Please join us on Tuesday May 8th, from 7:00pm-8:00pm at the Waltham Public Library for a discussion about how to create a safer community for and with victims of domestic and sexual violence.  

 

Specifically, we will be discussing Bill S918 which protects the employment rights of victims of domestic violence by providing 15 days of unpaid leave to plan for their safety.

 

This event, being organized by Brandeis Senior Marla Merchut and Brandeis Junior Becca Miller is in conjunction with the Waltham Representative Thomas Stanley as well as

REACH and Jane Doe Inc. This event is an out growth of the legal studies class Advocacy for Policy Change. We believe this is an event and topic very important to the Brandeis community and we would appreciate your support and attendance.

Many have protested this narrow definition for its gender-specificity and focus on physical force over the years. Now, CNN reports, the Justice Department released a statement saying they will be updating and broadening the definition.

"The crime of rape will be defined as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Change.org, an online activist site that allows users to draft petitions in order to provoke change, e-mailed out a list of changes that have taken place in the past few months, including a petition urging the FBI to update their definition, in which they have been involved. 

Read below for the full text of the e-mail and consider starting your own petition today.

This is big. For the past 80 years, the FBI has used an extremely narrow definition of rape that led to massive underreporting of rape and insufficient federal funding for police departments to fight violence against women.

But after months of sustained pressure, including 140,000 messages sent via Change.org, Director Robert Mueller announced this week that he gave final approval for the FBI to update its official definition of rape!

That means you moved the FBI. And that’s not an easy thing to do.

Director Mueller’s decision is the most recent proof that when people band together to make change, no institution is immovable.

Just in the past few months, a 22-year-old nanny named Molly Katchpole used Change.org to force both Bank of America and Verizon to roll back newly proposed fees. A Women’s Professional Soccer player got U.S. Soccer to save her league when it was in danger of disbandment. And a grad student forced the Discovery Channel to commit to airing a documentary on climate change that they’d tried to pull from their line-up.

People are using Change.org every day to make real change. You could be next.

Start your own petition by clicking here.

Thanks for being a change-maker,

- Shelby and the Change.org team

Broadcast on ABC. Commentators: Josh McElveen, George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer

Participants: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry, Paul.

9 PM EST

• Politicians' Business versus Political Backgrounds
  • Semantics

9:10

• In asking a question, the commentator misspoke, confusing "corrupt" and "corporate."
• As Paul was speaking, his microphone malfunctioned. Santorum jumped in, saying "They caught you not telling the truth, Ron" and then proceeded to laugh at his own joke. Paul did not acknowledge it.

9:17

• Santorum proving he doesn't believing in big spending: "I put on the board something called a spendometer!"

9:21

• Candidates continue to accuse each other of being insiders.
• Huntsman says he is the only politician onstage to have ever lived in 4 different countries.

9:28

• War
• Paul and Perry were the only two politicians onstage to serve in the military.
  • Throwback to Kerry versus Bush "Did YOU serve in the war?" Paul versus Gingrich style.
• Paul mentioned "Rick" and the camera went to Perry, instead of Santorum (who he meant).

9:31

• Paul asked about the racist literature published in his newsletters, under his name.
  • Doesn't give an explanation, but redirects to the racial biases inherent in our criminal justice system (blacks disproportionately arrested for drug offenses, drafted into military).

9:40

• The Constitution and the Supreme Court
• Romney wants a constitutional amendement banning gay marriage, and thinks Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade.
• Romney won't answer the question whether states have a right to ban contraception or not.
  • Says it's an unrealistic hypothetical question (no state would WANT to) so won't answer.
  • Refers the question to the 'Constitutional Expert,' Paul.
  • Audience reacts for one of the first times- laughing, applauding his answer.
• Santorum says it's not okay to take a life (anti-abortion).
  • My mom says "SOMEONE BRING UP CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PLZ."

9:46

• Gay Marriage
• Gingrich against Civil Unions.
• Huntsman for Civil Unions but not Marriage.
• Santorum thinks Marriage Laws must be uniform against the country.
  • Santorum says that 1800 gay married couples in NH's marriages should not be federally recognized/allowed.
• Romney says marriage should be between a man and a woman since that is the ideal situation for children to be raised, and so the government should encourage it.
• Gingrich says Obama administration practices bigotry against Catholic Church and other organizations which refuse to allow gay couples to adopt, or provide other services for them.
  • Audience erupts in applause.
  • Romney says he agrees.
• Commentator George Stephanopoulos wipes away sweat dripping down his nose mid-asking question.
• My friend refers to Mitt Romney as "Ritt Mommy" and Ron Paul as "Pr0n Haul."

9:54

• War in Afghanistan: When can the troops come home?
• Perry would send troops back into Iraq.
• My mom thinks Sawyer treats Romney terribly (keeps interrupting him while he is answering her questions).
• Santorum implies Obama is corrupt ("Obviously a Chicago politician) for not renouncing Ahmadinejad's victory in last Iranian elections.

10:08

• Fred Thompson (Rep. presidential contender in 2008) now in AAG Mortgage commercial airing in debate commercial breaks.
  • I wonder how he feels right now. I hope he is not too sad.

10:13

• TAXES
• I have to admit, I am not familiat with most of the tax codes and legislation to which they are referring. 

10:24

• Huntsman: I went to Lindy's Diner in Keene, NH and talked with a guy named Jamie who owns a motorcycle shop….
  • Is this the right Lindy's Diner? Will it be extra-popular tomorrow?
  • This is great! Hunstman's daughters tweeted this on Dec. 11th.
    • "Fact about Lindy's Diner: Every Pres. since Carter has stopped here on their way to the WH. Dad is the only GOPer to come this cycle."

10:38

• Striking Ancestry.com ad featuring a black man saying he was afraid to look up his ancestry because of what he might find, but it turns out his great-grandfather was born a slave and became a businessman, 'so it was all worth it.'
  • Reminiscent of Hermain Cain.
• Best question so far: Where would you be on this Saturday night if you were not here?
  • Perry says he would be at a rifle range, ithers all say would be with family (Paul says he would read an Econ textbook after his family went to sleep).

CLOSING THOUGHTS

• ABC has the best coming attractions for the nightly news.
  • 'Who Shot a Kid in the Bronx?'
  • 'Why is A Group of People Standing Still to Keep A Killer Behind Bars?'
• One of the most boring debates so far.
• The audience was surprisingly quiet.
• The candidates were surprisingly congenial with each other, instead all focusing on anti-Obama lines.
• Candidates allowed to give long, drawn-out answers.
• Perry spoke least, Huntsman second least, then Paul and Gingrich, then Santorum, then Romney.

I love getting these kinds of e-mails from the Innocence Project.

They tell me about their clients, prisoners serving time, who they have helped exonerate through the use of DNA evidence.

Oh, our criminal justice system….

Read the full text of the Innocence Project's e-mail below:

What a wonderful way to start the New Year. Today in Dallas, Texas, Rickey Dale Wyatt was cleared after spending 31 years in prison for a crime that he didn’t commit. A Dallas County judge released Wyatt and recommended that his 1981 rape conviction be overturned based on DNA and other evidence.

Tragically, attorneys who prosecuted Wyatt 31 years ago contributed to this miscarriage of justice by concealing evidence of his innocence. The case was built on faulty eyewitness testimony, yet the victim originally described a perpetrator much taller and heavier than Wyatt. The prosecution dismissed these inconsistencies, arguing that the defendant’s appearance could have changed in the interval between the crime and his arrest.  But there were documents in the prosecutor’s file proving that his appearance had not changed.  Had this been shared with the defense as required by law, Wyatt may never have been found guilty.

The efforts of the Dallas District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unit to seek the truth in this case are exemplary. The Unit helped secure DNA testing of biological evidence, which supported Wyatt’s innocence although it was somewhat degraded. This evidence, as well as the discovery of prosecutorial misconduct at trial, compelled authorities to further investigate the case and ultimately to call for Wyatt’s release.

Ten Dallas exonerees also attended today’s hearing to show support for Wyatt and to celebrate his freedom. Mr. Wyatt plans to live with his nephew Robert Smith, who testified at his trial and who now ministers to people returning from prison. Wyatt and his family will greet supporters and speak to the media at a press conference outside the Dallas County Courthouse. The Innocence Project is assisting with Wyatt’s adjustment to the outside world after three decades of wrongful imprisonment. We anticipate his full exoneration later this year.

Mr. Wyatt’s defense team includes the Innocence Project, Gary Udashen, of Sorrels, Udashen & Anton and the Innocence Project of Texas.

Thank you for your commitment to justice,

 

Maddy deLone
Executive Director
The Innocence Project

That our country has a secret prison where we 'detain' people for indefinite amounts of time without trials.

It's called Guanatanamo Bay, and it's been open for 10 years.

According to the New York Times, in January of 2009, Obama issued an executive order instructing the CIA to close down Guanatanamo within the year, calling the secret prison camp "a damaging symbol to the world."

Three years later, the New York Times reports that 171 prisoners remain there now. You can read a docket listing the prisoners' full names. Many of them have been held since 2002, when the prison opened.

Help put an end to this unfair treatment by signing Amnesty's petition to Obama, participating in Amnesty's National Day of Action Against Guantanamo on January 11th in D.C., or simply becoming better education on the situation, for instance by reading Poems from Guantanamo Bay, poems written directly by the prisoners and edited by Marc Falkoff.

The full text of Amnesty's e-mail is included below:

January 11, 2012 marks the 10th anniversary of "war on terror" detainees at Guantanamo. We're not going to let this day pass quietly.

Sign Amnesty's global petition urging President Obama to finally follow through on his promise to close Guantanamo. Help us meet our goal of 100,000 signatures worldwide — signatures we plan to deliver straight to the White House door. 

We haven't forgotten President Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo, one of his first acts as president. Nearly three years later, the President has failed to keep his end of the bargain.

Even worse, President Obama has yet again relented to extremists in Congress. On New Year's Eve, he signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, along with its appalling detention provisions.


We lost that fight, but there's reason for hope. The battle over the NDAA united activists across the ideological divide, who put differences aside and came together to oppose the NDAA. 

January 11th isn't just any anniversary. This year, it's acritical moment to rise up against a shameful decade of human rights abuses perpetrated in our name. We can't let the recent outrage against the NDAA simply ebb away — help us channel this passion into a movement rededicated to closing Guantanamo! 


Guantanamo is a costly human rights catastrophe. Military and intelligence experts have repeatedly asserted that Guantanamo and the violations it stands for are immoral, illegal and counterproductive to US national security. 


There is a simple solution to closing Guantanamo — either charge detainees and give them a fair trial in US federal court, or release them. 


Sign our petition to tell President Obama that we are tired of his excuses. Guantanamo must be closed. 

For many, the New Year holiday embodies humanity's hopes for the future. Here's to 2012 — and with your help, this could be Guantanamo's final year.

Sincerely, 
Zeke Johnson
Director, Security with Human Rights Campaign
Amnesty International USA

P.S. It's not too late to join us in Washington, DC on January 11th for a National Day of Action Against Guantanamo. Lend a hand to our human chain! 

This video is a really nice example of an "average American" sharing his voice in government.

I think he does a good job.

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family

Description on Youtube.

"Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives. Wahls has two mothers, and came to oppose House Joint Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in Iowa.



The fight to to keep marriage equality in Iowa continues, help us support Iowans like Zach. 



http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/12424"

The resolution passed in the House but did not make it to a vote in the Senate.

The Chicago Innocent Project, similar to Brandeis' own Schuster Institute Brandeis Innocence Project, investigates criminal cases in which prisoners may have been wrongfully convicted. According to the nationwide Innocence Project's site, there have been 281 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States, including 17 who served time on Death Row. If ever there were a strong argument against the death penalty, there it is.

This holiday season, why not watch some movies which explore the merits and flaws of our criminal justice system? Having only watched #s 10, 9, and 3, I can't vouch for the majority of the movies on this list, but all of them raise good questions and promote awareness of the flaws in our criminal justice system, regardless of their cinematic worth.

For extended synopses and commentary, read Protess' full article.

10. Conviction

9. My Cousin Vinny

8. In the Name of the Father 

7. Murder on a Sunday Morning

6. The Fugitive 

5. The Hurricane (a movie about the life of Ruben Carter, the Vice President of the Chicago Innocence Project)

4. Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills

3. Shawshank Redemption 

2. The Thin Blue Line

1. The Wrong Man 

Too bad they stopped accepting applications on Nov. 28th. It's still a fun read though.

***PLEASE NOTE: U.S. Secret Service representatives will be attending the morning career fair only. They look forward to meeting with you and discussing employment/internship opportunities on the day of the event.



The United States Secret Service is mandated by statue and executive order to carry out two significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. During the course of their careers, special agents carry out assignments in both of these areas an must be available to be assigned to duty stations anywhere around the world.



The Secret Service protects:

-The president, the vice president (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect

-the immediate families of the above individuals

-former presidents, their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse remarries.  In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former president leaves office

-children of former presidents until age 16

-visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad

-major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election

-other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President

-National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

The Secret Service investigates:

-violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States

-financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, financial information fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, electronic funds transfers and money laundering as it relates to the agency's core violations

-computer-based attacks on the nation's financial, banking and telecommunications infrastructure



For additional information and qualifications, please visit http://www.secretservice.gov/opportunities_agent.shtml 

Application Qualifications:
Desired Attributes: The following attributes are desired for this position.
Desired Work Authorization Status: Authorized to work in the U.S.
Sponsorship: Only include candidates that do not require sponsorship

 

This raises so many questions for me, not the least of which is…those are the ONLY desired attributes/qualifications?

First up, the ACLU.

The ACLU, comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation, has been working since 1920 to protect the rights of American citizens.

• "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" finally came to an end.
• The extreme Mississippi Personhood Amendment was defeated.
• Congressional attempts to defund Planned Parenthood failed.
• An outrageous provision that would have granted this and all future presidents a blank check to involve the U.S. in a worldwide war without end was halted.
• Free speech rights of Occupy Wall Street protestors have been defended.
• New York state passed a landmark marriage equality law.
• Illinois banned the death penalty.
• ACLU lawsuits stalled enactment of every "show me your papers" racial profiling law passed across the country.
• We blocked enactment of South Dakota's draconian anti-abortion law.
• The Obama administration decided to stop defending the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act against an ACLU legal challenge.

Thank you, ACLU.

What groups are you guys thankful for?

Sure, 1 a.m. near a college campus there are bound to be drunk people fighting. But, what do you do when you think it might be serious?

As my friend and I neared the guy and girl, I heard her yell "Why would you do this to me?" and grab his shirt and push him.

He tried to pull away and said "I'm calling the police. I'm going to call the police." 

She seemed drunk and he seemed sober.

What do you do?

I keep repeating that because I honestly don't know.

Maybe they were a couple and had just had a trivial fight. Maybe she was taking things way out of line. Maybe he was going to call the cops and it would all be fine. But how do I know?

As we walked by, I turned and said to them "Are you guys alright? Do you need help?"

The guy responded with something along the lines of "She's drunk. She won't let go of me…We're okay."

I can't remember what he said, but it sounded like he was dismissing me.

So I left.

When I entered my lobby, next door, I told the security guards that a guy and girl were yelling at each other on the sidewalk, in front of the restaurant next door. 

The security guard's response?

"If it's past the black pillar, it's not our problem."

By this, he meant the square of sidewalk directly in front of the lobby, cordoned off by two pillars supporting the awning. Never mind that my suite is above the restaurant, my building management doesn't consider that their responsibility.

I was taken aback, but can also understand why he wouldn't want to break that up. So I asked "What should I do then?"

And he said something along the lines of "It's not our job."

What do you do?

So I looked at him with disappointment and went upstairs with my friend. 

As soon as I got to my room I realized that I could still hear them yelling downstairs, since I live directly above where they were standing.

I called my mom and asked her for advice.

She said I should call the police if it keeps going on and if I'm worried.

This scared me though. Involving the police makes it serious. I've never called the police before so I wouldn't know: Will they ask for my name? Will they dismiss my call because I don't know enough about the situation? Let's say I call them and the guy and girl have already left?

These questions, plus the idea that I could get these people in trouble for being drunk on the street, when really all they were doing was having an argument, stopped me from calling. 

I've had similar experiences with friends on Brandeis' campus, especially with the debate over whether or not to call BemCo (Brandeis Emergency Medical Corps) for a drunk friend. Will my friend be grateful I called for help, or will she hate me the next morning when she finds the ambulance and hospital room bills, along with a confession she has to make to her parents? If someone says they don't need help, who am I to think I know what's best for her? 

So, I waited it out, and after about 10 minutes, I stopped hearing yelling. From my window I couldn't see if they'd left or not, but I could see other people walking by, so I assured myself that if it really had escalated, someone would have intervened. (Bystander effect)

I fell back on old stereotypes, like: If the guy were the one doing the pushing, I would step in, but what harm could she really do to him?

Another odd habit that's been hard to break is not to refer to them as a couple. Throughout this post I kept finding myself writing "the couple seemed…" But the truth is, just because a guy and a girl are together does not make them a couple.

The real danger lies in assuming that because they were a couple, they were at less risk (from each other). Couples fight like that, so I don't need to intervene. That's just their relationship. It's their business.

Phrases like these are what allow domestic violence to take place. And no, domestic violence doesn't just take place in married couples, in homes, in private. It can happen right in front of your eyes. Because as long as you don't do anything to stop it, the abuser knows s/he has the power, and s/he can keep doing it.

What I wanted to tell the security guard was "If that girl gets raped tonight, YOU are the one who is responsible."

Not that the situation would necessarily lead there. In fact, SHE looked like the aggressor in the situation. But saying THAT might have made him do something about it.  And that's all I wanted.

And, really, all of us are responsible. Not just him. Me too. And the other people that walked by and didn't say anything.

I know there are people out there who will read this and say I'm overreacting to just a little fight. And maybe that's all it was: an argument. But the fact of the matter is we don't know.

And if something about that situation bothered me enough to:

1. Ask if they were okay
2. Tell the security guard
3. Call my mom

then I think that I should have stepped up. And pursued it. And have a right not to be told that my concerns are over-blown, or none of my business.

I will have to accept that I didn't intervene. And I'll hope for the best. But maybe next time I'll do more than just hope. And I wonder, what would you do?

Now for a wonderful video from Breakthrough's "bell bajao (ring the bell)" campaign galvanizing people to stand up against domestic violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o1h_UaPJlhY

A delegation of Occupiers submitted a petition with 13,409 signatures supporting "the rights of Occupy Chicago to peaceable assemble," [sic] today.

Nancy Wade, of the delagation, reported that they "had a productive conversation" with the First Deputy Chief of Staff for the Office of the Mayor, and are currently in negotiations with the city as to what "a possible stable outdoor location for Occupy Chicago might look like."

I think that negotiations is a good place to be, and I'm happy the city is listening to the Occupiers.

More updates to come. In addition, check out Occupy Wall Street or its affiliates' Wikipedia pages. It's a rare opportunity to watch Wikipedia articles be constantly updated with new information!

For the full text of Wade's e-mail regarding the petition, the meeting, and how you can help, read below:

I am delighted to report to you that today, November 16, our delegation met with Felicia Davis, First Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor in City Hall. We delivered the petition with 13,409 signatures of Chicago citizens and others in support of the rights of Occupy Chicago to peaceable assemble  We had a productive conversation with Ms. Davis regarding what a possible stable outdoor location for Occupy Chicago might look like. We will follow up on negotiations that may ensue with the city and Occupy Chi.

We feel that the "speak softly and carry a big stick" strategy may prove to be productive. You made a difference in showing the Mayor that many, many regular folks stand in solidarity with the right of Occupy Chicago to peaceably assemble in an outdoor location, preferably Grant Park.

Andy and Sara,  members of our delegation with close ties to Occupy Chicago, have agreed to relate the discussion in today's meeting to the appropriate committees in Occupy Chicago. 

Today's meeting could be a breakthrough for Occupy Chicago in relations with the city. We are very hopeful that this is the case. We will keep you updated.

It is extremely important that we keep this petition going! We need as many signers, especially those living in Chicago, as we can have. This petition is a powerful way for Chicagoans to have their voices heard by Mayor Emanuel! Please Tweet it, Facebook it, email your friends, encourage anyone you can to sign it. Together we can make a difference! http://signon.org/sign/let-the-occupychicago?source=s.em.cr&r_by=883213&mailing_id=1120

Many thanks,
Nancy Wade
Co-sponsor of  Let the #occupychicago movement stay in Grant Park without arrests

It's a funny clip and well analyzed on The Young Turks with Brian Unger and Richard Eskow, courtesy of Nation of Change, my fave progressive news source. 

Watch below!

Rick Perry Advises Occupy Movement

Are you a fan of It's a Wonderful Life? Interested in how this classic Christmas movie is inspiring social justice movements nowadays?

Watch a great, 6-minute clip explaining what the day is all about, courtesy of Nation of Change.

This is a short post because it is serving as a forum for people to share their views on whether or not they are going to be moving their money out of big, corporate banks and into small locally-owned banks and credit unions.