I never thought Jason Mattera would change my outlook on politics. He did. Sort of.   Read More »

I'm not really good at drugs. I'm doing my part to make bacteria resistant to antibiotics by being a chronic forgetter of doses and consequently spent a lot of my life with sinus infections. Discomfort is my punishment for not taking my medicine, for others with more serious conditions; the consequences are much graver.   Read More »

For G-d's sake Condi, it's not going to work this time either.

Secretary Rice finally hopped on the shuttle to try to diplomat her way out of another Middle East crisis. Her credibility in the region is nil because of the Bush administration's six-year failure to engage but I'm glad she's there to try. Maybe her trip will give her at least enough credibility in the eyes of the Europeans to cause them to send troops as part of a future international peace-keeping force to establish law and order in southern Lebanon.   Read More »

I've lived in Israel (northern Israel actually) so I'm not one to minimize the importance of recent events in the Middle East. But, while America's engaged in a huge geopolitical game of Beruit, the clouds were gathering on another huge crisis, arguably with greater and more deadly implications for America.

In case you didn't hear, another Tsunami wave hit Java, Indonesia this week.   Read More »

I think Ron Robinson, President of the Young America's Foundation (YAF) gives me too much credit in his response to the call to issue me credentials for the YAF Conservative Student conference. From his response, one would think that as I sit here writing, George Soros is looking over my shoulder whispering sweet schemes of progressive domination into my ear directing my every finger on the keyboard.   Read More »

Question: on what issue does this Campus Progress intern heartily agree with a National Review intern?

In the summer, besides throngs of tourists, Washington is inundated by a lot of political conferences (including ours). Each conference has its niche, but mostly they are groups of the firm believers parading out their heroes and slamming their villains. Certainly conventions serve a purpose--excitement of activists and incitement of action--but in the large scheme of things, the conferences themselves often don't further political discourse.

I have to admit, I don't usually enjoy these ideological orgies. I am a strong believer (sometimes to fault) in the politics of the practical and these rhetoric filled ballrooms usually make my head spin.

Not to toot Campus Progress's horn but the last panel I attended on academic freedom here at the National Student conference was as refreshing as an oasis in the middle of the usual rhetorical desert. The panelists were Jacob Laskin of David Horowitz's Front Page magazine and Samuel Richards, a professor Horowitz named one of the 101 most dangerous academics in America in his book The Professors.

In this civil discussion the dangerous professor namer and the named dangerous professor acknowledged where they agreed (surprisingly a lot) and highlighted the places in which they disagreed. Walking out of that panel students could make decisions on their positions on academic freedom based on the few points of disagreement

What was so unique was that this jazz about free exchange of ideas was more than just rhetoric. The two panelists kept referring to the dinner they had last night where they discussed and debated academic freedom. That's right, these guys are friends. There is an art that is lost in government today; I'm going to dub it "pub politics." That is, people solving problems while they're not at work in their think tanks by conferring with their friend who don't agree with them. It would be interesting to do a historical study on how many policies were created or enacted this way. It is to our detriment that this is not a rarity.

Mr. Rasbin at one point answered a charge that much of Horowitz's evidence was not factual by saying "that's slander." He then started chuckling and said "I'm just kidding, let me answer that question." Yep, you got it, his joke was that he was going to dismiss a legitimate question with rhetoric.

It totally wasn't just pragmatic-obsessed me who felt this way. It seemed to be a consensus among all the students in this break-out session, from the lefty activists to the National Review intern sitting in the back.

Back, due to popular demand (or a 5-3 Supreme Court vote), it's the "Geneva Convention."

The Financial Times reported that in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England sent a memo to top military officers and the head DoD honchos declaring that the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention will heretofore be applied the conflict in Iraq.   Read More »

Throw back parties are my favorite but the New York State Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York State's confusingly-named court system) didn't invite me to theirs. Their opinion in Hernandez v. Robles is defies logic, in addition to being ludicrous. Here are some of the greatest hits:   Read More »

It's a tactic as old as the swing set. Two kids want to play on the same swing. It's a pretty even match-up. Each kid knows that if they hit their rival, they'll be in trouble with the teacher. The smarter kid, gums blazing, draws a big fat ugly nickname out of their arsenal.

This is about the level to which our political discourse has sunk. The dis-du-jour: "un-American."

I'm not entirely sure I understand why the word un-American rubs me so wrong. Maybe it has something to do with my association of the word with the Un-American Activities Committee--the vehicle for Senator Joseph McCarthy's crusade against real or imagined communists in the 1950s.

Or maybe it's because the word has no real meaning. What does it mean for a movement, person or idea to be "un-American."

Our concept of what is "American" has evolved over the years. Is it an "American" concept to interfere in the affairs of far-away countries with horrible governments? What does an "American" government look like? If free speech is an American value, is it un-American to limit it at all. Is it un-American to leave a July 4th picnic to watch World Cup soccer?

Basically it comes down to this: Who the hell am I (or anyone else) to determine what is American?

To allege that one could would be arrogant and silly. I research, I read, and I develop my views and opinion to the best of my ability but history will judge some of my views to be incorrect. And, history will most surely judge some Conservative views to be correct. That's okay, that's how America is supposed to work. That's the goal of public discourse in democracy.

The only real purpose of using an empty term like "un-American" is to shut your opponent up and marginalize their view. Tossing "un-American" around is a favorite tactic of people of all ideological persuasions, from Ann Coulter to the Campus Progress bloggers. It doesn't matter who does it, politics based on this name calling, sound bite grabbing, or angry aggressive discussion is a waste of time.   Read More »

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

   Read More »

Washington spends the summer nostalgically obsessed with baseball--Thursday is the World Series. The 45th annual Roll Call Congressional baseball game is at RFK stadium in Washington on Thurday. Unlike most summer bat-swinging fun in the capital, only members of Congress are allowed to play.

And they (surprise, surprise) take themselves really   Read More »

Today is a super special day! It is not often that there is good news to report in the Middle East. Since today is just such a day, I thought I'd alert you.

Palestinian Authority President Mahamood Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had breakfast this morning. It was the first time they've met since Olmert took office after his election. The meeting was informal and nothing substantive was accomplished.

But, today was a very good day, here's why:

1) The United States was not involved in setting up this morning's meeting. Now, I probably disagree with most Campus Progress readers in that I think that the United States should have an activist role in foreign policy. I also think that the Bush Administration's laissez-faire approach to the Israel issue pretty much sucks. However, if you look at the two successful peace agreements involving Israel, the United States was not involved in the initial meetings. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat took the initiative to start the ball rolling in Israeli-Egyptian peace making. He came to Israel in 1977 and spoke to the Israeli parliament (the Knesset). Two years later Sadat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin were signing a peace deal.

Same thing in 1994. Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin of Israel and King Hussein of Jordan had to call President Clinton up to invite him to their treaty signing, he wasn't already their being brokering the agreement. This contrasts to the many summits President Clinton called which, while well intentioned, didn't produce many lasting results. The catalyst here was King Abdullah of Jordan. It is pretty risky for a moderate Arab leader to welcome the Prime Minister of Israel into his country as King Abdullah did this morning. That he did host this morning's meeting shows real leadership.

2) People spoke their minds at the breakfast table. There is a tendency in the Middle East to tell people what they want to hear, and then do whatever you want to do. For example, I attempted to order a sandwich once in a restaurant in Israel. It wasn't my server's favorite sandwich. After unsuccessfully trying to convince me to order a different sandwich, my server agreed to bring me what I ordered. My food came, it was his favorite sandwich. A more serious example is the disparity between what former Palestinian Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat said in English and Arabic. Today, both leaders called a spade a spade; it doesn't help to gloss over the hard issues anymore.

I'm no idealist; I have no illusion that a casual breakfast is going to lead to peace. However, at least the leaders' baby steps are in the right direction, using the right methods.

"Kol HaKavod" is an expression in Hebrew that is not easily translatable. It literally means "all the respect," but is the classy Israeli equivalent to mad props. I think it really fits here--Kol HaKavod to everyone involved: keep it up!

In my world, boys never had cooties--I was always one to prefer soccer balls to Barbie dolls. But I've since learned to appreciate Barbie as a historical tool. It sometimes seems as if a whole field of study has grown up around Barbie as a reflection of American society. Apparently Barbie causes eating disorders, materialism and just about everything else that's wrong with America.

Barbie's evolution is legendary. Invented in 1959, Barbie started out as an ultra-feminine fashion icon--a kind of Jackie O for kids. Then, in our parent's generation, Barbie, along with our mothers, was liberated via Barbie the astronaut, and Barbie the lawyer. In our celebrity obsessed modern world, Barbie did what any uber-skinny rich celebrity with long blond hair must do; she had a high profile breakup!

So, I was doing some research on the Los Angeles Times website this morning and I came across Pat Morrison's column headlined "Kill Barbie." This seemed a little extreme to me, but I'll admit, I was intrigued.

You should read the article but basically what she said was that after 46 years, Barbie is old news. Enough with the evolution, Barbie is a dried up well. Mattel should take a clue from the fact that the Barbie brand has had 3 heads in 5 years. Then Morrison launched into this rant about torturing Barbie and how she should die on live TV via beheading or lethal injection.

To tell you the truth I don't really care if the Barbie brand stays or goes but once again, the discussion of Barbie was a really interesting mirror of our society. Morrison's language struck me as exceptionally odd. Usually when I think of the people who fantasize about torturing Barbies I think of the villain in Toy Story who mutilates the toys, not a mostly serious columnist in a major paper. The language Morrison used to prove her point is pretty disturbing in the wake of the reports of about the two soldiers tortured, mutilated and murdered in Iraq. As war images have pervaded our consciousness, have we become more violent in our thought in rhetoric? Has torture subconsciously become the tool to punish people we hate?

On second thought, I do have an opinion of the preservation of Barbie: keep her, she's an invaluable sociological tool.

There comes a time in every parent's life when they walk into their child's room only to be greeted by an adolescent angst induced cry of "don't you knock?" As painful as it is, parents, for the most part, tend to oblige. This is because privacy in our society is equated with liberty and Americans are (rightfully) obsessed with liberty.

But to most Americans who don't live in a world of high ideals and don't subject their friends to hours of grandiloquent rants about the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government, yesterday's Supreme Court ruling against privacy rights seems reasonable, even logical. Hudson v. Michigan had a pretty unsympathetic plaintiff. Booker T. Hunter was hanging around his house surrounded by a bunch of coke and guns--not your ideal poster child. The police had a warrant, announced themselves, and then entered the appellant's house without knocking.

The issue that the nifty nine had to decide was whether the evidence the police gathered was admissible even though the police didn't follow the rules and knock. 5-4 (eek, post Alito/Roberts those ones make my stomach turn) the court ruled that the evidence was.

This guy was so guilty the knocking wouldn't have done anything. But this ruling is REALLY dangerous. You see, there is a procedure for arrests, it's methodical and predictable. It's right here in my legal studies 101 notes (great class). The thing is that the reason cops go through all the steps in arrest is because they like to convict criminals. You can only convict criminals by presenting evident in a trial. Evidence gathered illegally is inadmissible.

So basically what the ferocious five did was set a precedent that you can cut corners in the arrest process and still admit your evidence. In other words, they castrated the fourth amendment. Ouch!

The thing is, it gets worse. New technology coupled with an administration that watches too much old "big brother" propaganda has eroded privacy rights a HUGE amount. Senator Clinton gave a brilliant speech this morning at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society (housed in the offices of the Center for American Progress just like Campus Progress) about the erosion of privacy and privacy rights--as she pointed out, she's an expert on the subject (more on the speech is forthcoming).

Here's a startling statistic Senator Clinton brought up: 1/5 Americans had data about them compromised in the last 15 months. The problem is that the laws that govern privacy are so outdated that it is hard to prosecute. Also, a lot of data processing has been outsourced overseas where the few laws we do have don't apply. Apparently there have been several cases abroad where subcontractors handling peoples' personal data have blackmailed their US bosses for more money by threatening to post private information on the internet. That's not okay!

Good new though: I think this issue has legs. Senator Clinton is going to propose the PROTECT act (can't remember what the acronym stands for) which has some good ideas-check it out. Also, progressives have some allies on privacy rights--for once. Libertarian types could jump on the bandwagon because they're slightly adverse to the government snooping around. National Security hard-core peeps have got to be flipping out about hackers getting the personal information of personnel who work at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Hell, if this is any indication, Newt Gingrich is working with Senator Clinton on health data privacy rights

What a concept, good policy could actually be implemented…Dude!

Funny tidbit I thought I'd share:

Yesterday Roll Call reported on former (it makes me kind of giddy to type that) Congressman, and Majority Leader Tom Delay's latest campaign gaffe. Don't worry, this one won't make you sick, it's just a kind of comical.

Most of the time when Delay speaks it seems like he has no heart/brain. This time it was true. Delay recorded a robo-call urging voters to nominate Republican Mark Ellmore to challenge Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) in the Northern Virginia congressional district where Delay lives. After Delay-robot explained his own credentials for telling people how to vote (I think he left out the money-laundering piece) he explained that he had changed his voter registration from Texas to Northern California (instead of Northern Virginia) in order to get Delay out of office. Oops!

Evidence of ambitions to take over the whole country, perhaps. Funny, definitely!

Note to all candidates: If the formers Congressmen offers his services, do not Delay: walk, do not run to the nearest excuse!

One of the few concrete rules of the Persian Gulf (and in the wider Middle East) is that there is no way to understand the situation on the ground without actually being on the ground so my original reaction to the President's surprise trip to Iraq was cautiously positive. Clearly it was a publicity stunt meant to control nose-diving popularity by taking credit for last week's killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi but politicians will politicians and all's well that ends well (I heart cliches.) In any case the feeling of desert sand between your toes seems to have a grounding effect on people.

Then details started coming out about the trip and the President's grand exit from his own star-studded summit. Apparently Nuri al-Malaki, the newly elected Prime Minister of Iraq didn't know President Bush was dropping by until he was actually in Bagdad. First of all, the unnecessary secrecy thing is getting pretty old. Also, didn't Mama Bush teach young Dubya that dropping by unexpectedly is just plain rude. Not to mention unproductive!

I think there is actually some consensus in at home about Iraq. Most people think that the troops should come "as soon as possible" -there's just some (understatement) debate about how soon as possible. Regardless, the stronger the Iraqi government is when we leave the better. So, one would think that the President would do everything to strengthen Prime Minister al-Malaki.

Wrong!

The best thing the Prime Minister can do to strengthen his own position is by appearing to be independently and decisively ruling his country and not a weak puppet doing the US's bidding. Enter President Bush from stage far-right without al-Malaki's permission or knowledge. The Prime Minister has to scramble to put things together and then appear at a photo-op with President Bush. This may not come as a surprise, but President Bush is not terribly popular in Iraq so the Prime Minister may not be ordering wallet-size prints. No matter, I'm pretty sure Al-Qaeda in Iraq will print up plenty of copies.

I just got back to the Campus Progress office after hearing Senator Clinton speak at the Take Back America conference. Those rascally live bloggers Alex and Tim have already moved on to later speakers but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.

Normally I hate squishy grand philosophical analysis of political speeches or politics in general for that matter but as I was sitting there in the ballroom of the Washington Hilton the grand analysis started pouring in. I promise it wasn't my fault; it must have been all those red, blue, and star-shaped lights everywhere.

Senator Clinton's speech was a telling metaphor of the progressive movement. While, as usual, the put together Senator came equipped with a kick-booty and perfect hair (quite a feat in the Washington summer humidity) she looked more tired than I have ever seen her. It takes a lot of endurance for the Progressive movement to continue fighting when our ideological opposites but sometimes it's grinding. Though typically charismatic, Senator Clinton opened by talking about voting reform--about which both she in the crowd seemed only mildly enthused. Don't get me wrong voting reform is REALLY important, as in the basis of democracy--it just seemed like even the Take Back America folks were all screamed-out about the Electoral College

Senator Clinton's speech showed influence of the sometimes garbled progressive message. She touched on everything from the bankruptcy bill to AIDS to fiscal responsibility, in addition to Iraq. She began laying out a three-point plan for America. Point number one was reforming the economy, Then came forming a National Security strategy and a discussion of Iraq. The audience wasn't responsive and she quickly backed off to the safer ground of domestic issue (education, unions are good, the mishandling of Katrina) and it took her a good ten minutes to find point number 3; fiscal responsibility.

But it was worth the wait because the best of progressivism came out in her fiscal responsibility speech (bear with me, I promise I'm only mildly crazy). When she introduced the idea that fiscal discretion should be a hallmark of progressivism the only sound in the ballroom was a few Birkenstocks tapping skeptically. She then explained: fiscal responsibility is necessary to progressivism because there needs to be money to fund progressive initiatives at home and abroad. By the time she finished her list of initiatives to fund, her voice was drowned out by applause. Progressives need not agree, but they need to be open to agreeing as was this crowd on fiscal responsibility.

She then moved on to Iraq. She explained her position--the Iraqi government needs to take more responsibility in order for our troops to come home as soon as possible--even though it was a position not shared by most of the conference. Some people booed, the guy sitting behind me set the record for screaming "bring them home" the most times in a minute, but she didn't dodge the issue. It would have been really easy to just not discuss Iraq. But that's not the progressive movement. For better or for worse there is a diversity of views. We don't sugar-coat or glaze over our differences like a certain other ideological movement. But we should also not let any one issue splinter the movement (I stole that, that's was Senator Clinton's next point).

All in all, I thought it was a good speech. Senator Clinton neither is not exactly the champion of this crowd nor is this crowd indicative of the whole progressive movement. That she was well received, warts and all, shows a maturity in Take Back America's audience!

Like many of our generation I grew up in a house where "anything boys could do girls could do better," or if you prefer women can do anything men could do women could do "backwards in heels."

I have two dynamic sisters and Superwoman for a mom. My Dad and brother would believe in "girl power," even if they had a choice. My parents told me about barriers that still remain for professional women but my assumption was always that I'd bust the barriers when it was my turn.

So yesterday I had a momentary moderate identity crisis. I was on my deck in suburban Maryland, reading the Link Brook's Sunday column with my Dad. Brook's column discusses a study of the different tastes in books of successful men and women in England. He moves on to discuss the scientific causes for those preferences--there are fundamental differences between the way men's and women's brains work.

My mind was inching towards Brook's implication that guys and girls should be taught separately in order to tailor a curricula that would specifically engage male and female students. Larry Summers was invading my subconscious.

No! That couldn't be. Any type of school segregation is wrong. Besides, I always liked having guys in my classes. But how could I ignore scientific evidence--I'm progressive, not conservative!

Here's how I see it: While there are significant differences between how guys and girls learn, so too are there significant differences between the learning styles of different guys and different girls. For example, while I have am a mushy humanities major (the kind where I'll never get a job), I know a lot of female business or engineering majors. They may not be the majority, but they are a sizable enough minority to not be ignored.

Teachers should be equipped to explain concepts multiple ways. Both genders should be present in the same classroom because there because there is great diversity in the way members of both genders learn. Trying to pinpoint to the way a child learns based on gender is a little ridiculous and a lot futile. Add to that that by having a coed class students reap the benefits of collaborative learning and having multiple viewpoints in the classroom, gender segregation seems even sillier.

Okay, phew! That was a close call.

The level of Ann Coulter's hypocrisy has become so great that I think I may actually throw up.

In her book "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" Coulter now infamously called the politically active 9/11 widows, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza of East Brunswick, New Jersey "The witches of East Brunswick" and wrote that "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

That's the women who is calling me Godless? My God, and just as importantly, my morals my instruct me on how to treat widows and orphans "You shall not abuse any widow or orphan.(Exodus 21)"

I've got news, verbal abuse counts!

If Coulter's rhetoric was not so disgusting it would be funny!

These courageous women are the opposite of Coulter. Couter takes the good, say, freedom of speech, and twists it into something bad, treason (the title of her second book). These women took tragedy and turned into an effort to improve the security of all Americans.

But I don't need to defend these women, they did just fine on their own: Don Quixote is the bible--after all, apparently to her "facts are the enemy of truth!"