As The Huffington Post reports, hours after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly killed 13 and wounded 31 at Ft. Hood Army Base on Nov. 5, a local candidate and the media are trying to frame this issue through the lens of terrorism.
Lt. Col. Allen West issued a statement saying “This enemy preys on downtrodden soldiers and teaches them extremism will lift them up." He added, “Terrorists are infiltrating Military," and, "Our soldiers are being brainwashed."
Ralph Peters of the New York Postclaims it was “the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.”
Unfortunately, there is no common definition of terrorism, but the Department of Defense defines it as “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” West’s idea of terrorism implies organizational capacity, while Peters suggests identifiable political and religious motives.
Instead of politicizing this act, it may be helpful to examine instead of assume. An incorrect and tactless assumption could cause serious repercussions for the Muslim community.
There is no information as of yet to suggest a political or religious objective for yesterday’s violent act. Nor is there any indication at all that this was planned or organized.
Even by their standards, the New York Post should be ashamed to publish such garbage. Not only is Peters jumping the gun on guilt, but he is capitalizing on fear by directly implying that this tragedy is a result of political and religious extremism without any facts to back this implication up. Peters even goes so far as to imply that Islam itself is a violent religion.
Hasan, an Arab-American Muslim of Palestinian descent, is purported to have strongly disagreed with his impending deployment. But according to an AP report, an anonymous army official said that Hasan was willing to go to Afghanistan but not Iraq. This peculiarity provides context that compounds attempts to neatly tie it to political-religious terrorism or organized crime.
Instead of jumping the gun on this issue, let’s for once turn to examination. Whether people like it or not, Hasan is an American citizen. Therefore, he is a product of American culture.
A new ScoopDaily/Zogby poll shows that young people, who have been overwhelmingly identifying as progressive, are starting to say that it's President Barack Obama that's abandoning the progressive cause, not them. The poll finds that about 30 percent of young people believe, "abandoning many of the progressive causes he championed during his campaign." About 44 percent believe Obama is still working "as hard as he can" to fulfill his promises.
The refrain of how young people are selfish and have a short attention span is almost becoming cliché at this point. When 10 percent or less of young people showed up at the polls in New Jersey and Virginia, E.J. Dionne in the Washington Postnoted, "the Obama change-agents, particularly the young, were notably absent from the voting booths this week."
The expectation among progressives and campaigns is that Obama activated young people and drove them to the polls. Now, the attitude seems to be, campaigns seem to think that the money, effort, and organizing that went into the 2008 election should glide young people into engagement for years to come. While the potential for young people to stay engaged in progressive politics is strong, the organizing needs to be a two-way street. Progressive young people are a base like any other group of people, and when they become frustrated with the direction policies are going in, it's no wonder they become frustrated.
My advice for young progressives is to start advocating and sharing your ideas with the world. I am tired of young progressives who say that what they do or say will not make a difference. Young people have proven after the last election that we are extremely influential and we will fight for our convictions. Therefore, it is now our duty to continue our politically active reputation that we won after the election of Barack Obama. It is your job, as a young progressive, to become an active citizen! Whether that is writing to your Congressmen, participating in a political organization, going to DC to protest, or running for office, it is time to become active!
Rent-a-Ruminant and The Goat Patrol are advertising brush removal as an eco-friendly alternative over traditional landscaping options. Though the idea perhaps sounds a bit too absurd to be true, this is no joke. It turns out goats are actually better at removing brush in hard to reach, dangerous areas. They’re better climbers, they have better balance, they’ll pretty much eat anything, and they leave natural fertilizer.
“Tammy” started Rent-a-Ruminant in 2004. Based out of Seattle, the company has provided services for universities, construction projects, public utilities, and park districts. The Goat Patrol, based out of North Carolina, was founded by Alix Bowman. Despite the seriousness of their cause, it’s clear the business owners have a sense of humor.
Tammy gives himself the comically dramatic title of “Chief Goat Wrangler,” and Bowman has an entire section of the website introducing the public to Mr. Pickles, Buster, and Magnus – just three of her day labors.
An excerpt:
Magnus von Magnusson, Magnus to his friends, is a two year old pygmy. He loves being part of the herd and fits in well with the other goats. We don't know what happened to Magnus before he wound up at APS, but we can tell it impacted his trust of people. We are giving him plenty of time and space to grow comfortable. We fully expect Magnus to become as confident with people as he is with the other goats.
The tax payer bill of rights (TABOR) initiatives on the ballot in Maine and Washington State were both voted down yesterday. The measure, which is a pet project of many on the anti-tax right, would have capped state, county, and city funding at current revenue levels. Recession-era spending would be locked in place, decimating essential services. But it didn't happen.
In WA I-1033 lost by 55 percentage points, while Maine's Question 4 lost by 60 percentage points. In the beginning of the race, both were up by similar numbers. In between early polls and election night, spirited opposition campaigns arose in both states. TABOR opponents highlighted the potential damage to public services and voters took heed.
I wrote an article for the Prospect on why a TABOR victory would have been disastrous for either state.Check it out.
As far as I can tell, the conventional wisdom about yesterday's election in Virginia is that it represents a "shot across the bow" from independent voters worried about heavy spending and deficits. The election wasn't a referendum on President Obama's performance, but it was a sign that independents are increasingly uneasy with the liberal direction the country is taking.
This is complete bunk. For starters, self-described "independent" voters are often anything but; when pressed by pollsters, most independents will admit to leaning in one direction or another. In Virginia, it seems that most independents lean to the right - a poll from this summer suggests that the vast majority of independents identify as either moderate or conservative. If you were to ask independents who voted in yesterday's election whether or not they supported John McCain in last year's election, I'm fairly confident that a solid majority would say that they did. In fact, if you were to ask yesterday's voters whether they supported John McCain, a majority would say yes - 51 percent, to be precise.
Although Maine's "No On 1" campaign, an effort to reject a ballot initiative overturning same-sex marriage in Maine, got much attention, it was ultimately unsuccessful. (For those who are counting, Maine rejected gay marriage by a 4-point margin, and California's Prop. 8 measure passed by 5 points.) Meanwhile, Washington state confirmed Referendum 71, estimated to pass with just over 51 percent of the vote. The AP reports, "Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote."
So does this mean that same-sex marriage doesn't pass when put up to a popular vote but same-sex domestic partnerships do? The election results of these two states hardly serve as projection for the rest of the country. After all, Washington state is small and has a firm socially liberal base in Seattle. But if the question is fundamentally about rights, the LGBT community may have to consider if they'd be willing to settle for equalizing rights though domestic partnerships or if they'd have to do a lot more grassroots work to make folks comfortable with letting teh gayz into the insitution of marriage.
Another day, another major news outlet pretending it knows anything about ROTC at Harvard. This time, it's Michael Winerip and the New York Times Magazine. As anyone who's read a sentence or two about the debate at Harvard knows, allowing ROTC or any other recruitment program on campus that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is a blatant violation of the university's non-discrimination policy. This was Harvard's reason for ending financial support of ROTC in 1995, and university administrators, including President Drew Faust, have consistently cited it ever since. No one in the debate disputes this fact. Even ROTC backers grudgingly acknowledge that one would have to gut the non-discrimination policy in order to allow the program back. Of course, their comfort with throwing LGBT Harvard students under the bus in that fashion is disturbing, but at the very least they acknowledge it.
So one would think that Winerip, being a responsible journalist, would cite this fact near the beginning of the article. Instead, it takes him twenty-five paragraphs to even mention the reason ROTC is not allowed on campus. And when he finally does so, he botches it:
If it’s not antimilitary sentiment, why is R.O.T.C. still banned at these campuses? Four words: “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” The law, adopted during the Clinton administration, excludes gay men and lesbians who are open about their sexual orientation from military service. Last month, President Obama renewed a promise to get Congress to overturn the law, but set no timetable
…
R.O.T.C. supporters complain that Harvard’s policy is full of contradictions.
Harvard will not pay the $150,000-a-year cross-registration fee that M.I.T. charges to have Harvard students take military science courses there. But university staff members are used to raise that money from wealthy alumni sympathetic to R.O.T.C. And Harvard accepts about $1 million a year from the military in the form of scholarships that cover the cost of tuition for cadets and midshipmen.
Further, while banning R.O.T.C., Harvard is a host to other military-oriented programs. The Kennedy School of Government there runs a yearlong National Security Fellows program for 20 men and women, a large percentage of them midcareer military officers.
I'll admit that using university staff members to raise money for the cross-registration fee is a violation of the non-discrimination policy, and should be stopped. Winerip's argument about accepting military scholarships and not rejecting military applications for fellowships out of hand, however, is just silly. Harvard accepts tuition payments from all sources, and I really don't see the difference between accepting a military applicant for a fellowship and accepting a freshman student who went to an anti-gay parochial school.
Really, people, the principle is simple. Non-discrimination means non-discrimination, whatever motives the ROTC advocates want to assign to Harvard's administration. The person with the power to bring ROTC back to Harvard is Barack Obama, and until he halts Don't Ask Don't Tell discharges ROTC has no place at a just Harvard.
The Economist’s Democracy in America blog has a post up today recommending the abolishment of the Senate. (Our own Dylan Matthews has the specifics.) As the DA notes, it would be functionally impossible to get rid of the Senate, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. Preach it, anonymous blogger!
“The Senate embodies no rational philosophy of governance, and has a completely irrational electoral system. There is no representational philosophy that would legitimate apportioning the most powerful legislators in the country according to arbitrary and widely disparate numbers of voters, representing arbitrary tracts of land that owe their boundaries to the whims of land granters centuries ago. The fact that there are two senators each from North Dakota, Delaware, Texas and California is flat-out insane.”
With the sluggish economy, a number of unemployed craftsmen are apparently hanging out in parking lots and hoping to get some jobs that might traditionally go to undocumented immigrants.
The Las Vegas Sun reports that the spectacle of Anglos seeking work in Home Depot parking lots could be a growing trend:
In the latest sign of the Las Vegas Valley’s economic free fall, U.S. citizens are starting to show up in the early mornings outside home improvement stores and plant nurseries across the Las Vegas Valley, jostling with [undocumented] immigrants for a shot at a few hours of work.
…
Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said he has been seeing the same thing elsewhere. “It’s happening, though still not in massive numbers,” Alvarado said. In the past six months or so, he has heard of “americanos” on the street corners and parking lots of Silver Spring, Md., Long Island, N.Y., and Southern California locations.
“It’s just beginning,” he said. “But I think it’s only going to increase.”
Whether an individual is undocumented, this isn’t exactly the best news for prospective job seekers and those who are just entering the labor market.
Senator David Vitter (R-La.) is apparently making a habit of awkwardly running from his constituents.
After last month refusing to answer questions about his tacit support of a bigoted Louisiana marriage official, choosing instead to duck into a well-timed elevator, this past weekend found Vitter again fleeing a tough line of inquiry.
Faced with a rape victim interested in his opposition to preventing the federal government from hiring contractors who deny rape victims the right to bring their cases to court, Vitter first tried to dodge the woman's questions. Perhaps you'll recognize his "But so-and-so did it!" defense from your own elementary school days:
WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?
VITTER: Ma'am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.
WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.
VITTER: You realize Mr. Obama was against that amendment that his administration was against that amendment
Reasonably unsatisfied, the woman continued pressing Vitter, at which point the senator literally scampered out the back door.
Vitter running scared is pretty pathetic, but more interesting to me is the way he initially attempted to sidestep rational criticism by invoking Obama's name. It was a mini-exposition of the latest obnoxious tactic Congressional conservatives are employing to stymie health care reform: Rather than respond directly to issues and work toward a solution, just try and villainize Obama as a socialist, a Nazi, or even, in this case, as a right-wing sympathizer. And if that doesn't work, run.
Love Campus Progress? Want to get paid to write for us? Apply to be one of our staff writers! Applications are due Nov. 20. Full job description is below. Read More »
Brooks goes down the tired old path of decrying the "hookup culture," where people occasionally have causal sexual encounters rather than asking partners to the sock hop and grope each other in the back of a car. Brooks wistfully says:
Once upon a time — in what we might think of as the “Happy Days” era — courtship was governed by a set of guardrails. Potential partners generally met within the context of larger social institutions: neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and families. There were certain accepted social scripts. The purpose of these scripts — dating, going steady, delaying sex — was to guide young people on the path from short-term desire to long-term commitment.
I get really tired of this attitude from the older generation of people looking down at young people because they have more choices with their sex lives than the previous generation. The same, tired tropes of feminism and technology are destroying the "good ol' days" era of dating is absurd and reductionist.
Many students across the country are faced with an almost existential challenge. Undocumented students, many of whom arrived as young children and barely remember their country of birth, must often contend with the threat of deportation, being separated from their family, and being forced to live in the shadows.
Students Working for Equal Rights (SWER) is trying to do something about it. SWER Is a student led campaign affiliated with the Florida Immigrant Coalition. It works to both pass the DREAM Act, which would give young people who attend two years of college, or serve in the military for two years, a path to legal status, and challenges the deportation and detention of students that would be eligible for the DREAM Act.
SWER has done some amazing work this month. As part of a statewide day of action, student leaders from across South Florida held a protest outside of the Broward Transitional Center, where several DREAMers are being detained:
Students elsewhere in the state held film screenings and other events, asked their college presidents for endorsements of the DREAM Act, and held a statewide call-in day to urge their Senator to get more involved in this issue.
By the way, if you don’t know much about the immigrant detention “system,” then you should reallylearnmore. The Obama administration recently announced some promising reforms, but there is much more to do.
SWER recently received an Organizing Grant through Campus Progress’s Action Alliance Program. Student and youth-led issue campaigns and movement building projects are eligible for up to $1,500 to organize for progressive social change.
I have a new article on the American Prospect today about Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiatives (TABOR). If tax reform doesn’t sound particularly interesting, think of it as libertarian plot to eviscerate funding for social spending. There are TABOR initiatives on the ballot in Washington State and Maine this year, threatening funding for education, roads, Medicaid, and other aspects of the social safety net.
Questions about the largest contributor [to the anti-marriage equality campaign in Maine] have sparked an investigation by the state ethics commission and a court battle. The National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, has contributed $1.6 million to Stand for Marriage Maine but has declined to reveal its own contributors, despite a federal district court decision last week that it must do so under Maine law.
Some groups for gays say the organization is a stalking horse for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormons, which dominated fundraising in the California campaign. Many of the actors in a nationally televised ad produced by NOM, called "Gathering Storm," turned out to be Mormon activists.
Weekend calls to the New Jersey-based organization and its attorney were not returned. But Fish said that after the backlash in California against the Mormon Church, its leadership decided not to become directly involved in Maine.
I'm surprised to see the Post pulling this, especially after running that rather silly and much-criticized article about Brian Brown, NOM's executive director, over the summer. If there is any religious background to which NOM's leaders subscribe, it's Catholicism: Brown, President Maggie Gallagher, and Chairman of the Board Robert George all profess devout Catholicism. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, the only Mormon in a leadership role at NOM is science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card, a recent addition to the Board of Directors who is probably not entirely sane. Making it out to seem as if marriage-equality proponents think NOM is a Mormon conspiracy isn't entirely fair of the Post, because I think most of us know that's not true. If we know anything, it's that NOM is deeply embedded in the Catholic right, and that such is the tradition its leaders come from.
Moreover, I wish some mainstream news organization would get in touch with NOM and determine once and for all where they're located. First the Post reports that NOM moved out of Princeton, to Philadelphia and then to DC, and now they're telling us that NOM is still NJ-based. The website still lists a Nassau St. mailing address and a (609) phone number (that's the Princeton area code), but even during business hours that phone number only ever goes to voicemail. What's Brian Brown doing in his new H St. offices? How do we contact him there? No one—not even the Post—seems to know.
If the Post has contacts at NOM (and they must do, to have run that profile in August), they have the ability to do much more than make unsourced claims about what "some groups for gays" think. They could actually unravel the tangled web that is the Catholic right and figure out what the hell is going on here. I guess, seeing as this is the Post, that would be too much to ask, but at the very least the paper could stop sowing conspiracy theories about Mormons that I, as an LGBT activist, have never heard espoused by the people I work with.
The editor at large of one of our sponsored publications was arrested in late September for chalking on campus sidewalks at the University of Arizona.
The editor, Evan Lisull, was charged with a class one misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. He was ultimately able to avoid jail time.
Lisull wrote "chalk is speech" and "freedom of expression" on campus sidewalks. He was expressing opposition to the arrest of his friend, Jacob Miller, a graduate student at UA who chalked during a protest of UA's budget cuts.
Lisull is editor at large of the CP-sponsored Kosmopolitan Online at Kalamazoo College. He's written a regular column for UA's school newspaper, the Arizona Daily Wildcat, and he edits his own blog on campus issues at DesertLamp.com.
On October 24th, 2009, students from the central Florida area joined citizens of 181 nations to participate in the 350 Climate Day of Action. These students used their bodies to form a giant 350 (the level scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere in parts per million) on their campus, lending their voices to the message that climate change concerns us all.
This day of action was part of the wider Florida Power Shift 2009 an event seeking to spread awareness about the Green movement and empower young people to actively change the trajectory of our country’s (and Florida’s) climate policies. It was cosponsored by Campus Progress and the Energy Action Coalition, and was hosted by various activist groups, including I.D.E.A.S. and Eco-Advocates. During the weekend-long event, over 200 students and members of the local community came to participate in workshops (two of which were led by CP’s very own Paula-Raye O’Sullivan and Tommaso Boggia), heard from speakers, attended a free concert, listened to a group of veterans promoting “Operation Free,” and learned how to take action. The event also garnered some even garnered some localpress.
“This is a campaign to push legislators to do the responsible thing for our environment,” said Meghan Ryan, a freshman and organizer of Florida Power Shift ’09.
In his speech, retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Hector Samario of “Operation Free” had this to say about the call of duty to act: “We have broken the world by exhausting its resources, but the good news it that we can fix it by things like promoting mass transportation on campus and energy conservation.”
In the end, the conference was a huge accomplishment. It was full of positive energy that reiterated that youth involvement in the climate change debate can really make the difference.
Student Alice Pernezny summed up the spirit of the event best when she said, “If even one person walks away from Power Shift feeling like they want to do something about the environment, then the event was a success.”
Young people will be able to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until the age of 27 under the Affordable Health Care for America Act, legislation introduced by House members today in Washington D.C.
The health care reform legislation will also include a public option and bar health insurance companies from discriminating against clients on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
“It opens the door to those who have been shut out of the medical system for far too long,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at a press event held at the Capitol this morning.
Young people 19-24 years old make up the highest percentage of uninsured individuals in the United States, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization specializing in public health studies. The foundation states that 30 percent of the age group did not have coverage in 2007, and that was before the economic recession.
Monique Luse, with the Y.I. Want Change Coalition, a group composed of over 20 youth organizations including Campus Progress, said that she worried over how she would be able to continue to afford health insurance in the volatile job market.
Luse, 27 and diagnosed with hypertension, told reporters she was forced to make difficult financial decisions between paying for medicine and other basic living expenses like transportation, after losing health care coverage when she left Georgetown Law School.
“I had to decide whether I was going to get a metro pass or walk 2 miles to work,” Luse said. “No one should be without health care. We can’t wait any longer.”
The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.
That's from a talk he recently gave at the University of Arizona with his colleague, Justice Stephen Breyer.
Now, I'll not be the blogger who sets out to debate constitutional law with a member of the Supreme Court. But regardless of how you believe the judicial branch should interpret the Constitution, you have to admit that Scalia's language here is a bit strange.
Why does he use the word "constrain"? Why shouldn't the Constitution be used to support the desires of the populous, like free speech and the right to vote? That Justice Scalia seeks to hinder freedoms with the Constitution rather than promote them is both telling and frightening.
Add this to the already overwhelmingpile of evidence that Scalia is a dangerous person, one who seems intent on maintaining America's traditional white male power structure, even if that means constraining you and me in the process.
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.
My advice for young progressives is to start advocating and sharing your ideas with the world. I am tired of young progressives who say that what they do or say will not make a difference. Young people have proven after the last election that we are extremely influential and we will fight for our convictions. Therefore, it is now our duty to continue our politically active reputation that we won after the election of Barack Obama. It is your job, as a young progressive, to become an active citizen! Whether that is writing to your Congressmen, participating in a political organization, going to DC to protest, or running for office, it is time to become active! 
Posts
!
