Annika Carlson's Blog

What color is Jack Bauer's blood?

AnnikaCarlson — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:57:31 EST

Trick question: Jack Bauer doesn't bleed.

For those of you who live under a rock, the season premiere of Fox's "24" aired tonight, kicking off the show's sixth season featuring the ass-kicking, terrorist-killing, always-right Jack Bauer.

While I'm a dedicated fan of the show, I find myself wondering if I should be--should progressives embrace a show that glorifies breaking every know domestic and international law to track down terrorists? Should I get pumped when Jack Bauer single-handedly finds his enemies, tortures information out of them, and shoots them before continuing his quest for justice? Or should I turn off the TV in horror, recognizing the uncomfortable similarities between Bauer's world and ours?

The New York Times noted this week that while "24" sometimes deviates from its hawkish model--by casting terrorist masterminds as upper-class white Americans, for instance--torture and law-breaking are increasingly utilized to get fast results in intense national security situations.

It's just TV, I know, but what does our obsession with "24" say about us? I'd like to think it's just wishful thinking that even the most complicated terrorist problems could be solved in 24 hours--after all, if everyone just listened to Jack Bauer, the show would be called "12." But I can't help but be troubled by what my choices say when I worship weekly at the Jack Bauer temple.

Big surprise: Dobson misrepresents research

AnnikaCarlson — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:12:29 EST

Not that it's shocking or new, but everyone's favorite uber-conservative moralist James Dobson misrepresented a bunch of research in his recent column for Time magazine.

The column, which lambasted Mary Cheney for-- gasp!--wanting to have kids like any other red-blodded American, cited research from renowned gender and human development scholar Carol Gilligan and others. He didn't mention that the researchers' conclusions contradicted his own, and that he was taking their findings totally out of context. Oops.

Check out this video Gilligan and others released on youtube, denouncing the latest of Dobson's many underhanded, slimy moves against gay Americans.

Anatomy of an Immigration Rally

AnnikaCarlson — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:37:37 EDT

Have you ever been one of over 100,000 people dancing your way through your city? If not, I HIGHLY recommend it. I joined the immigration rights march yesterday in Washington DC to get a feel for the anatomy of a movement sweeping the nation. While the Senate struggles to overcome their seeming paralysis by taking a two-week recess, millions of people across the country took to the streets to make their active presence known. If nothing else, the sheer force of being in a crowd that big is overwhelming and impressive--it's not often you see that many people united and taking a stand for what they believe in.

Fellow CP intern Brandon and I joined my friend August, who, fortunately for us, speaks Spanish, to go to the march preceding the rally on the National Mall--we met just north of the city in Malcolm X Park, where a couple hundred marchers started their trek to the base of the Washington Monument. We passed the White House and a good chunk of downtown en route, closing down multiple streets and drawing people out of their offices to watch (and, in many cases, encourage) the mass of marchers. August translated the various chants for us--although there was a lot of diversity in the crowd, most of the organizers and most passionate attendees were Hispanic. "Si se puede" and "Hoy, marchamos; mañana, votamos"--"Yes we can" and "Today, we march; tomorrow, we vote"--reflect the sentiment shared by the hundreds of thousands--we love this country and want to stay to participate. Easily the most common cheer emphasized this further--everyone was loudest when shouting "USA! USA!"

So in a crowd where Arab, Chinese, Puerto Rican, white American, Canadian, Mexican, Honduran, black American, Venezuelan (and this list could go on forever) people represented their varied heritage but all marched under the American flag, there were drums, guitars, bullhorns and whistles to keep us moving and motivated. Everyone smiled and laughed, everyone was courteous and friendly--at one point on the way to the march, a white guy passed a bunch of us in the Metro and started saying in Spanish, "The gringos are with you!" As soon as August translated for me, I joined in the laughing and cheering, knowing I wasn't on the outside there even though I'm white--I was there for the same reason as everybody else.

Giving America a raise-- FINALLY

AnnikaCarlson — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:32:20 EDT

With "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" blaring in the background, activists and congressional interns gathered in a park outside the Russell Senate Building to support Senator Kennedy's bill to raise the minimum wage. Kennedy, calling Bush "King George," asked for backing from Congress to raise the national minimum wage from $5.15/hr to $7.25 over the next two years by passing his Fair Minimum Wage Act. Since it's been AGES since Congress raised the minimum wage (ok, ten years, anyway), it's about time someone picked up this issue in earnest. Kennedy's right--it's a "fairness issue" and the working people of America deserve better.

Kennedy and Edwards were joined by a representative from the Ohio minimum wage effort, as well as a student from Howard University whose work on the minimum wage issue with the grassroots group Progressive Maryland got the minimum wage raised in that state.

After Kennedy riled up the crowd, telling us he wanted to hear a crowd "so loud that they hear it down in the White House," he was joined by everyone's favorite former Senator, John Edwards. After the swoons from the middle-aged women in the crowd subsided, Edwards started right in, saying that "The great moral issue of our time is the 37 million Americans waking up in poverty every day." He also referenced the many minimum wage ballot initiatives up in 2006--if Congress can't get it done, he said, "we're going to do it out in the country."

War on Christians: finally over

AnnikaCarlson — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:15:14 EST

With a couple good nights of sleep under my belt, I'm ready to offer final reflections on the "War on Christians."

The conference wrapped up with a duo of hyper preachers: Janet Parshall and Alan Keyes. Parshall started things off talking about how she got saved, and how important John 3:16, that famous end zone verse, is to Christians. "I understood unconditional love when I heard it," she recalled. Of course, it doesn't seem that she's understood or heard much about unconditional love since, because she went on to lump all non-Christians into one group of misguided, Bible-hating, freedom-restricting heathens.

She calls the war on Christians a culture war, in which two "mutually exclusive worldviews" battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Based on her speech, those two groups are Christians and, again, everyone else, with the former spreading love and the latter sowing discord. "This war is as ancient as when we stepped out of the Garden [of Eden]," she said, proceeding to give us a lesson in Biblical history to prove her point. I'm not really sure how there could be a war on Christians before Christianity existed; that was probably too complicated for her to tackle in a 40 minute speech.

She wrapped up with a long story about the prophet Elijah, emphasizing that "Elijah was upsetting the status quo! That's what Christians do--upset the status quo!" And even though they'd been fighting against change and booing progress the whole conference, the audience loved that one. They gave Parshall a standing ovation. Surprise.

Parshall was followed by Alan Keyes, who is likely certifiably insane. His speech focused on the God-given rights of humans, referencing our beloved Declaration of Independence and repeating that humans are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights."

Curiously, he also spoke of "terroristic Islamic clerics" who are "spilling blood" in the name of the Allah. By reducing Muslims to bloodthirsty savages, it doesn't seem like Keyes recognizes them as equal creations of God. Of course, Keyes was only applying God-given rights to Christians, not to any of the other groups reviled at the conference, like homosexuals, feminists or atheists. And never mind the fact that nearly all the conference's policy advocacy flies in the face of ANY sense of inherent human equality and dignity.

Working himself into a fist-pounding, arm-waving fervor, Keyes somehow condemned everything un-Christian and pushed the idea that a country ruled by Christians is like a country ruled by God. He also had a tendency to lapse into a British accent when speaking more quietly, and a tendency to hurt my ears when yelling into his microphone. And then he got a standing ovation or two.

What was missing from all this, and the conference in general, was any true discussion of God and Jesus. It must be handy to know the will of God and the intent of the Savior and be able to translate it into concrete policy like abortion bans and traditional marriage bills. I was struck by the decisiveness with which all the speakers declared their agenda the intent of God, the will of God incarnate in their bill or program or radio show or whatever. The whole thing just seemed so reductive--no discernment, no questioning, just rhetoric confirming that God supported their agenda.

Thankfully, I somehow made it through without revealing that I think Jesus was a counter-culture hippie. I would have been tarred and feathered for sure--and the original GW would have been there to oversee. One of these days I'm going to have to change my name for doing things like this--who knows how many fiery conservative Christianist mailing lists I'm on by now.

More War on Christians: Day II

AnnikaCarlson — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:24:50 EST

Are you ready for some real gold? "The Judiciary: Overruling God," this afternoon's panel on the conference's pet issue, judicial activism, was a delight.

It opened with what I thought was going to provide me with a few moments' escape from the pretty frightening scene around me: Representative Todd Akin opened his speech by saying, "Imagine you are at a baseball game."

I can do this, I thought. I can picture pretzels and summer and no-hitters and all that instead of a room full of ridiculously backward Christianists. He took us through a guided imagery in which the umpire called a player with two strikes as out, and my mental picture went downhill from there as the umpire became a judicial activist and the baseball player a poor, oppressed Evangelical Christian or something like that.

The panel went downhill from there, too, getting further and further from saying what they all really meant: we don't like judges who rule based on the Constitution instead of the Bible. Because that was their basic message--they're not against ALL activist judges, because presumably the kind that approve of pharmaceutical refusal clauses are ok by them.

Apparently, Rep. Akin doesn't remember what being a public servant means, either: instead of considering his pesky constituents, he dreams up legislation by sitting around with his Congressional buds and thinking, "it sure would be a nifty thing to do to impeach a federal judge; we haven't done that in a while." Yeah, that's an actual quotation.

Phil Jauregui, Director of the Judeo-Christian council, agreed wholeheartedly--he preached that "the biggest problem in American politics is judicial activism." The failed war on terrorism and the quagmire in Iraq must have slipped his mind; so too must have any thought of meandering Katrina repairs and the millions of Americans speaking in the streets this week about immigration.

Fortunately, Jauregui provided a three-point plan to judicial success: prayer, appointments and accountability. Those last two as what he calls "two wings on an eagle--you need them both." Yeah. Like two wings. I see it now. So is prayer the head or the tail or what? Maybe I don't get it.

A bunch of the panelists also mentioned raising money for Senator Rick Santorum as part of some large-scale winning strategy, which was confusing for some pretty obvious reasons. He's not even on the Judiciary Committee! Whatever.

That's my growing attitude toward these people: whatever. I'm sitting here listening to people who assign a nasty, political agenda to Jesus and get standing ovations for it. In fact, they even get standing ovations just for walking into the room, or for quoting the Bible in the middle of a speech. Here's another important lesson learned: conservative Christianists LOVE standing ovations.

I've yet to mentally process the conference's final speaker, the down-right crazy Alan Keyes. Check back later for more after I regain a bit more sanity.

War on Christians: Day II

AnnikaCarlson — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:54:08 EST

How's this for a welcome back to the conference? The very first thing I got to see today was a lovely speech by one of the most law-abiding, morally upright Congressional leaders I've ever heard: former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

According to the introduction given by Vision America's own Rick Scarborough, there are two reasons people are saying bad things about DeLay: first, because he wants to govern in a Christ-like way. Second, he's against liberal activist judges. Silly me--I always thought it was because he was indicted on criminal charges of conspiracy to violate election laws and is generally a very slimy politician.

Unfortunately, someone warned this bastion of Christian values that the media caught on these little side antics, and as a result he pretty much avoided saying anything interesting in his speech. I did get a good history lesson, though, because his strategy involved using the words of historical political leaders instead of bothering to come up with his own content.

DeLay also referenced John Winthrop's famous "City on a Hill" sermon in which Winthrop, mid-Atlantic on the way to the New World, convinces his fellow travelers that America is destined to be like the Biblical City on a Hill, setting a good example for the rest of the world. The audience ate it up--somehow, none of them questioned the Christian messages America sends by allowing torture in our prisons, ignoring the effects of our policies on our global neighbors and irresponsibly eating up vast amounts of God's creation.

But anyway, I've moved beyond expecting anything like that here. Other highlights of DeLay's speech included a comparison between dwindling support for the Civil War as it approached completion and modern dwindling support for the Iraq war--"Sound familiar?" he said. It didn't really sound familiar to me since those are two of the most dissimilar wars in American history, but maybe I wasn't listening closely enough.

As DeLay drew to a close, he received some words on comfort from Scarborough, who assured him that "God always does his best work after a crucifixion."

Fire-and-brimstone Lutheran Pastor Laurence White followed DeLay with a speech that was somehow mostly about Germany. Although Scarborough promised White would be our ticket to glory, the only part of White's speech worth listening to was the opening anecdote in which White told us that every time he looks at his "lethal" 50-pound yellow lab, "I think of Tom DeLay."

Tom DeLay--Jesus being crucified or big, scary dog? I'm not sure. Maybe we should have a poll or collect votes or something to help figure this one out, because I'm getting some conflicting information here.

War on Christians Conference: Day I

AnnikaCarlson — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:39:25 EST

Oh Lord, this is going to be harder than I thought.

A month or so after CPAC, I thought I could handle Vision America's "The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006" conference this week in Washington, DC. As a Christian myself, I've never felt as thought war is being waged against me and my religion (although I can think of a few religions Christians have been attacking recently…) so curiosity got the best of me--I agreed to undercover blog again for Campus Progress.

I just got out of the winningly titled panel on homosexuality and Christianity: "The Gay Agenda: America Won't Be Happy." Ominous but ambiguous, no? A perfect gimmick to get people in.

The panel, led by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, was enlightening beyond my expectations. I learned, for instance, about the three worst examples of homosexual activity. The Top Three, as told by Peter Labarbera from the Illinois Family Institute:

1. extreme promiscuity--apparently when homosexuals talk about monogamy, "it's not real monogamy."
2. gross and unnatural behavior--including any sexual activity between members of the same sex, of course.
3. the "totalitarian impulse" of the gay movement--I can't even find words to describe this one, and apparently neither can Labarbera because I have no idea where he got his one.

So in order to reclaim the homosexuality discussion, Christians need to "remind the public that homosexual behavior is always wrong and explain why," said Labarbera, offering no further explanation. When talking about same-sex couples, we need to stop using the word marriage without quotation marks--the gay agenda apparently has control over our punctuation use and we're not going to take it any more.

Other panelists like Brian Camenker used fear to mobilize members of the crowd (who were for the most part rabid with anger before anyone spoke) against gay rights activists: "Ladies and gentlemen, these people are serious! They're coming after you!" Camenker also compared proponents of his hateful movement to the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the first wave of soldiers on D-Day, which makes no sense and is pretty much disrespectful of everything for which those men fought.

When the panel was opened for questions, the audience largely focused on how to reframe the public discourse to give an advantage to anti-gay activism. A few pointers from the esteemed panelists: use the phrase "natural marriage" instead of "traditional marriage" to refute anyone who cites science that finds homosexuality to be the result of genetics and hormones. And of course, use "sodomite" instead of the too-permissive "homosexual"-- let that nice gay guy down the street know how you really feel about his sin.

The panel got a standing ovation from attendees and I quickly escaped from the room to avoid puking on anyone or yelling something about God's unconditional love. Heaven forbid we talk about that instead of all this hating of sinners and sins.

Worse than Horowitz?

AnnikaCarlson — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:52:16 EST

What's worse that David Horowitz's McCarthy-esque attacks on America's professors? US officials' McCarthy-esque attacks on our profs.

That's exactly what happened at Pomona College last week, when two LA Sheriff's Department detectives who work with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force stopped by to chat with Professor Miguel Tinker-Salas during his office hours.

Did I say chat? Oh, I meant interrogate about his US citizenship, communication with the Venezuelan government and Venezuelan presence in LA. Tinker-Salas teaches Latin American History at Pomona and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's foreign relations policy in Venezuela. Rather than asking him questions to take advantage of his academic knowledge, the detectives grilled Tinker-Salas on things that are publicly available, like how many Venezuelans are living in LA. Since this stuff is easily accessible, Tinker-Salas had no choice but to see the interrogation as a "fishing expedition."

They didn't stop after talking to Tinker-Salas, either. According to an email Tinker-Salas sent to Pomona faculty members, "…three or four students who were outside my office informed me that these individuals had asked them about my background, my classes, what I taught, my politics and they even wrote down the cartoons on my door."

He continued: "I consider this to be an attempt at intimidation and cast on matters of academic freedom."

The FBI released a lame attempt to cover their asses, but let's face it--this is just another in a long string of thinly-veiled attempts to silence profs with nonconformist viewpoints. Tinker-Salas, fortunately, has the full support of the wide-awake Pomona community.

As Pomona President David Oxtoby put it, "I am extremely concerned about the chilling effect this kind of intrusive government interest could have on free scholarly and political discourse."

Midwestern Rockstar

AnnikaCarlson — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:48:07 EST

I have a new favorite politician: Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack . I attended a luncheon where he spoke today at the National Press Club and it was like listening to myself talk about where this country should be going--and I'm not just talking about the similarities between Iowan and Minnesotan accents.

Although Vilsack's speech pretty explicitly set up his interest in running for president in 2008, it dug in deeper than most pre-campaign rhetoric. Vilsack provided concrete examples about how his policies have turned things around in Iowa. Increased emphasis on adoption and universal preschool has tripled the number of adoptions and reduced the number of abortions. Iowa is the country's leading producer and one of the leading consumers of ethanol and biodiesel. Apparently, Iowa is turning around due to the cooperation of Vilsack and the state's Republican congress.

But beyond those things I've never heard about and very well could be controversial in his home state, Vilsack hit on exactly what I've been thinking about this country: America has lost its sense of community. It's his big catchphrase that hints at a larger problem in American society. We sorely lack the kind of strong, inclusive community that foster true growth, creativity and innovation--the things we're going to need more than ever in the next few decades.

Just as Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer testified yesterday at the Center for American Progress, we need a call to action to unify Americans toward rising to the challenges we're currently presented with. Problems like renewable energy, health care costs and the competitiveness of American students and businesses aren't going to go away and we can only get by on patched up programs for so long. Vilsack and Schweitzer represent the progressive Midwest--those of us willing to embrace individual sacrifices in order to get this country back on track.

According to Vilsack, all we need now are more national leaders willing to put out the call--and he all but volunteered to be the one to do just that.

Last Chance to Take a Stand Against Alito

AnnikaCarlson — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:05:58 EST

Thanks to my friend Lauren who's an intern for Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) I got a ticket to watch the Alito cloture vote from the Senate gallery. Basically, it was go time for all those in favor of a filibuster to stop the impending confirmation of Alito--the time to pull together and take action against Alito.

As cool as it was to be there at an important moment in judicial history--not to mention how geeked I was to see so many big-name senators in one place--all the political star power in the room couldn't make up for the fact that we lost. Rather resoundingly. The vote went 72-25 in favor of ending debate on the nomination, which brings the direct vote to the floor tomorrow morning.

Although we knew this was going to be close and that in the end Alito would probably be confirmed, I can't yet shake my profound disappointment in the outcome. It was frustrating to watch senators swarming below me--chatting, shaking hands, taking their sweet time to come down and vote--while their votes pretty much screwed our generation out of civil liberties and a just, balanced government.

Tomorrow is the final vote so tonight's the night to call and email your senators to make your voice heard. It's going to be close, and we need to make a strong ideological stand. The battle is just as important as the outcome-- it's the principle of the thing.

Alito's Broken Pledge

AnnikaCarlson — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:13:49 EST

Displaying strong conviction this morning, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) called Alito out on breaking a pledge he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee 15 years ago.

Alito told the Committee in 1990 that he would recuse (remove) himself from any case involving the mutual fund firm Vanguard, since Alito invests in the company and his participation in Vanguard cases would present a conflict of interest. Alito later broke this pledge by ruling on a case involving Vanguard in 2002.

In his questioning this morning, Kennedy refused to accept Alito's claims that he didn't think of the pledge at the time--Alito mentioned that it had been twelve years since he made the pledge, as though we should forgive him because it'd been a long time and he forgot what he'd previously said. Thanks to Kennedy's aggressive questioning, the American public is finally seeing Alito's true colors.

Alito's broken pledge is a clear indication that his defense of standards for Supreme Court Justices is nothing more than empty rhetoric that's contradicted when we look at his actions.