Some of you may remember the Oklahoma state representative we bloggedaboutlast week. Her name is Sally Kern, and she was caught on tape arguing that gays and lesbians in the United States are more dangerous than terrorists, that they are infiltrating the government, and that they are invading schools to brainwash America's youngsters.
Some fun updates: The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund is circulating an open letter to Kerns (hint: it's not a letter of support) that you are invited to sign, if you so please. It already has about 827,000 signatures.
In more gossipy news, Perez Hilton is reporting that Kern's son is actually gay (I guess the gays are infiltrating her family, too!) and that the lawmaker has lied about receiving death threats.
Last, Ellen Degeneres took it upon herself to call Kern on her show this week. Kern didn't pick up, but it was still a funny segment.
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund posted a video on its YouTube page today that features audio of an Okalahoma state legislator talking to a gathering about the threat to America posed by gays and lesbians.
Some highlights:
"Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country."
"I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat."
"They're going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle."
"Gays are infiltrating city councils."
She also compares homosexuality to toe cancer, nach.
William F. Buckely, conservative icon and National Review founder, died today. Since most of this blog's readers weren't alive when he was at his best, these YouTube videos of Buckley debating Noam Chomsky in 1969 will help you get a sense of the man and his ideas.
I just got back from the release of Rock the Vote's new "Nationwide Survey of 18-29 year olds." It doesn't look like Rock the Vote has put up the results of the poll yet, but I'll download some of the more interesting numbers below (and add my two-cent commentary, too).
Gene Nichol, the president of the College and William and Mary, stepped down today after a relentless smear campaign was waged against him by conservative lawmakers in Virginia. Ryan Powers, a former Center for American Progress intern and a senior at the College of William and Mary, has a great post over at Think Progress summarizing and analyzing the unfortunate series of events.
Nichol's greatest sins seem to have been his decisions to allow a student-funded organization to host a sexually themed art show and to have the university remove a crucifix from the non-denominational chapel on campus. He explained his decisions in an email sent to the school community this morning:
Critics of young Americans like to argue that we are too wrapped up in ourselves to care about politics, that we're too busy obsessing over our Facebook profiles to get up out of our seats and attend a political rally or vote. David Von Drehle's article in Time magazine should help those critics finally put that tired old stereotype to rest. Today’s young people do care about politics, but despite increased youth voting in 2004 and 2006, politicians still acted like we didn’t matter. No one really reached out and asked us for our support. But, as Von Drehle points out, Illinois Senator Barack Obama did in the run up to the 2008 primaries, and young people responded.
There's no doubt that Obama has lit a fire under young Americans, but it would be a mistake to view young people's interest in Obama solely as a response to his personal narrative. As Von Drehle correctly points out, Obama's success has as much to do with his organization and strategy as it has to do with his message:
Obama's support among youth is not just a matter of mood; it is a product of effort and organization, of finding his supporters and getting them to the polls. … Obama's outreach to students didn't spring from some starry-eyed principle. It started as a specific element of his early strategy in Iowa. The first-in-the-nation caucuses allow 17-year-olds to vote if they are going to turn 18 before the general election, which means most high school seniors are eligible. To win those kids, Obama did something unusual in politics: he made them a genuine priority. After his rallies in towns across the state, he met backstage with student leaders from the area — a privilege most campaigns reserve for local VIPs and fund raisers.
So when it comes down to it, young people today aren't really lazy or indifferent; we're just human. In general, people don't get excited about politics (or anything else) unless they know their voices are valued, that they can actually make a difference. Early in his campaign, Obama bet that if he told us we matter, we'd be more likely to support his candidacy. And his bet paid off.
Over at the Huffington Post, Jason Linkins is arguing that because Super Tuesday falls on the same day as Mardis Gras this year, candidates who are relying on the votes of young people should start closing shop. Young people, he argues, will be too busy drinking and flashing their breasts to vote on Feb. 5:
As you are no doubt aware, Mardi Gras is the day where college students across the country get rocked out of their gourds on Boone's Farm and engage in a little tit-for-tat bartering, where "tat" refers to strings of cheap, plastic beads. It's the audacity of grope!
So, if you were counting on "the youth vote" to mobilize on Super Tuesday, I'd start making some alternate plans, because if the "youths" do make it to the polls, they'll probably all vote for "Pedro" or something.
This is idiotic on two counts. First, the stereotype of college students being too fascinated by beer and boobs to go vote is, obviously, jaw droppingly simplistic. Second, even if young people are going to get sooooooo wasted on Feb. 5, they most likely wouldn't start drinking until at least the afternoon or evening. That gives them all day to head over to the polls.
The Washington Post ran a story yesterday featuring six young D.C.-area residents who are considering a run for the presidency… in 2028.
Among the young hopefuls is Eugene Resnick, University of Virginia student and one-time Campus Progress blogger. While I know Campus Progress doesn't endorse candidates, I can't help to mention that I'd love to see Eugene become the first openly gay, immigrant, Jewish president.
Eugene's advice to our generation: "Don't sit back and let the future pass us by. Our time is now. . . . We are the future of a more egalitarian nation, and we must vote at the ballot box now to make it happen."
Jesse's post yesterday about introverts reminded me of one of my favorite articles ever written. It's an explanation of introversion written by an introvert, Jonathan Rauch.
As an extreme introvert myself, I find the piece to be rather handy. I always email it to friends and family when they ask me why I like to spend so much damn time alone.
Young Iowans overwhelmingly proved last night that young people are now a force in American politics—a constituency that deserves attention. The bottom line is that more than 56,000 people under the age of 30 participated in the caucuses last night—that's 14% of all the votes cast. As Wiretap Editor Kristina Rizga has pointed out, "Among 17- to 29-year-old Democrats, 57 percent supported the winner, Barack Obama, and among 17- to 29-year-old Republicans, 40 percent supported the winner, Mike Huckabee, according to CNN's entrance poll."
Candidates should now believe what youth vote activists have been saying all along: that young people are becoming increasingly engaged in the political process and that our concerns need to be taken into account. Candidates know now that they need to work to win over the younger demographic. Obama and Huckabee proved that it can pay off.
I think the manner of Barack Obama's win is pretty impressive. I can't be the only one who was a bit inclined toward a cynical roll of the eyes at the idea of winning on the back of unprecedented turnout, mobilizing new voters, brining in young people, etc. That sounds like the kind of thing that people say they're going to do but never deliver on. But he did deliver. That's impressive.
Time's editors argue that Putin has "emerged as a critical linchpin of the 21st century."
More rationale:
"Russia is central to our world—and the new world that is being born. It is the largest country on earth; it shares a 2,600-mile (4,200 km) border with China; it has a significant and restive Islamic population; it has the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and a lethal nuclear arsenal; it is the world's second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia; and it is an indispensable player in whatever happens in the Middle East. For all these reasons, if Russia fails, all bets are off for the 21st century. And if Russia succeeds as a nation-state in the family of nations, it will owe much of that success to one man, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin."
Time magazine has narrowed down the contenders for its Person of the Year honors to a list of eight candidates: Steve Jobs, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Condoleezza Rice, Al Gore, Hu Jintao, David Petraeus, and J.K. Rowling.
I'm guessing that a majority of Campus Progress readers—and progressives, for that matter—would pick Al Gore, and I think Time will, too. That would make sense.
But I'd have to go with Vladimir Putin. In 2007, no one influenced—or meddled with—more geopolitical issues than the Russian president. He and he alone has determined the fate of democracy in his own country; he has upended the Kosovo peace process; and he's thrown a wrench in the United States's posture toward Iran. He hasn't won an Oscar, but he certainly has played a crucial role in some of the world's most volatile spheres.
Should colleges allow political campaigns to use their students as props during on-campus events? The Soapbox Alliance, a group of professors and students based out of Pennsylvania, doesn’t think so.
The organization is asking colleges and universities to ban candidates who wish to hold invitation-only events on their campuses. Allegheny College Professor Dan Shea, the force behind the campaign, explains that “[in] the end, it boils down to this: Closed, ticketed events are inconsistent with the mission of higher education and with the spirit of democracy."
Shea’s exactly right. In my estimation, campaigns hold events on college campuses for three reasons:
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
