Category: Uncategorized

Yesterday went great. But, as Lavar Burton says, you don’t have to take my word for it.

Lev S. Hirschhorn, one of the main organizers of the event:

That was a fantastic protest, I was really impressed by everyone’s dedication. Our very rough counts estimate that at our largest we had about 120 people present.

Father Cuenin and Alex Kern will be holding another vigil tomorrow (as they do every thursday), from 12:10 PM to 12:30 PM in the peace circle. Lets all show up and keep the energy alive!

The Daily News Tribune –

“Five years” was scrawled across her face.Liza Behrendt displayed her war opposition with face paint as she led her fellow students on a march across the Brandeis University campus yesterday.

“Brandeis has a history of social activism. We felt that if we didn’t hold something on campus we’d be neglecting that legacy,” she said. “We really want people to think about the human impact of this war.”

And, my favorite, on the front page of the highly-excellent TPMCafe:

My office is at Brandeis University. Today as, I walked down the curving path that carries everyone through campus, I noticed that, lining the path, at very short intervals, were small American flags. A sign explained that there was one for every 10 American soldiers who had died in Iraq.

It’s a long path. There were hundreds of flags.

By the time I made it across campus, tears were running down my face. It’s not the Vietnam Memorial, but I found it profoundly moving nevertheless. I send my admiration to the students who organized it.

…

And we had to walk through it simply to cross the campus. There is no way to avoid that path: you were surrounded by a numbing repetition of death, death, death. I found that turning the American flag into that meaning was simultaneously affecting and respectful.

That last blurb was written by E.J. Graff, “Senior Researcher at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism … Resident Scholar at the Brandeis Women’s Studies Research Center, ” and, most intriguingly,” a senior correspondent for The American Prospect and a contributor to TPMCafe.com.” A contributor to TPMCafe and TAP on campus? Brandeis just got so much cooler.

Never forget – we students occupy a space of cultural symbolism. Our actions reverberate farther than just across campus. The world is watching.

The Activist Resource Center (ARC) has a blog. It has been updated for the first time this semester, two days in a row! Are we seeing the revival ARC’s online presence? It seems that their calendar has been updated just a bit more than usual..

Then again, I’m told the sparse calendar is the fault of club leaders, not ARC, so make of it what you will.

They are coming. March 22 in Usdan.

I’m not here to report on the protest today. The pictures, word-of-mouth, and, no doubt, other posts will offer you a clue as to what went on. It was a remarkably well-organized event and encouragingly well-attended. Still, some of my confusions about the anti-war movement were made clearer.

An open-floor discussion is perhaps not a fair way to evaluate an event, as there was no central message meant to be relayed. However, some central themes came through and the enthusiastic results of the crowd suggest to me none of them were anathema.

In order, then.

The Protestant Chaplain made some curious, if telling remarks. He said it is the responsibility of those who “broke it”, Iraq, “not to fix it,…but to end it.” He also said he would end the peace vigil he co-runs “when U.S. led hostilities end”. So which is it – a peace vigil, or a U.S. led hostilities vigil? Is his duty to save the lives of American soldiers who volunteered to serve their country, or to save the lives of innocent Iraqis? Was there a solidarity vigil when Saddam was butchering civilians unopposed? Perhaps I misunderstood the chaplain’s intentions or remarks on this point. I am not going to win many people over by beginning with criticizing a well-respected and well-meaning religious figure, but I thought these comments provided a good introductory framework.

In a sgeringly surreal moment, David Emer quoted with approval comments made by Dick Cheney from 1994. A version of these comments, or what I believe David was referring to, can be seen below: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY&feature=related[/youtube]The former Secretary of Defense and future Vice President did indeed make some eerily prescient about the sgering difficulties an invasion and occupation of Iraq would entail. He concludes by saying the main question was “if we went on to Baghdad, how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment is not very many, and I think we got it right.” Now perhaps Saddam himself was not worth many dead Americans, but this is a bit callous when one considers the hundreds of thousands of lives Saddam was free to take by our decision to leave him in power.

Continue reading “Reflections on the Protest Today, and on Idealism in General”

I get email:

Locally Grown Food Banquet
When: April 1st, 2008 @ 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Where: Sherman Function Hall
The night will consist of:
-An opening panel discussion with different community leaders and
Brandies professors.
– Following there will be a meal consisting of local, organic, and
fair trade foods. All prepared by Brandeis Students!”

After emailing Stephanie Sofe, I was informed that this event will be free. Excellent.

A few hours ago, all of Innermost Parts’ contributors attended a march and vigil on campus to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war. We marched from Shapiro to Usdan and back in a loud trail of over 120 people – a very large number for a club-organized Brandeis political event. We gathered in a circle to listen to speakers, sing songs, and reflect on how the war has impacted us, America, the Iraqi people, and the world.

I was incredibly impressed by the large turnout and the passion that so many people had, five years in. I know that my attention has drifted somewhat away from the war over the last few years, and I feel this event brought it back to the front of my mind.

A final thought someone brought to my attention today, and which I’d like to leave you with – this is the first of its wars for which the United States has paid absolutely nothing (at least in terms of dollars) up front. In every other war, there has been an increase in taxes or some other financial mechanism implemented to pay for the war. But in this one, every penny has been borrowed from foreign governments and investors. So while ours may physically be a near-unilateral occupation, governments are financially responsible for this war the whole world round.

By President Bush’s own count, we have spent half a trillion dollars on this war, itself a sgering amount. Our generation and the next will be the ones paying. But by the conservative estimate of Harvard economist Linda Bilmes and Columbia economist Joseph E. Stiglitz in their new book, the total cost, accounting for the lost income of disabled soldiers’ families, the cost of supporting wounded veterans, etc., the cost is somewhere around $3 trillion dollars to America. Internationally, there is another $3 trillion cost.

These numbers are so large I cannot even wrap my mind around them. I would call them tragically ridiculous, but words seem silly compared to the unfathomable good such money could have done elsewhere.

Students woke up today to a transformed Brandeis:

Behold…the couch of Apathy!

All photos taken by Rivka Maizlish. To see the whole set of photos she took today, go to this flickr photoset.

many more pictures below the fold… Continue reading “March 19, 2008. A photo-visual experience”

Hey, this is Sahar. Welcome our newest contributor, Rivka Maizlish.

Hey all. Rivka in the house! I worked at the DFA table today at the protest/rally/vigil thinger, and I’m glad to announce that we have raised 81 dollars to send to VoteVets.org, a non-partisan, progressive political action committee that elects veterans who have pledged to end the war.

Hoorah. That’s all. Catch y’all later.

More eloquent, better informed writers than I have written about the failures and lessons of the war. I do not presume that I can outdo them on insightful analysis. I do, however, have something that no one else has. For five years, I alone have borne the story of my own experience with the Iraq war. For the nearly the entirety of my teenage life, the Iraq war has loomed, omnipresent but simultaneously far-off, in my civic and political consciousness. It has had, I suppose, a similarly large effect on all of us who came of age in these modern times. Perhaps my story is a typical example of my generation. Perhaps my story is as unique as every one of us.

Today, on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I’d like to share some of that story with you, as honestly as I can. Perhaps you might like to share, as well.
Continue reading “War stories”

Assuming it rains, people will be reading the names of the dead starting 2:15 in Shapiro Center, or possibly earlier in Usdan.

Big event will be 5:15 in Shapiro Campus Center. People will be handing out mini-fliers at Rabb, etc before that.

Are you an activist or progressive on campus?

Are you perhaps upset at the Student Union? Feel like you can run it better?

Well, why don’t you do something about it?

I want you to run for E-Board or F-Board of the Student Union.

You have until Thursday, 6pm to sign up.

Want an activist Student Union? Elect Activist students.

Here at Innermost Parts, we try to stay away from commenting on purely national politics. For this, however, I’m willing to make an exception.

Obama just gave an amazing “JFK-esque” speech on race and politics in America.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo&feature=user[/youtube]

Honest. Authentic. Longer than half and hour.

Still, this is a really amazing speech. Marc Ambinder says:

This wasn’t a speech by committee… Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights…. and showed it to only a few of his top advisers.

First time I’ve actually learned something, really learned something from a political speech.

A friend of mine asked what “progressive” meant today. Was she a progressive? I couldn’t answer her right away: I asked her if she believes in government transparency and more democracy. I asked her if she opposed the Iraq war, and what she thought of Howard Dean. She answered in the affirmative to each question, (and loves Howard Dean) so I told her that indeed, she was a progressive. Yet I feel issue positions can only serve as a heuristic, not definition, of the progressive mindset. So if I couldn’t answer my friend in a glib sentence or two, perhaps this short statement I had lying around will do the trick. :

What is progressivism?

Progressivism is often confused and interchanged with liberalism. That is a mistake. Liberalism is an orientation regarding policy. Progressivism is a related orientation regarding politics. To be a progressive is to believe that our political system is breaking or broken, and to agitate for transparency, campaign finance reform, and enforcement of civil rights.

Yet progressivism is much more than a laundry list of initiatives provided by institutions like the Brennan Center for Justice, worthy as those goals are. A progressive is not a blind patriot; she believes fervently in the value of American ideals due to their inherent worth in promoting the dignity, liberty, and welfare of everyone, rather than in the infallibility of American action due to the geography of her birth. A progressive believes that liberty means much more than lack of a king; in freedom from want as well as freedom of speech; in freedom from fear as well as freedom of religion.

Simply put, progressive politics are common-sense politics. Many progressives my age are bemused at the sorry state of politics today. Blatant corruption and abuse of power weren’t mentioned in the America that was promised by our high school textbooks. A progressive works to re-orient the United States towards its promise and self-image as the embodiment of the Enlightenment.

A progressive is warrior battling against the Assault on Reason.
Continue reading “I am a progressive patriot”

The very cool Mike Kerns has replied to my question re:bikes on campus:

Hey Sahar,

So this idea was proposed a couple of months ago, but due to logistics, maintenance, and safety/liability concerns we decided to hold off on that plan for the time being (while I looked into another option). The idea that jives with your suggestion had been to purchase extremely cheap bikes and get them fixed up…but the safety, liability, maintenance, etc. were questioned. The option of charging an additional amount to fund the program was also not well-received. As soon as I get some final numbers back from the bike company we’ve been working with of late, I’ll let you know in case you want to come meet with a handful of us to discuss everything and decide how to move forward.

-Mike

Kudos to Mike to get back to me so quickly.

I’m definitely going to try to meet with the “bike committee”; commenter Ari reports that

Don’t look to Paris for your model — they are a huge city and the cost is pretty high. Hampshire college has the system you’re talking about and they’re relatively closer to our size.

It’s the “yellow bike” system or was when I visited it some four years ago. Basically there are spots in key areas around the school and in the surrounding neighborhood with 4-5 bikes, more for really high traffic areas. Pick it up one place, leave it in another, so long as it’s locked and attached to the appropriate bike rack.

One thing we would need to do is add a bike repair center — someplace that you can drop off a broken bike for problems like flats, gear issues, etc. It’s a pretty simple system, should be able to do it.

Excellent news. I hope the committee takes a good look at the Hampshire model.

I encourage everyone else who cares about the issue to contact Mike and meet with “the bike committee” as well

I hear the Student Union is considering a bike rental program.

Well,  Paul Balik has a better idea. Why can’t we have a system of bike borrowing? Swipe your ID card at a designated bike rack to borrow a bike. Return that bike within X amount of hours (24? 48?) or pay a fine. It’s totally doable – I’m told that Paris and Copenhagen both have such a system. We can pay for the bikes by raising parking fees by five dollars.

Make driving marginally more expensive to fund a self-sustaining, zero-emissions form of transport. It’s a no-brainer.

It’s going to happen. And Soon.

Yesterday, I had an encounter with a belligerent drunk person in my hall. He was pissed off by what he saw as the misleading and dishonest message of the flyers that several people – myself included – had put up in the area. His response was to tear down the flyers, and rip them to shreds.

This is not the first time that this has been an issue for me personally. Last semester, Rivka and I passed an anti-guns petition around in our history lecture. Some [insert word here] who obviously disagreed with the petition decided that he felt offended enough that he actually crumpled up the sheet of paper and tore it. I should mention that the petition had names on it – the names of people who I and several others worked hard to reach, and whose names were lost probably forever because of one person’s knee-jerk hostility.

I don’t pretend that I agree with the message of all flyers. I want to deface the Republicans’ posters as much as anyone else, but I don’t. What I fail to grasp is the concept that anyone who simply disagrees with a flyer, or a petition, or an event, would actually expend the effort and saboe it. What does this accomplish? The only utility it serves, as far as I can see, is a greater sense of control and empowerment, in the negative sense (over other people). I aim to demonstrate that such narrow-mindedness actually has the opposite effect.

A fundamental principle that allows freedom of expression to thrive is the exercise of self-restraint. This is basic reasoning: If I act on my urge to interfere with someone else’s message, then I give license to that person to silence me (unless, of course, I believe that I am somehow above that person and can do what I want while they cannot). By ripping up my flyers, this person opened the door to his own muzzling. The logical extension of this situation is that the mutual attacks on expression will metastasize into a broader trampling on open expression within the community at large. Thus, the community should take notice; what seems small truly has great consequences.

I fear where these small incidents can lead. I urge you all to be vigilant and to stand up to what is effectively barbarism, and defend everyone’s right to free speech.

I get email:

Weekend Events in Melrose, Weston Continue Markey’s Push to Save Planet

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Malden) has spent his career studying global warming and energy dependence, the most pressing issues of our time. This past year, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, he has been able to focus on the scientific and economic evidence and impacts of our planetary crisis, and talked to the pre-eminent experts in the world on these issues. This weekend, Markey will sound the planetary alarm bell here in his home state of Massachusetts.

At events in Melrose and Weston this Sunday, March 16, Rep. Markey will give an update of what’s happening at his Select Committee and in Congress on these issues, and more importantly, discuss how the citizens of Massachusetts can reduce their carbon footprint and help reduce the impact of global warming.

Events information:

Town Meetings on Global Warming and Energy Independence
With Congressman Ed Markey

Melrose Event:
Sunday, March 16th
12:30 – 2:30 PM
Melrose Memorial Hall
590 Main Street
Melrose, MA

Weston event:
Sunday, March 16th
4:30 – 6:30 PM
Eleanor Welsh Casey Theatre
Fine Arts Center
Regis College
235 Wellesley Street
Weston, MA

The Weston event is 9 minutes away (by car). The Melrose event is about 35. I will not be able to go there, but any reader can go, please email your impressions of the event to Czar<at) innermostparts d0t org and we’ll be happy to publish them

Wake up earlyish tomorrow.

Brandeis Students against the War will be meeting

Tomorrow, March 16, at 11am in the Romper Room in Shapiro Campus Center

to  prepare resources and plan the March 19th anti-Iraq rally (all day, main event at 5:15 pm).

Be there.

we want freedom, we want freedom

News you should know about – A few days ago, in the 49th anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising, many Tibetans, led by Buddhist Monks, started rebelling against Chinese rule.

Eyewitness account:

Then the gate of the debating compound opened and this stream of maroon humanity poured out, several hundred monks. It was impossible to count but I think there were at least 300.

We thought it was part of the tradition but when you looked at the expression on their faces, it was a very serious business. They were pumping their hands in the air as they ran out of the temple.

The minute that happened we saw the police – two or three who were inside the compound – suddenly speaking into their radios.

They started going after the monks, and plain-clothes police – I don’t know this for sure but that’s what I think they were – started to emerged from nowhere.

There were four or five in uniform but another 10 or 15 in regular clothing. They were grabbing monks, kicking and beating them.

If we had gone to Sera monastery an hour earlier or an hour later, no-one would have known what these monks had done

One monk was kicked in the stomach right in front of us and then beaten on the ground.

The monks were not attacking the soldiers, there was no melee. They were heading out in a stream, it was a very clear path, and the police were attacking them at the sides. It was gratuitous violence.

There’s a lot of confusion right now, since Tibet is very hard for foreign journalists to correspond from and get into. You can get more info from the blog of students for a free tibet. I think the general feeling of what’s going on is this: the Chinese military has occupied and cracked down on the main city, Lhasa. Protesting has spread elsewhere. This is a big deal and a large blow to China’s carefully cultivated image of national unity in preparation for the 08 Olympic games. There are comparisons to Tiananmen Square, the American boycott to the Olympics due to Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, and that “The wave of violent protests in Tibet could not have come at a worse time for the Chinese government”

James Fallows, a journalist for the Atlantic Monthly, is in China right now. He reports that the Chinese authorities have censored all internet, tv, or newspaper news of the events in Tibet. The great majority of the people of China don’t know what is really going on right now: the Chinese media is treating it as “small groups of hooligans have attacked soldiers in Lhasa but that things are under control.” (read here here and here)

Do we have a chapter of Students for a free Tibet here on campus?

To Brandeis University’s own Rivka Maizlish, who, by unanimous consent, was elected Secretary of the Waltham City Democrats last night.

Kudos. If all works as planned, she will be one of two Brandeis students to go to the Democratic National convention this year. Another example that you have the power.

March seems to be “kick Brandeis students off campus” month.

Hopefully, you already know about the case of my dorm-mate Mamoon Darwish. His room-mate has started a “Where is the Justice at Brandeis????” group on facebook. It already has 208 members. It asserts:

Mamoon has suffered from lack of due process and an unfair trial as administered by the Brandeis Judicial System. We are writing to draw your attention to his situation.

Rights violated (in chronological order):
1. Prevention from receiving medical consultation before making his police statement
2. Failure to receive proper legal council from the Student Development and Conduct SDC according to the Brandeis Rights and Responsibility booklet
3. Failure to receive written charges of accusation from the Student Development and Conduct
4. Mistrial:
a. Photographic evidence withheld
b. Witness statements withheld
5. Use of unnecessary force by Brandeis police officers.

I don’t know enough to tell whether all that is true or not. Maybe Mamoon has been given a fair hearing by the Brandeis Judicial System pursuant to University Policy. At this moment, I can’t judge. What I do know is that Mamoon, an international student, is barred from campus. This has a number of ramifications, including:

1. Health: Deprived of access to food. Since Mamoon was banned from campus he has been unable to access his campus meal plan. This meal plan represents the only provision of food within his Brandeis scholarship, which is Mamoon’s sole current source income.
2. Housing: Banned from campus since 16th of February to present. As an international student with limited funds and no family in the United States, the revocation of housing has left Mamoon homeless
…
4. Education: Suspended from all academic activities. Suspension at this time is critical, because the admission of TYP student as Brandeis freshmen for the 2008-09 is currently under consideration and hinges upon successful completion of all courses. Thus Mamoon’s suspension is equivalent to expulsion.

(emphasis mine)

So, if these reports are true, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, right now Mamoon has no income, few funds, and has been denied his only secured access to Food and Shelter, and, as a TYP student, has effectively been expelled, starting next semester. That isn’t right.

As a Brandeis student, I am very concerned. I expect my teachers to respect me and help guide my human development. How can I trust that they are acting in my interests when the University, the institution that represents them, treats a fellow student so badly? This shows a profound lack of humanity and decency on behalf of the people acting in loco parentis. I understand that they consider Mamoon too threatening to be on campus. Yet, could they not arrange housing for him? Surely they could feed the poor boy.

I just can’t believe that a place that is supposed to nurture me and be my parent-surrogate can act in such a harsh, reactionary, manner. What a desperate situation: a near-broke international student facing legal action in an unfamiliar country.

My point here is simple. Even assuming that the University is in the right to kick Mamoon off campus, even assuming that he is guilty and so forth, I feel that the University, seeing as it serves as a parent-surrogate; seeing as how it is in the unique position of being our metaphorical “teacher”; seeing as how it has a mission to help guide and nurture our development, should act in a more supportive manner.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that the “powers that be” have a thought-out, clear reason they are acting as they are. I’m sure there are more arguments to be made on both sides. I know that there are many well-meaning, caring individuals on staff here. However, speaking as a student, I’m getting the message that the University cares very little about me. I’m of the impression that Brandeis would waste no time leaving me to the wolves if it thought doing so would be good for its reputation. I do not feel supported. I do not feel comforted and safe. Frankly, I find this a signal that I am seen more as a source of tuition/future bragging rights than as a vulnerable human being.

That’s a terrible shame.

Terry Pratchett, outstanding author, has early-onset dementia.

That sucks. Our hearts go out to him.

I went to see Harvey Silverglate today. I’ll have a complete writeup later.

Some quotes:

“American college campuses, especially liberal arts campuses, are the least free places in American society”
“One can not say in Harvard Yard what one may say in Harvard Square”
“Humor has taken more of a beating on campuses than political debate”
“If [college administrators] are afraid to say to the outside world what they say to the campus” (aka if his organization publicizes what they are doing and colleges back down) “they must know, deep down, that what they are doing is wrong”
“Restrictions are unconscionable because they enforce a particular viewpoint or ideology”

The basic story he told went something like this:
The mid-1980’s had a lot of “diverse” (read- non-white or non-male) students. College administrators decided that different types of students couldn’t get along without heavy-handed censorship. This was sparked by an ideology spread by a misreading of Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance“. [Interesting note – Herbert Marcuse wrote this essay while he was teaching at Brandeis. He even dedicated it to his students] Administrators got the idea that since some groups have been historically disadvaned, they deserved more freedom of speech than others (thus it’s OK to restrict speech hateful to minorities especially). Soon enough, they started restricting all sorts of speech. We then witnessed the growth of the number of “Mid-level administrators” micromanaging speech. Those in charge of Universities rationalized this by saying that “If we don’t make campus welcoming to potential students, they won’t come”. In a coup of PR, they rebranded their “speech codes” as “harassment codes” and that’s how we got into a situation when students can get expelled from Universities for saying/writing things that are “100% protected by the constitution”

Most shocking moment of the night? David Emer, an officer of the Brandeis Democrats (one of the groups who invited Mr. Silverglate on campus) demanding not only that Mr. Silverglate apologize for using the words “Nigger” and “wetback” in his examples.

I heard something very disturbing tonight from one of my sources inside the Student Union Senate relating to their session on Sunday. The Senate supposedly spent two hours debating a resolution on wishing Israel a happy 60th birthday. I realize that many students at Brandeis feel very passionate about Israel, but this was a true waste of time. The priorities within the Student Union Senate must be reordered. Last semester I appeared at one of their sessions to speak for a resolution disapproving of the process by which the decision was made to arm the campus police and calling for more student input in future decisions. Debate went on for hours and in the end the Senate decided to take no action.

United States Senator Joe Biden once said, “My dad used to say, don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget. I will tell you what you value.” Let’s take a look at the recently-proposed Student Union budget, which can be found in their minutes:

Student Union Government

a. Newspaper Program: $3,000 (9.76%)

b. Office Resources: $3,500 (11.39%)

c. Election System: $2,464 (8.02%)

d. Course Evaluation Guide: $700 (2.28%)

Union Executive Office

a. Outreach: $2,500 (8.14%)

b. Project Support Fund: $1,000 (3.25%)

c. Social Fund: $3,700 (12.04%)

d. Officer Development: $500 (1.63%)

e. Total Union Executive Office: $7,700 (25.06%)

Union Senate

a. Communiversity: $550 (1.79%)

b. Diversity: $1,500 (4.88%)

c. Services: $7,000 (22.78%)

d. Social Justice: $1,000 (3.25%)

e. University Spirit: $850 (2.77%)

f. Senate Discretionary: $2,462.23 (8.01%)

g. Total Union Senate: $13,362.23 (43.49%)

Total Student Union Government: $30,726.23 (100%)

 

The largest item on the budget besides services to keep the Union running is social life. Combined with school spirit, it equals about 15% of the total budget.  Diversity is worth less than half as much as social life at 4.88%.  Social Justice is worth only a quarter of social life at 3.25% of allocated funds.  I came to Brandeis because Justice Louis D. Brandeis’ vision and commitment to social justice appealed to me.  I knew that social life at college would be great no matter what the events were just because I was at college, with so many interesting people to get to know and spend time with, many of whom share my values.  So fellow Brandeisians, pay close attention to the debates and budgets of the Student Union Senate–do they reflect our values?

It is no secret that America is addicted to oil. We all know that our country needs energy independence. Being from Massachusetts, it’s sometimes difficult to face the fact that my power comes mostly from coal. I feel very strongly that we need to support clean, sustainable energy solutions as not only sound environmental policy, but also national security policy. Fortunately there is a project in development in my home state called Cape Wind which can provide for 75% of the energy needs of Cape Cod and the Islands. That’s the equivalent of taking 175,000 cars off the road each year. And unlike oil and natural gas, the cost of energy from Cape Wind will remain constant.

This Thursday the Minerals Management Service, one of the agencies involved in the permitting process, is holding a hearing on Cape Wind this Thursday at UMass-Boston. Opposition groups have instructed their members to show up early, but we’re going to show them that supporters of Cape Wind won’t be shut out. Come to Rabb Steps at 3:30pm on Thursday and we’ll stand up for clean energy in Massachusetts.

For more info go to: http://www.capewind.org/mms

Today, we host the previously-discussed Harvey Silverglate.

What other speakers and events can we look forward to over the coming week?

Well, first off, there will be a very important pre-March 15th organizing session in the Romper Room at 11am this Sunday. There, people will make signs, create arts and crafts, and delegate duties for the
March 19th anti-Iraq War/ 5 year anniversary of Iraq vigil/rally at the Shapiro Campus Center Atrium at 5:15.

Well, there will be events throughout the day, but the main action happens at 5:15.

This anti-Iraq rally has been in the works for a while. Let’s make it happen. For more information contact our very own Ben Serby or Lev Hirschhorn

What else is on the agenda this week?

• WATCH, a local organization promoting good low-income housing, is having a fundraising gala this April 15th. They want us to call local businesses to fundraise. Contact Justin Backal-Balik
  People are calling wednesday, thursday, and friday.
• Jamie Eldridge, a wonderful progressive and nearby assembly member, is running for Massachusetts State Senate. Help him out by canvassing over the weekend. Contact Innermost Parts contributor Phil Lacombe for more detals.
• Cape Wind is a great idea to have a wind farm in Eastern Mass. There will be a public hearing on whether to build it in Boston this Thursday. Drive down to Boston with Phil to speak in favor of clean energy.
• The Waltham City Democratic Committee is having it’s first meeting of the 2008-2010 session 7pm this Thursday at in the Auditorium at Government Center, 119 School Street. This is your last chance (for the next 2 years) to become a Committeemember. The BranVan will take the Brandeis delegation there at 6:30. Questions? Email me at sahar <~at~> innermostparts *dot* org or use facebook.
• Dr. Peter C. Frumhoff* will be giving a talk entitled: “Confronting Climate Change in the United States: Science, Political Will and Public Policy” this Friday from 12:15-1:45 pm at the Zinner Forum in the Heller School. Sources tell me there will be free food.

*Director of Science and Policy and Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign, Union of Concerned Scientists
I’m sure there are many other activists events going down this week. If you are a member of an activist club and want us to include updates on what you guys have been up to, email us at czar *at* innermostparts d0t org

Stay tuned for a special announcement later today…

Harvey Silverglate, noted civil liberties attorney, is giving a free lecture on free speech, academic freedom, political correctness, etc. tomorrow. We previously covered this event here.

Date:Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Time: 8:00pm – 10:00pm
Location: Shapiro Campus Center, Multipurpose Room

Facebook event page here.

You should definitely go. I know I will.

Bumped. –Sahar
Brandeis is trying to rebrand itself. But what will be its new image?
This:

Or this?

Related links:
– Marketers analyze the “Smart from the Start” campaign: here here and here.
– The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sounds the red alert on academic freedom at Brandeis:

Today, Brandeis University joins FIRE’s Red Alert list, a distinction afforded to colleges and universities that act with severe and ongoing disregard for the fundamental rights of their students or faculty members. In the case of Brandeis, the university’s mistreatment of Professor Donald Hindley and subsequent shameless attempt to sweep the incident under the rug earn it a spot on the list.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Brandeis. I love the people here, the professors, and the fact that I cite Justice Louis Brandeis quotes and use them to great effect. I love sitting by the Justice Brandeis statue and basking in the fact that Earl Warren wrote the statue’s dedication. Our mascot is named after Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr! How much more awesome can you get? (I’ll tell you how – if we had named Ollie’s Eatery Thurgood’s, that’s how). Many times, however, I’m upset by how this University – dedicated to perhaps the most fair and famous advocate of civil liberties, honest government, protecting the powerless, and other great progressive causes- seems to forget it’s commitment to both Brandeis’ name and his ideals.

Which of Brandeis’ sophisticated marketing campaigns will win? Einstein holding a bagel spread, or a University steadfastly refusing to admit it was unacceptably curbing academic freedom?

Hey I’m at Shapiro Atrium liveblogging my impressions of the State of the Student Union Address. They have free falafel here, so get on down; the actual address didn’t start yet.

Note – all quotes are quick drafts and could be easily be misquotes. This is more about the general gist of her sentences than what she actually said.

Update 1: 6:57
Still no speaches. Many well0dressed members of hte student union are walking around. There is also a table of adults right next to me. Let’s see who they are. Jean Eddy, Ed Callahan, Joe Dupont other people who’se names I forget. They are all sitting right next to me. Interestingly enough, they’re talking about Eliot Spitzer and the whole “being caught with a prostitute” thing.

Update 2: 7:03
Ed Paternoso is talking. Talking about how he’s tight with Shreeya.
Now Shreeya is taking the se

Update 3: 7:04
Moment of silence for Bernard Herman. Who is he?
“I set up this year was to set up a culture of activism”
“Global Students for Global Change”
Dude she’s blasting Goldman. Then Jean Eddy/ Student Activities. She talks about facing media ignorance in October. What was this?

Update 4: 7:06
“The state of the union is strong” – Obligatory.
Talking about the Brandeis Citizenship campaign.
Shoutouts to some clubs she’s inspired by –
Student Peace Alliance: Hosting the SPA convention.
SEA: For working with administration & recycling
Vocal
Student Crossing Boundaries – brandeis students going to the west bank
Clinton -> PF.

Update 5 – 7:08
Shout outs to Jason Gray / Itsmystudentunion.com , “stall street journal” , outreach dream team
Shout out to Mara Cullen
It seems that Shreeya is taking an optimistic tone, etc. She said that the union overcame the challenges of Student Activities fee, etc. Yet the Student Union backed down: the student events fee will still be diverted

Update 6 – 7:11
She’s been talking about sundry quality of life issues now. Shout outs to specific senators.

Update 7 – 7:14
Enough shout outs to specific senators. Now she’s talking about the accomplishments of committees. Examples of some things she’s talking about: zip cars, ridge wood, ollies eatery, midnight buffet.

Update 8 – 7:17
Kaamilah and Tamar Ariel are apparently switching us to recycled paper and sweatshop free clothing. Cool!
This speech is very much like a laundry list of things going on. Which is warranted up to a point.
Talking about Hiatt reform. Apparently it’s a-happening.
Shout-out to Rebecca Wilkof for setting up Communiversity. I agree with Shreeya. Communiversity is awesome.

Update 9 – 7:20
Diversity at Brandeis is different: “It’s not the way we look, but the ability to freely associate … It’s not an initiative. … not a reaction”
Talking about how the validity of the Senator for Minority Students. There will be a committee report. Bah.

Update 10 – 7:21
Talking about Virgina Tech and other shootings. Decision to arm Public Safety.
“Discourse and lobbying led to creation of the Firearms Implementation Committee”.
“One of the more serious concerns raised involves the sensitivity training policemembers get” Damn Straight that’s right.
She’s going to create a propoganda arm to quiet people’s fears? Maybe she should instead pay attention to the concerns raised?

Update 11 – 7:23
Talking about Jean Eddy and Student Activities Fee.
Jean Eddy is a few feet away from me. I can’t see her expression but she seems to be paying attention attentively.
“Whether it was a good decision or not, students should have decided whether students should have gotten a say”
Talking about the Bernstein Marcus protest. Called it “inspiring”. “We will not shy away from [this issue] in the coming months” I wonder if that’ll happen.

Update 12 – 7:25
Talking about Extasy.
“Currently Brandeis is lacking in accommodation capacity. we simply do not have enough large spaces for large events”

Update 13 – 7:29
Talking about Club Collaboration
Talking about F-Board reform. It all sounds very worthy but I can’t copy it down fast enough. Wants a more centralized and transparent F-board structure.
Talking about funding rollover. Blames clubs for not spening money they ask for. I’m not sure how true this is.
Challening club leaders – “we want you to think big. Then think bigger”

Update 14 – 7:31
Student Union wants a cap on its funding for one year – the student activities fee keeps growing since tuition keeps increasing. <-News?
She missed a chance to potshot the upward-spiraling tuition fee.
Talking about CapX. What is this?
News – in the Spring we will ask you to amend the constitution
Thanking Jean Eddy now for working with them. Is this in return for talking about the Student Events thing?

Update 15 – 7:34
Jason Gra will start an executive committee to create a student bill of rights.
[ed – this could end up badly. The conservative or “Let’s not challenge the university on anything” voting blocks in the union senate could end up crippling such an attempt. This could end up with us having less rights than before]

Update 16 – 7:36
“To the Union. Take responsibility for your government.”
She lauded the progressiv / activist community on campus. Pretty words.

It’s over

For those who are interested, Shreeya Sinha, President of the Brandeis Student Union, is giving her State of the Union address at 6:30 pm tonight in the Shapiro Campus Center Atrium. According to an inside source (the Facebook event page), we can expect that:

The speech will be about the Union’s accomplishments and future plans, including the current rollover situation, our finances, collaboration with the Administration, the protest, the implementation of firearms, the Student Bill of Rights, and other large issues currently facing our campus.

I can’t promise that I’ll be able to make it, but I’ll try. For those who can’t be there, the Student Union website hosts some old State of the Union speeches; their coverage seems to be pretty sporadic though, so I wouldn’t expect this one to be up in a timely fashion. If you can make it, feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss any initial reactions, disagreements, whatever.

Gen Ed, a really cool new club that tries to bring smart/cool/famous people to Brandeis, has sent an email updating us on their efforts and asking people to help. Out of their six(!) current projects, here are two I think you really should pay attention to:

We are currently working on an environmental and sustainability week entitled Green Week ’08 from April 9th to April 16th. This is a collaborative effort with organizations ranging from Students for Environmental Action to the International Business School to the Office of Communications. This week will include an address by Congressmen Edward Markey and a panel of NGO and business leaders discussing business opportunities in the Green Revolution on Sunday, April 13th in Rapaporte Treasure Hall. Other events during the week include the launch of SEA’s green fund to significantly reduce the campus carbon footprint, and a cleanup of the Charles River. There are many more events for this week.

This sounds great. Ed Markey is a good congressman who is a leader in the House on Internet freedom issues. I’m looking forward to this week.

We are co-sponsoring a talk by Harvey Silverglate, the attorney for Donald Hindley in his case of accused of racial insensitivity:’

<Link to Article>

Mr. Silverglate’s lecture will be entitled: The Death of Free Speech, Parody, and Vigorous Debate on Campus: Why has it Happened, and What is to be Done? The event, co-sponsored with Brandeis Republicans, Brandeis Democrats, and Brandeis Academic Debate and Speech Society will take place Wednesday, March 12th at 8:00 P.M. in the Shapiro Multipurpose room.

Like we’ve said before, the Hindley case is very important. Teachers got tenure in a reaction to the McCarthy era. Tenure was instituted to provide protection from the University or Government from punishing you for critiquing the status quo. As far as I know, Professor Hindley is an outspoken voice on campus in challenging the administration. When the administration broke its own rules in its haste to attack him, that creates a clear perception of wrongdoing.

All of the Brandeis community should lend Mr. Silverglate our ears. If the Brandeis Republicans and Brandeis Democrats can both unite around academic freedom, so should we.

What’s up with the Activist Resource Center?

I know they do good things (Sundays at 8pm in the Castle Commons), but their website, calendar, and blog seem to be abandoned. That kinda sucks.

I’ve got it. How do you deal with your outrage fatigue?

First off, please welcome our two newest contributors, Phil and Adam. It’s a pleasure having such talent onboard.

I’ve been thinking. One not-so-secret conventional wisdom of campaigning (though most of the media seems to have missed it entirely) is the concept of firing up your base. What do I mean by this? The American political system is structured so that there are often greater returns to activating and exciting your base than to chasing the elusive middle. For example, one reason people cite Karl Rove’s supposed genious is that he realized, in time for the 2004 election, that Bush should not swing leftward/more moderately in the General Election, but instead hold steady in his reactionary politics/ swing rightwards.

Why does this work? Conventional wisdom has it that an undecided vote is worth two normal votes, since you both gain a vote and deny your opponent one. The new electoral calculus, however, has a different way of seeing things: the swing voter can be trumped by the swing activist. A “centrist” candidate (a la Harold Ford in 2006) who sticks to polls, is politically cautious, etc, may have the same issue positions as much of the electorate, but doesn’t neccessarily inspire. This candidate may give off the impression that they aren’t too committed to their cause. Their subconscious antipathy to their public positions may show off in their body language, etc. Perhaps most importantly, these candidates don’t do much to excite their core constituency. A hardcore party member may vote for a Milquetoast nominee, but they likely won’t volunteer for them, or show as much enthusiasm if they do. A committed volunteer in a well-run campaign can easily be worth 10 votes.

Similar to swing activists, there are (in the context of Democratic politics) “swing liberals”, who may usually sit out elections because “both parties are the same” or “I’m tired of voting for the lesser evil”, etc. This well of untapped votes can be substantial. In 2006, for example, Democrats famously gained more votes from self-identified Democrats – 2.41% , than from Independents – 2.08%.

For more on swing voters and swing activists, there is much good discussion at the Democratic Strategist and at Open Left.

So. Long story short, the comparatively low turnout in the American political system is such that you can get more votes from persuading your base to vote than by persuading independents/undecided voters to vote for you. Also, it’s probably easier.

In the recent French Presidential Elections of 2007, however, we see a different dynamic. The French system is characterized by multi-party runoff voting. There are various political parties, all with their own candidate. If no one candidate gets 50%+1 votes, then the top two vote-getters square off in Round Two. 2007 was characterized by many interesting deviations from the historical French norm. First of all, the voter participation rate was very high – 84.6%. Secondly, this election was a very polarizing one, such that many voters decided to forgo the minor-party candidates and to “vote utile” for one of the mainstream candidates – Ségolène Royal, Nicolas Sarkozy, or, interestingly, François Bayrou. That brings us to the third deviation: Bayrou, a “centrist” candidate, picked up a great deal of the vote (18.57%, compared to Sarkozy’s 31.18% or Royal’s 25.87%), almost tripling 6.8% in the previous 2002 election.

For the second round, however, of the 2007 election, Royal and Sarkozy could not utilize the base-voter mobilization strategy: almost 90% of the electorate had voted in the 1st round. There were dimished returns to trying to squeeze votes from the remaining 10% (assuming that the voters of the “fringe parties” would automatically vote for whichever candidate was most ideologically aligned to their first choice. I.e. the number of people switching from Communist to Sarkozy is assumed to be negligible). Thus, both candidates were forced to pander to the center – Bayrou’s voters.

The voter participation rate and structure of the American politcal process, then, can perhaps be said to be a facilitator* to the horrible, 2002-2006 reign of the Repuiblican Trifecta (House, Senate, Pres). Knowing that appeasing their far-right base was more important than responding to the will of the majority of voters, Republicans felt free to ransack the country. Soon enough, however, they went too far. Let’s hope they keep marginalizing themselves.

I’m pleased to be writing my first piece for Innermost Parts. My name is Phil LaCombe, and I’m involved with many activist causes on campus. last semester, I formed a group with other students, Students Opposing the Decision to Arm.

I have been displeased by our university’s decision to arm the campus police since the day the decision was made. I felt that adding more guns to campus would only disrupt our sense of mutual trust within the community, and still do. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Virginia Tech strategy, many campuses feel that their only choice to making their campuses safe and healthy environments is to arm the campus safety officers.

I read this article on The Arizona Republic today that the administrators of Arizona State University have gone a step further to “protect” their campus–they will arm their public safety officers with military-style assault rifles. What I see developing across this country is a profound sense of fear. No one feels safe from violence any more, even on our college campuses, where environments are supposedly well controlled to keep students healthy and happy. Another thing I see is a coming arms race between campuses and campus shooters. The assault rifles ban expired in 2004, and with that expiration we opened up our country to greater, more severe violence. The campus police do not have a monopoly on military-grade weaponry. Campus shooters will likely respond to the escalations made by the police, and arm themselves with more dangerous weapons. In my opinion, it comes down to a simple fact: more guns do not equal more safety.

In order to protect our campus communities from violence, we need to go to the root causes. What causes a young person to feel so abandoned and so conflicted with his peers that he chooses to take their lives? Pistols and assault rifles will do nothing to heal the wounds of a young person in distress. We can continue to arm in hopes of protecting our community in the event of an attack, but that is only accepting the idea that attacks must happen. We need to heal the whole community.

Hello everybody! My name is Adam Hughes, and I am happy to say that I have joined Innermost Parts as a contributor. I’m really impressed with what Sahar and Loki have done with this site in the few short months it has been active, and I’m very excited to become a part of this great progressive forum at Brandeis University. My political activities and passions are very much in line with theirs, but I also hope to bring a fresh perspective on some important campus issues.

I hope to cover a broad range of topics in my posts, but there will be several areas to which I will devote the most attention. First, as an E-Board member of the Mixed Herie Club and a representative to the Brandeis Intercultural Center, I am very interested in diversity issues, particularly in the campus’s often laughable attempts to promote tolerance (the Hindley situation comes to mind). In addition, I am a fledgling columnist with the Brandeis Hoot, and I will try to discuss some of the more controversial articles that appear in it (like Jordan Rothman’s).

I will not, however, post much content dealing with national politics; I already have a site of this nature, Upon the Gears, which I co-founded and administer with Bret Matthew and Alex Norris (and which I naturally recommend you visit regularly). I look forward to writing here at Innermost Parts, and I hope you appreciate what I have to say.

If Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter failed to sweep you off your feet, take notice: Noted European sixties radical and Green Party politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit will be speaking in the Rapaporte Treasure Hall on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 18th. It promises to be a very exciting event, and you all should be there. 

For information on the event: http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/cges/ 

Who is this guy? 

Click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_the_Red

William F. Buckley, 1926-2008.

Buckley was an icon of the conservative movement. An architect, even.

As a writer and architect of the modern conservative movement he truly made his mark. He founded National Review in 1955 at age 30, when the world considered conservative intellectuals a genetic impossibility. Just nine years later, NR would prove instrumental in Barry Goldwater’s rise to the GOP nomination for president. In 1980, Goldwater protege Ronald Reagan won the White House, and made National Review mandatory reading for his entire staff.

Rick Perlstein wrote a moving obit:

He was a good and decent man. He knew exactly what my politics were about—he knew I was an implacable ideological adversary—yet he offered his friendship to me nonetheless. He did the honor of respecting his ideological adversaries, without covering up the adversarial nature of the relationship in false bonhommie. A remarkable quality, all too rare in an era of the false fetishization of “post-partisanship” and Broderism and go-along-to-get-along. He was friends with those he fought. He fought with friends. These are the highest civic ideals to which an American patriot can aspire.

Anyone trying to understand the history, power, and current form of the conservative counter-establishment must study Buckley.
Continue reading “William F. Buckley is dead”

In the latest version of The Hoot, we get treated to this kind of thinking:

It’s a legitimate concern to consider how the United States is perceived by the rest of the world and it’s a legitimate desire to have the leader of our country be someone who is PR-friendly. After all, regardless of whom we elect president, he/she will have his/her share of mistakes and it is the media that will reign over how colossal or mild their transgressions are. But, this isn’t to say that a presidential candidate can’t overcome their lack of PR luster. After all, we did elect Nixon—twice.

I disagree with the premise of this editorial. It’s not a sophisticated PR shop that allows St. McCain to be the darling of the D.C. Press: it’s his relationship with the reporters who cover him. In 2000, the reporters covering Al Gore infamously hated him. This led to the establishment of some journalistic frames of thinking about Al – (He’s too wooden, a serial
exxaggerator, etc) that, regardless of their inherit truthfulness, served to perpetually shape how he was covered.

And remember, the Giuliani myth was predicated on him having a good PR team on 9/11. Truth is, he made corrupt and horrible choices that got men killed that day. He got away with it for 6 years before people started taking notice.

Marianna Faynshteyn may not be conscious of it, but what she advocates is letting the beltway press choose our president for us. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

Continue reading “Keep your media away from my politics”