progressive organizing panel at Yearly Kos just now. "We gotta be cool again," said Matt. Although I doubt politics was ever very cool, I agree that it is important to try as best you can. Matt pointed to things like one-pagers that look like concert fliers as ways of appealing to young people. Matt also noted the importance of breaking out of issue silos and of recognizing that traditional four-year college students actually constitute a minority of college-age youth. "We have to pay attention to non-college students and non-traditional students," Matt said.
In a phrase: white people. Yes there are more than last year, yes they are of all ages and regions. But they are overwhelmingly white. Not exclusively. There are bloggers who focus on identity politics here, in the audience as well as on panels. But if the netroots are going to be a major power base in the progressive movement, they will need to work on diversifying.
DNC Chair Howard Dean just gave a rousing address here at Yearly Kos to the 1400 minions and hundreds of members of the media. He focused in large part on the importance of progressives appealing to young people. He noted the 20% increase in youth turnout between the last two midterms and noted that voting patterns get locked in for life at a young age. He admonished activists to always focus on the young as an investment in the future. He also rather comically pointed out that "there are white kids running around malls with pants around their ankles" as evidence that the hopes of the civil rights movement have been achieved. And Dean pointed to the long enduracne of civil rights leaders as a reminder that activism is a lifelong commitment.
Many progressives were shocked by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co to interpret workplace discrimination laws so narrowly as to throw out all cases that aren't brought within 180 days of a discriminatory pay decision. This is obviously unfair because one often does not realize for some time that their raise was inadequate. Rep. George Miller (D- CA) and 31 cosponsors have introduced legislation to reverse this unjust decision. Under the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, workers could instead bring suit within 180 days of receiving any paycheck affected by the discriminatory decision.
That might sound reasonable to you but apparently it's an outrage to the White House, which announced today a statement of administration policy strongly opposing the bill. Surely they must have some serious grounds for wanting to prevent potential victims of discrimination from having their day in court right? Wrong. They just hide behind the canard that the bill's "vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims." That's a pretty weak excuse. Am I crazy to suggest could we call the rightwing's bluff by introducing a bill to simply create more courts and hire more judges since that would presumably solve this problem they hide behind?
Dana and Ezra have some interesting posts over at TAPPED about Michael Gerson's Washington Post column on the failure of abstinence only education among Evangelical teens. When will they learn that teenagers are teenagers and safer sex is the best option?
Robert Samuelson has achieved the impossible. As an anti-sprawl crusader who staunchly advocates higher gasoline taxes, I never thought I'd read a column arguing for a $1-2 per gallon increase in the gas tax that is totally obnoxious and illogical. And yet, the Washington Post's Samuelson did just that in his most recent piece. Samuelson devotes seven paragraphs to attacking Prius drivers as self-righteous show-offs. He has no empirical data to support his nasty assumption such as a poll of Prius drivers as to why they buy those cars. But he does indulge in some perverse sleight of hand when he argues:
The Prius is, I think, a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Prius politics is mostly about showing off, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Politicians pander to "green" constituents who want to feel good about themselves. Grandiose goals are declared. But measures to achieve them are deferred -- or don't exist.
Although I found the questions and answers on marriage equality last night to be very interesting (particularly Bill Richardson's shrewd answer that he'd get the lesbian couple from Brooklyn "everything I think is politically feasible" thus hinting that he has no problem with full marriage equality but avoiding taking the political risk of saying so outright), I thought all the time spent on it was sort of a waste. Of all the important issues facing the next president, gay marriage simply isn't one of them. That's not to say it isn't an important issue. I think full marriage equality is a crucial civil right that no one should be denied. But since I've been following its progression I'm well aware of the fact that marriage laws are set by the states, and the conflicts between state laws will mostly be adjudicated in the courts. The one major national proposal on gay marriage is a constitutional amendment to ban it which stands no chance of passing, wouldn't be supported by any of the Democrats running for president, and the president has no power to vote for or against anyway.
So why is it that so many debates in the last couple elections, both in the primaries and the general have featured questions about this? My best answer is that it fits broadly into the characterological preference of the mainstream media. They ask about gay marriage for the same reason they ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama how they respond to inane allegations that they aren't feminine enough or black enough, respectively. It's because they're more fun to ask, and because it allows the media to create supposedly non-ideological narratives about the candidates. I'd rather see more questions on how the candidates would actually govern the massive federal bureaucracy, but maybe I'm not the typical voter.
On a separate angle of the demise of congestion pricing, suburban triumphalist blogger Brian Beutler is crowing about New York's minor, and hopefully temporary, environmental setback. He sneers, "Mark my words, California, land of big cars and suburbs beyond the horizon, will someday have a more impressive environmental record on a per capita basis than your precious, much vaunted boroughs."
That's cute. But that doesn't make it so. While California has every right to brag about its smart steps on raising auto emissions standards, New York, by virtue of its density, walkabiilty, and extensive mass transit system, will stay way below California in emissions per capita, whether or not New York ever passes Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal. And do you think congestion pricing is coming to L.A. any time soon? Somehow I doubt it.
I've long thought of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg as his predecessor's doppelganger. While Rudy Giuliani notoriously politicized policy-making by appointing cronies and polarized the city with his vindictive attitude, Bloomberg has appointed capable civil servants and pushed mostly technocratic, if sometimes ill-conceived, plans.
But Bloomberg shares Giuliani's megalomaniacal streak. (I mean who titles their autobiography Bloomberg on Bloomberg?)
Case in point: Bloomberg failed to marshal support in the New York State Senate to pass his congestion pricing plan. And The New York Timesreports that his high-handed attitude in meeting with legislators only decreased the chances of it passing:
In a tense meeting on Monday, testy exchanges erupted between the mayor and the Democratic state senators he was trying to win over. At one point, according to several people present, Mr. Bloomberg told the senators that his administration had sent plenty of information about his plan in the mail, and that it was not his fault if they had not read it.
“If the mayor came in with one vote, he left with none,” said Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat.
“His posture was not ingratiating,” he said. “He says he doesn’t know politics, and he certainly bore that out by the way he behaved.”
It's too bad that Bloomberg let his ego get in the way of passing his sensible proposal.
What is it with Roger Williams University? In 2003 the Roger Williams College Republicans, led by our friend Jason Mattera, got on FOX News for a typical silly rightwing stunt: creating a "whites only" scholarship. Now, the chairman of their board has resigned because he used a racist slur to refer to African-Americans in a discussion (ironically) about how under-represented minorities and women are on the board. I wonder what Mattera thinks of this.
A neat little story from The Washington Post today points to an alarming phenomenon: the lack of sidewalks throughout growing American communities. The Post focuses on Loudon County, Virginia, a D.C. exurb that is one of the fastest growing counties in the country. The Post reports that,
A survey of 840 miles of roads in Loudoun found that 14 percent had sidewalks.... The result is a piecemeal network of sidewalks and trails that begin and end haphazardly, influenced by the date or parameters of developers' contracts. Many times, there are no formal paths between neighborhoods and nearby shopping centers, parks or schools.
Consequently pedestrians find themselves undertaking perilous journeys across six-lane roads without the benefit of a crosswalk, traipsing along narrow road shoulders and other dangerous endeavors to go even the shortest of distances. Although many local governments have begun to address this issue (Loudon started requiring sidewalks or bike trails in new developments in the 1990s), it shouldn't be left to the whims of local officials. The necessity of reducing the auto-dependence built into our landscape for safety reasons (in addition to environmental concerns, among others) is a national issue. Just as the federal government has used its considerable spending power over highway budgets to impose other rules on states, like raising the drinking age to 21, it should make pedestrian-friendly requirements for all developments (including retrofitting older ones) a requirement of receiving federal transportation funding.
The New York Times front page story "Market Forces Cited in Lymphoma Drugs’ Disuse" on Saturday was a chilling case in point as to how the profit motive perverts American health care, (per Ezra, Michael Moore et al.) The piece explains how Bexxar and Zevalin, federally approved drugs for lymphoma, are often not prescribed by doctors purely for monetary reasons, even when they might save lives. Dr. Oliver W. Press, a professor at the University of Washington and chairman of the scientific advisory board of the Lymphoma Research Foundation called it "astounding and disappointing” that they are used so little.
According to the Times, oncologists have financial incentives to use other treatments that they are paid to administer, rather than merely the treatments that are the most medically and economically effective. Imagine, instead, if we paid doctors to treat patients successfully. Sounds like a recipe for better outcomes and lower costs. But only a socialist would support such a system, right?
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
