Organizing at Brandeis University
You’ll notice from our site revamp that our new mission statement includes this nugget –
It is our intention to both explore the meaning of social justice and hold both students and faculty to their commitment to that set of values.
With that in mind – what does Social Justice mean to you?
Hey all. We’re doing some behind-the-scenes tweaks to the site, and in that process we’ve also revamped the About us page.
We’ve also changed our mission statement and so forth.
photo by Kamarin Lee
So apparently this happened a while ago, but we missed out on reporting it. Students Crossing Boundaries, the group that took on Jimmy Carter’s challenge and traveled (pretty much exclusively) to the Palestinian Territories, released their report.
You can read it here.
This is an emotionally charged issue. For me especially.
Despite that, I encourage everyone to read the report. You don’t have to agree with it. However, I think it’s incumbent on all of us to give props to the self-organizing, intrepid group of Brandeis students who set up this journey and who took the time to write their honest, heartfelt, and sometimes painful accounts.
Welcome to another edition of “Brandeis people in the news.”
On the same week that Brandeis Professor Peniel Joseph is on PBS Newshour, talking about historic role of the vice-presidency (and pointing out that Al Gore was the best VP ever) , we have Brandeis rising sophomore Nathan J. Robinson writing in the Huffington Post: “What it’s like to watch FOX News for 24 Straight Hours”.
Just out of his freshman year of college, and already writing for the HuffPost? Kudos. Kudos to both.
My favorite bits?
As I slowly rouse myself, the first words I hear are of a Blonde FOX Lady saying this:
“It’s hard to talk about climate change without talking about compact fluorescent lightbulbs, soon to be forced on you by the government. But could they KILL you?”
It was not shaping up to be a good day.
…
The worst thing about FOX is not its bias, but the “panic mode” that it seems to live in. Everything is a catastrophe. Immigrants will get you. Lightbulbs will get you. Wildfires will get you. Jesse Jackson will cut your nuts off.
Hahaha.
Update –
Congrats to David Pepose on writing an article that made it to the front page of the New York Sun.
On June 9th, überprogressive Congressman Dennis Kucinich submitted 35 separate articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives calling for the removal of George W. Bush from office (follow the link to read them). From Bush’s well-publicized offenses (Article III, Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War) to his less widely reported crimes (Article XXX, Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare; Article XX, Imprisoning Children), there is an airtight case to be made that Bush has been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and that American lives have been lost because of it. However, Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said that impeachment is off the table, and Kucinich’s articles are now languishing in the Judiciary Committee. I called my representative, the excellent Rosa DeLauro, to see if there was any chance impeachment hearings would actually take place.
Her response came in the mail yesterday, and it killed any lingering hopes I had that the House would hold Bush accountable for his crimes. DeLauro acknowledges the illegality and incompetence of the administration’s dealings with Iraq and interrogation programs. She then outlines Kucinich’s case and the current status of the articles. However, when it comes time to take a position on them, she hedges:
Although this Administration’s term is coming to an end, you can be sure that I will continue to moniter the president’s policies and actions. I will use every opportunity in the coming months to encourage real oversight of the federal government and to hold accountable any member of the Bush administration who has engaged in wrongdoing.
We will soon have a new president and administration and it is my hope that this new administration will work with Congress to enact real reform and find solutions to the issues we are currently facing as a nation.
What this amounts to is that while Rep. DeLauro might take up the impeachment cause if it actually reaches the House floor, she will not make any special effort to shepherd it through the Judiciary through co-sponsoring it or publicly supporting it. She is content to merely let the clock run out on the Bush term and to hope the next president does a better job.
I am of two minds on this. I believe it is imperative that Congress not create a precedent of failed oversight that could lead to further violations by future administrations. However, I am enough of a pragmatist to realize the political risks of pursuing impeachment. Unfortunately, the Republican attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office was so petty and politically motivated that I fear ‘impeachment’ had become synonymous with ‘power grab’ in the minds of many people, and an attempt to remove him from office would serve only to tarnish the Democratic brand in what is otherwise a potential year of realignment.
Ultimately, while I would love to see impeachment proceedings held, I’ve become resigned to the fact that too may representatives share DeLauro’s point of view for it to happen. While the tendency among the netroots has occasionally been to demonize anti-impeachment Congresspeople, I believe there are far more important measures of performance. It would be very hard to find a significant vote where Rosa DeLauro has broken with the progressive community, and I feel very fortunate to have her as my representative. Yes, I disagree with her on this issue, but she and I are still on the same side against the Bush agenda, and I would be willing to sacrifice even the chance of holding Bush accountable in exchange for more representatives like her.
[Please extend a warm welcome to my good friend Liza. -Sahar]
Children continue to be tortured in Massachusetts. For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure of Brandeis Students Against the Judge Rotenberg Center visiting your dorm room, the JRC is a school in Canton for people with mental disabilities. Students here are hooked to electronic devices at all times and given painful two-second skin shocks as a way of behaviorist conditioning, for infractions as small as speaking out of turn or falling asleep in class. Aversive treatment is not only inhumane, it is ineffective: students revert to former behavior once negative stimuli are removed. A statewide campaign of psychologists and disability rights activists has worked to stop this cruelty for decades.
Here’s a brief update on the efforts in the State House and at Brandeis to shut it down.
Senator Brian Joyce, a disability rights advocate who co-authored anti-JRC legislation currently in study (a.k.a. not going anywhere), put an amendment in the state budget that would regulate, but not ban, aversive shock treatment. Amendment EHS 874 is essentially the same as the “compromise” bill, S 1123, with one key difference: it permits the use of shocks for minor behaviors, only if all other forms of treatment are proven to not work. Therefore this legislation is far from perfect, but would still add a crucial level of psychologist oversight. You can read it here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/09budget/senate/amendments/ehs2.htm
The conference committee is running behind schedule, and will decide by the end of July whether or not this amendment will go to the House floor. It already passed in the Senate, a significant half-way victory. Please take a second to call Representative DeLeo, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, asking him to take action against cruelty to the disabled. Here is an optional script:
Representative Robert DeLeo: 617-722-2990
“Hello, my name is_________ and I’m from Brandeis University. I am calling to urge Representative DeLeo to support Budget Amendment EHS 874, restricting the use of cruel aversive treatment. The electric shocks used at the Judge Rotenberg Center are inhumane and unsafe, as demonstrated by the recent prank incident in which a student was wrongly shocked 77 times in three hours. This amendment offers a reasonable compromise, allowing aversive treatment in extreme cases but preventing future disasters. Please support disability rights in Massachusetts. Thank you.”
Here is another reason why Rep. DeLeo is important to this issue. While lobbying at the State House, David Emer and I had the pleasure of meeting with Representative Barbara L’Italien, a leading anti-JRC figure in the State House. She insisted that little progress can be made on this issue as long as Salvatore DiMasi remains the Speaker of the House. He is a close ally of Representative Jeffrey Sanchez, whose nephew is actually a JRC student (fyi: This was a hit at the January hearing in which Sanchez’s brother screamed, “I do not have a son: I have a retarded boy,” among other abhorrent statements). However, Representative DeLeo is a top contender to be the next Speaker. Therefore, even if legislation does not pass this time, our calls to DeLeo are still crucial to the future of disability rights.
For more information about JRC, read this Mother Jones article: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html
or this Boston Globe article describing a single telling incident: http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/12/18/prank_led_school_to_treat_two_with_shock/
As a society, we’re very afraid, aren’t we? If you listen to our “leaders” (since when did elected representatives turn into leaders, I wonder), we should be cowering in our beds.
Fear of Gays, fear of Blacks, fear of Browns, fear of Athiests, fear of Arabs, fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of inner cities, fear of drugs, fear of the future, fear of “the other”.
Fear of the poor has replaced compassion for the poor.
Progressives believe in freedoms. Like, for example, freedom from fear:
The “civil libertarian” and “liberal” views on rights, the NSA, PATRIOT act, etc, are identical.
Same with economic libertarians and “conservatives”. (They call themselves conservatives, but they’re actually reactionaries – they want to drag the US back to the Coolidge / Harding days, rather than real conservatives, who instead simply want to consolidate and improve what we’ve got)
Economically, what distinguishes libertarians from right-wing fat cats? And why are libertarians so obsessed with “freedom from government” rather than freedom from corporate power?
When I talk to libertarians, they often trot out anecdotes about zoning laws, licensing laws for florists, etc for examples of government abusing its power to help firms seek rent. This is petty-bourgeois territory. Liberals are against that too. Where libertarians and liberals break is not over obvious/basic examples of corruption, but rather on the big stuff. Social Security. Single Payer Health Care.
I’d argue that Social Security is a proven success story and Universal Health Care is not only a moral issue but pretty strikingly better policy than what we have now.
Of course that’s a rather broad generalization of a diverse economic philosophy. I was just thinking to myself, though. Libertarians who embrace sane economic policy are pretty much liberals.
That’s not to say we can’t work together, though. I have a lot of respect for people so passionate about defending against the Imperial State. Two fists in the face of Empire! Right on.
He is wrapped in an enormous coat, way too thick for the sweltering heat. Then again, that coat will serve him well in the wintry months; how else can he carry it until then? If he had a house to store his coat in, he wouldn’t need be here, after all, with his back to the steel and coffee / spit-and-polish of a Starbucks.
If he had a house in which to store his coat, he wouldn’t be hunched over a trash can, peering quizzically at a paper and grease time capsule from hours ago. Throw out the ketchup packet, and success! A small victory over the garbageman. Curly fries served cold, an artifact of a lifestyle different but not too far-off from his own. (For after all, he’ll never excavate grey poupon over swordfish from these ruins.)
Yesterday, volunteers for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign held over 4,000 Unite for Change events across the country to lay the groundwork for the campaign ahead. This emphasis of community organizing has become par for the course for the Obama campaign and stands out as one of the hallmarks of Obama’s entire career. Focusing on grassroots development will not only help Obama win in November but will pay dividends for Democrats in down-ticket races across the country and will build the party’s base in a way that will pay off for years to come.
I attended the Ansonia for Obama event, and I was very pleased to see a lot of enthusiasm from the supporters I met. Ansonia, Connecticut is a small city of approximately 20,000 people bordering my hometown of Seymour. Like Seymour, it’s located in the region known as “the Valley”, a working class industrial area significantly poorer than the upper class Amity region to the immediate east. As the factories leave, Ansonia has been unusually successful at revitalizing its downtown with small businesses, particularly antique stores. Politically, Ansonia is influenced by nearby New Haven. a hotbed of progressive activism in the state. Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 2.5-to-1. However, this support has not historically translated to the national party. In 2004, John Kerry only defeated George Bush by a margin of about 4,000-3,200, and the Democratic primary turnout of 47% was among the lowest rates in Connecticut (Hillary Clinton won the city by almost a 2-to-1 margin).
Only four other people were at the meeting; however, despite the low turnout, we were able to lay plans for action that could pay big dividends come November. Most of the discussion centered around getting visibility in the local media and setting up voter registration drives at community events. We hope to particularly focus our registration efforts on Ansonia’s substantial, largely poor African-American population, a group suffering from very low turnout rates and a lack of attention from area politicians. Ansonia is exactly the type of city in which a strong voter outreach effort could provide incredible results. If we can unify the party and reach out to the disenfranchised, the demographics are such that we could capture a huge groundswell of support for Obama.
I strongly encourage everyone to seek out their local Barack Obama groups and find out how you can get involved with the campaign. These local efforts make a huge cumulative difference. If you can’t find a group, then start your own; Ansonia for Obama is living proof that you don’t need many people at this se of the game to set the framework for an election season of effective activism.
As Sahar mentioned, he and I just attended the Personal Democracy Forum, a conference devoted to examining how the latest technology will impact politics and how the internet’s power can be harnessed to further one’s political cause. The main lesson I learned can be distilled into one simple sentence: the internet is a very powerful tool.
Now this is common knowledge; you would need to have been a complete hermit for the past ten years not to recognize the incredible extent to which the internet has revolutionized every aspect of our lives. So let me rephrase that statement give you a better sense of exactly what I now understand: the internet is a very, VERY power tool.
As in, so powerful that the revolution it has brought so far is child’s play compared to what the next few years will bring.
As in, so powerful that even if you think you already knew this, you still have absolutely no idea how vast the shift in politics will be. I doubt that anyone really does.
Needless to say, there’s a lot more to this idea than just that, and over my next few posts, I’m going to explore some of the ways the internet can be applied to further political and governmental goals, not only on a national scale but also at Brandeis and through Innermost Parts. The conference provided much food for thought, and I hope to apply some of the ideas presented there to improve the way in which our site functions. The speakers were excellent; highlights included Arianna Huffington’s smackdown of corporate media, former John Edwards blogger Tracy Russo’s searing condemnation of John McCain’s technological naivety, and Jonathan Zittrain and Mark Pesce’s insightful commentaries on the possible dangers of internet politics.
The moment that best summed up the entire conference, however, came courtesy of Elizabeth Edwards. It wasn’t in anything she said (though I was pleased to hear that Obama offered to make her a large part of his health care team). It was how she said it, or more accurately, the way in which she addressed the audience. Edwards was supposed to have attended the conference in person, but stormy weather in North Carolina prevented her plane from taking off. As little as five years ago, this might have made it impossible for her to address the group; however, due to the wonder of Skype, we were able to see and hear Mrs. Edwards from her home in Chapel Hill. The technical problems were minimal and easily solved, and we even got a cameo appearance from John Edwards as he returned home.
More than anything else, this demonstrated the reality and potential of hyperconnectivity, the developing state of interaction in which all people can be instantly connected to each other or to any piece of public information at the click of a button. This is a revolution beyond any in human history since the birth of long distance communication, and its applications will be monumental in every facet of our lives. Those of us in college right now are the lucky ones given a front row seat to this transformation, and while certain aspects of it may be daunting, I can’t help but feel anything but excitement. We are entering an era in which every significant problem humanity faces will be solvable, and while there’s no guarantee that we will actually take the steps necessary to solve them, we can rest assured that the information needed to discover who exactly is holding us back will be more and more readily available. So specifics and cautions will come later, but for now, take a moment to think about the paradigm shift to come and to marvel at a future where anything is still possible.
At least, to all you Brazilians out there. June 27th is Mixed Race Day, a holiday celebrated in Brazil, perhaps the most racially diverse nation in the world. More info (unfortunately in choppy English) from the Brazilian Multiethnic Movement:
The date, June 27, is a reference to the twenty-seven mixed-race (“mestiço”, in Portuguese) representatives elect during the 1st Conference for the Promotion of Racial Equality, occurred in the City of Manaus, State of Amazon, Brazil, from April 7 to 9, 2005, and also to the month of June, in which a mixed-race woman, after systematic opposition from anti-multiracial Black groups, was registered as the only Multiracial representative in the 1st National Conference for the Promotion of Racial Equality, occurred in Brasilia, from June 30 to July 2, 2005, promoted by Government of Brazil. The Mixed-Race Day (“Dia do Mestiço”, in Portuguese) was made a official date of the City of Manaus on January 6, 2006. On March 21, 2006, in the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Mixed-Race Day became an official date of the State of Amazon; on October 6, 2006, of the City of Boa Vista, in the State of Roraima and on October 9, 2007, became an official date of this State. The Mixed-Race Day pays homage all those who possess multiracial or multiethnic origin. It occurs three days after the Day of the Caboclo, the first mixed-race Brazilian.
Even though we don’t officially celebrate it in any way, this year’s Mixed Race Day is particularly important for us in the United States. For the first time in our nation’s history, a man born from parents of two different recognized ethnic groups (according to our US Census) is the front-runner to become our next president. Regardless of one’s politics, everyone should recognize that this represents the progress we’ve made on racial issues from the days when such an individual would be widely referred to as a “half-breed” or a product of “miscegenation” or “amalgamation”. If that’s not convincing enough, consider that when Barack Obama was born, his parents would not have been allowed to marry legally in several states; it wasn’t until 1967’s Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia that the final anti-miscegenation laws were overturned.
I strongly encourage any Brandeis student of a mixed racial background or who is interested in issues surrounding mixed heries to check out Brandeis’s Mixed Herie Club (disclosure: I’m the treasurer of the MHC).
Time to send some kudos over to my former blogmate. Alex Norris has a very insightful piece up at Upon the Gears about the backlash against the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that executing child rapists is unconstitutional.
The decision, reached by a narrow 5-4 majority, ruled that execution was not a proportional response for rape and so violated the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the eighth amendment. Naturally, government officials were infuriated by the idea that they would no longer be allowed kill people. Amateur exorcist and faith healer Bobby Jindal vowed that authorities in his state would “evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime”, leaving no doubt to his complete commitment to undermine our nation’s highest court (between demon expulsions, Jindal moonlights as the governor of Louisiana and potential running mate for John McCain). Even the deep partisan divides of presidential politics can be overcome when some killin’ needs to be done, as CNN reports:
Republican Sen. John McCain called the ruling “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.” Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.
So are our elected officials nothing more a pack of bloodthirsty vigilantes, Alex?
The short answer: no. Our lawmakers are no thirstier for death than we are, as I realized when I thought for a moment. They are thirstier for something that is much more to their benefit. I’m talking, of course, about votes. Everyone wants to be popular. Sometimes, an easy way to make yourself popular is to play the role of a defender of justice and children. How does one cultivate this role? Killing people nobody likes.
I completely understand how sick and disgusting the crime of rape is, and I am horrified at the thought of a child having to suffer from it. Anyone who would assault a child in this way deserves a very lengthy prison sentence and psychiatric counseling. But the death penalty is the most counterintuitive solution to violent crime that I could imagine. We’re going to prove our objection to murder by killing? We’re going to demand all of our elected officials use the state to continue the cycle of violence? The only reason capital punishment exists is to satisfy our desire for vengeance, an irrational relic of our primitive past.
I think we all can agree that it takes a warped, sickened mind to commit sexual violence against a child. But how do our progressive values support killing a criminal because of their mental illness? Yes, we need harsh prison sentences for these predators to dissuade copycat crimes. Yes, we must ensure that anyone whose mental problems are so great that we cannot prove medically beyond any doubt that they are no longer a threat to children will never be released from psychiatric confinement. But we must never forget that despite their heinous actions, even the most disturbed criminals are still human and are victims themselves. And while the illness that victimizes them may in some cases be so great that they cannot function in normal society, that does not preclude their humanity and the chance that, through prison work programs and similar institutions, they can eventually redeem themselves as contributing members of society.
It takes no strength for a politician to support the execution of a rapist; it merely takes a good ear for public sentiment. The true strength of character comes from those politicians who can overcome the visceral reaction to the most heinous crimes and the overwhelming public opinion and still find a way to advocate for the rights of the guilty, the most reviled and powerless in our society.
We have to look past our rage at these people and think about what this is doing to our humanity as a nation and as individuals. If we consider the difference between life in prison without parole and a death sentence, which one can we be prouder of? What if, as a nation, we could say “The United States of America does not kill.” [sic] That would be a day that all patriots could take pride in.
John Edwards (on Skype!) – “I think the internet has totally changed the course of this campaign. For instance, barack Obama would not be taking public financing if it werent’ for the internet and small donors and so forth … it allows him to have the money to take on George Bush. (pause) oh sorry I mean John McCain”
We’re talking to Elizabeth Edwards on skype.
Talked to the guy who does web stuff for the Sarkozy gov’t and the guy who does web stuff for the Gordon Brown gov’t. This is like woah. There are only like 6 of these people who take charge of web outreach for western democracies in the world, and two of them met in person. Interesting to see them interact.
Some talk about using the power of the web with gov’t to solve problems easily. Example – if you submit your taxes online, the gov’t could, for example, ask you if you want to register to vote, or tell you if you’re eligible for food stamps when you’re done.
Imagine after you go to the doctor, he gives you the contact info of a bunch of local people with the same disease. Easy to implement, wide-ranging effects.
Elzabeth Edwards – campaigns really mostly view the internet as a spigot for money.
Track the conference on twitter –
http://summize.com/search?q=%23pdf2008
Edwards Internet guy agrees: “The Obama campaign blog is *AMAZING* . The way they connect with people and let their personal stories shine through.. I wish I had the skill to do that”
Obama campaign claims that there isn’t a coherent strategy to be standoffish to the blogs.
Gist of a Quote: “the Bush Campaign in 2004 had great success organizing people over the internet.”
I find this argument credible.
wisdom: campaign internet tools have two facets – highly targetted messaging etc, and tools to allow people to organize online for offline action.
Adam and I are at the Personal Democracy forum, which is a fancy-pants convention (700$ entry free) about the intersection between politics and tecnology.(I hooked us up with a volunteer scholarship)
There have been many interesting speakers and so forth: I’ll try to pass on whatever cool info I learn.
Cool things so far – I’m sitting right next to Ben Smith right now. Adam checked in Matt Stoller. I found Lawrence Lessig!
Wisdom : “Imagine a world where Linux Torvalds had to lobby Microsoft for a better/open operating system. Imagine a world where Jimbo Wales had to se protests outside brittanica headquarters, demanding they free up their information. Community activists can take things into their own hands”
On November 4th, Massachusetts voters will be choosing more than just a President (and a Senator, and a slew of state and local officers). As one of 24 states with provisions for public initiatives, Massachusetts allows all of its citizens to act as lawmakers, and the AP reports (via Blue Mass. Group) that three separate questions appear to have qualified to go before the voters in 2008. To make the ballot, an initiative needs 11,099 signatures from registered Massachusetts voters; once it qualifies, it only requires a majority of votes cast to pass. The catch is that it does not pass as a new law but only as an official instruction to the legislature compelling them to vote in a certain way. I imagine that the legislature feels strong political pressure to follow the wishes of their constituents when expressed in such an official manner. However, I’m not sure what the actual record of successful initiatives being turned into law is, and regardless, it seems like an awfully shifty way to give citizens the guise of empowerment while withholding any actual authority from the public. (Edit — Upon further review of Massachusetts election law, this isn’t actually the case. If the measure gets the majority of the votes, it automatically becomes law, provided its supporters amount to more than 30% of the total number of voters.)
So what are these initiatives, and are any of them good ideas?
The first would end the Massachusetts income tax, and while the siren call of fewer taxes makes this one look tempting, I think it would be an unreservedly bad idea. The initiative would not lower taxes in any way, and lawmakers would assuredly just find a different source of income to replace it. One option would be to dramatically increase the property tax. BMG commenter MichaelBate outlines two reasons why this would be a bad idea:
1. Property taxes are highly regressive. The value of someone’s property is very poorly related to ability to pay, especially for retirees who may have a nice home but not much else, including no job and not much income.
2. Taxing property creates an incentive for overdevelopment… City and town officials are forever trying to increase the tax base, leading to more and more sprawl and ever higher density of buildings.
Making seniors homeless and promoting urban sprawl are not OK in my book. The other option would be to raise the sales tax, which would have even more regressive results. Cost of living expenses, already increasing with the slow economy, would become even more stifling for the poor, as necessities like food, clothing and gasoline become more expensive. If that’s not convincing enough, you just need to be a little more self-interested; a higher sales tax would impact college students. We’re a low-income group, and I know I don’t have the spare change to shoulder a tax burden that would be lifted mainly from the wealthy. Governor Deval Patrick publicly called out the elimination of the income tax as “a dumb idea”, and I have to agree with him. Income tax reform is always a good discussion to have, and I’m not saying Massachusetts’s current tax structure and rate are perfect (I honestly have no idea), but the income tax is the best vehicle for progressive taxation, and repealing it could be an economic disaster for the working class.
The second initiative would ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. Animal cruelty is always inexcusable, and under the conditions that racing dogs currently suffer through, greyhound racing amounts to nothing more than legalized torture. The Committee to Protect Dogs, the group behind this initiative, has the facts:
Eight years ago, a similar initiative was defeated by a narrow 47%-48% tally, and I strongly hope that this one gets the last few points necessary for passage.
The third initiative would decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Jailing people for victimless crimes like smoking a joint wastes government money and ruins the lives of blameless individuals. Marijuana is not chemically addictive, has much milder long term effects than alcohol or tobacco, provides medically proven health benefits, and cannot lead to overdose. You don’t need to agree with marijuana use to see that the taxpayer expense for prosecuting these “crimes” is completely unnecessary.
In the United States, the ballot initiative has shown itself to be a powerful tool for political action both negative (numerous same-sex marriage bans) and positive (all six states proposing minimum wage increases passed them in 2006). However, empowering the citizen is always a good thing, and I hope Massachusetts’s initiative laws are strengthened in the coming years. In the short term, all Massachusetts voters have a chance to make their voices heard on three key ideas (two good, one bad IMHO), and I encourage everyone to educate themselves and make informed choices on these issues as well as on the candidates on Election Day.
Democracy for America, the political action committee founded by Howard Dean following his 2004 campaign for president, recently held a competition to award scholarships to deserving progressive bloggers to attend Netroots Nation, the leading political convention for online progressive political activists. Prospective attendees submitted biographical profiles to the DFA website, and visitors to the site were able to vote on the applicant they felt most deserving.
The results are in, and I’m thrilled to announce that InnermostParts will be well represented at Netroots Nation in the person of our co-founder, Sahar Massachi. Sahar has earned front page recognition at Blue Mass. Group, Massachusetts leading progressive blog, and the right to rub elbows with luminaries of the progressive movement like DailyKos’s Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and MyDD’s Jerome Armstrong.
Take a look at Sahar’s application, and you’ll see how deserving of the honor he is. As a sophomore in college, his resume already includes a Academy Fellowship at the Roosevelt Institution and the directorship of the National Committee for the Draft Lawrence Lessig movement. Anyone familiar with Innermost Parts’s history knows the dedication Sahar has put into making this site function and grow and the breadth and acuity of his political knowledge. I’m honored to continue working with him to expand the progressive movement at Brandeis and beyond, and I heartily congratulate him on this achievement.
Saw this on DailyKos, thought it was important to repost:
As I’ve written before, Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an “abuse of power” scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can’t imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven’t been paying attention.
This is why I wish Hoyer had the balls to stand up to the President.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEwUhDC84ow[/youtube]
For the record? Global Warming is projected to cause exactly the sort of flooding we’re seeing now in the Midwest.
The British and the Chinese understand global warming has driven their record flooding. The United States? Not so much.
Although you wouldn’t know it from most U.S. media coverage, the record “once-in-a-hundred-year flooding” the Midwest now seems to be getting every decade or so is precisely what scientists have been expecting from the warming.
A 2004 analysis [PDF] by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center found an increase during the 20th century of “precipitation, temperature, streamflow, heavy and very heavy precipitation and high streamflow in the East.” They found a 14 percent increase in “heavy rain events” of greater than 2 inches in one day, and a 20 percent increase in “very heavy rain events” — best described as deluges — greater than 4 inches in one day. These extreme downpours are precisely what is predicted by global warming scientists and models [PDF].
Hurricanes, Wildfires, Tsunamis, Floods, Tornados. We seem to have quite a lot of them recently. Since any specific freak weather pattern can’t be definitively proven to be caused by Global Warming, environmentalists hesitate to bring the subject up, but in the aggregate it’s clear that all the increase in extreme weather we’re having (especially flooding) across the world is caused by Climate Change.
I’m sick and tired of hearing right-wing idiots blather on about how colleges are too liberal, either full of Marxists eager to convert our innocent young, or professors who “despise their own country while finding excuses for repressive and dangerous regimes”.
Look, no half-way intelligent person believes these smears. Why do conservatives continue funding people like Daniel Pipes?
Pipes is a rather unpleasant man whose strategy to retain scholarly credibility must be the mustache/beard growth on his face. That’s right. My guess is that he banks on people’s thought processes going something like this: “Why does this man have such unfortunate taste in grooming? It must be because he’s so focused on intellectual things that he doesn’t have time for such trivialities. He’s spouting a load of bull, but he does have a PhD, and that impressively grotesque sense of facial style. I guess he’s too deep for me.”
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a nominee.
During Brandeis’ Presidential Campaign, candidate Jason Gray promised to try and ensure that every Brandeis student will vote in the November Election.
I open the forum and take it a step further, how do we ensure that every Brandeis student votes for November? and how do we ensure that almost every Brandeis student will vote for Barack Obama?
Brandeis’s website is trumpeting a new set of college rankings released by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) that has our little ol’ school rated No. 21 among national universities in the United States. And while I typically look at these ranking systems with a skeptical eye, this one is designed to give much more weight to academic results and student satisfaction — in short, the things that actually matter.
The most widely used and well-known college rankings are put out by U.S. News and World Report. Despite their popularity, the rankings serve more as measures of prestige than as actual indicators of academic quality. They heavily weigh criteria like alumni giving and financial resources, categories that are not necessarily correlated to overall academic performance (though they can be indicative) and that put relatively young schools like Brandeis at a disadvane. They also tend to put great value on the quality of incoming classes with metrics like applicant acceptance rate and percene of freshmen graduating in the top 10% of their high school class. While these are indicative of a more accomplished incoming student body, they say nothing about the college’s actual performance. High performances in all of these categories make a university look elite, thus guaranteeing it even more donations and wider pools of applicants. Thus, the highest ranked schools reap the benefits of a cycle that makes it very difficult for lower ranked schools to rise.
How does the non-profit CCAP try to avoid these problems? Its director, Richard Vedder, explains the methodology in Forbes magazine:
Our measures begin with student evaluations posted on Ratemyprofessors.com, a nine-year-old site with 6.8 million student-generated evaluations. We look at college graduation rates (as does U.S. News). We also calculate the percent of students winning awards like Rhodes Scholarships and undergraduate Fulbright travel grants. For vocational success we turn to Who’s Who in America. Though imperfect, it is the only comprehensive listing of professional achievement that includes undergraduate affiliations.
Their criteria are geared towards measuring actual results. The inclusion of Rate My Professors data introduces statistical uncertainty through potential sampling bias, but it also gives actual students a hand in determining how well their college performs. Overall, their model comes much closer to measuring what students searching for a school really want to know.
Does that mean that CCAP has created the definitive guide to judging colleges? Of course not. I think most students are interested in more than just a number when it comes to choosing which school to attend; I know that Brandeis’s combination of location, sensitivity to social issues, a different cultural environment, and a strong academic reputation made it the school for me regardless of whether it’s number 21, 31 (its U.S. News and World Report ranking), or anywhere else. For students who are interested in such rankings, they’ll probably turn to the more famous News and World Report numbers, and if they really want to attend a school with an “elite” reputation, that guide will serve them better anyway. Vedder himself admits that his system is imperfect, so I think it mostly shows that making a definite ranking system is an exercise in futility. That being said, CCAP’s heart is in the right place, and overall, they do a pretty good job. I would recommend CCAP’s rankings as one of many tools for anyone going through the applications process, though the reasons for a college’s position are more helpful than the school’s actual net rating. As for Brandeis’s performance, twenty-first is a very strong showing, and I think the administration is justified in doing a little bragging about it.
Or would you rather have them keep going on about imitation butter?
The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor today.
This is bad:
“High-grade glio-malignancies” such as Senator Kennedy has “are unfortunately the most common kind of brain tumor in this age group, and they have a poor prognosis for long-term survival,” he said.
They can also be very debilitating during treatment, Madsen said, and Kennedy’s tumor is in an area where it may well eventually affect his speech.
Robert Byrd just burst out sobbing on the senate floor and had to call for an absence of a quorum to compose himself. Now he is railing against the war.
The only member of congress with more seniority in the Senate than Sen. Kennedy is Senator Robert Byrd.
I sent my best wishes to the Senator through his official Senate Site. You might want to do the same.
We’ve just gotten a hold of the unanimous decision by the Union Judiciary to rule in the favor of Noam Shouster and Nelson Rutrick in the Brooks case. There was one concurring opinion by Justice Judah Marans.
Here’s the relevant graf –
Therefore, on all counts the members undersigned of the Union Judiciary find for the Elections Commission, and hereby lift the injunction against Noam Shouster. We request that the Secretary certify as official all results from the Second Round of the Spring 2008 Elections and that the President of the Union swear Noam Shouster in as Senator-at-Large at the next regularly convened meeting of the Senate.
Summary of the opinion follows
According to Ken Mollins (a good friend of Brandeis Students Against the Judge Rotenberg Center) and an anonymous source who works for the state, Massachusetts state police raided the Judge Rotenberg Center and left carrying boxes of evidence.
This is the beginning of the end for the Judge Rotenberg Center. More information to follow as we know more.
In case anyone missed it, today the California Supreme Court ruled that a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriages in the state. Previously, only Massachusetts allowed gay marriage, and today’s action will hopefully represent a key turning point in the battle to eliminate institutionalized discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I strongly encourage everyone to learn what the status of same-sex couples in their home state is (this map, courtesy of Wikipedia, comes in handy). Aside from California and Massachusetts, seven states and the District of Columbia recognize some form of civil unions or domestic partnerships, a good step forward but still uncomfortably reminiscent of the “separate but equal” legislation that darkened race relations until the Civil Rights Act. The Defense of Marriage Act mandates that the federal government does not recognize any same-sex marriages, even those in MA or CA, thus denying all federal benefits of marriage from any gay couples.
TAPPED, the award-winning blog of one of my favorite magazines, The American Prospect, just wrote about an online effort, led by Brandeis’ own Mike Kerns and Jamie Ansorge, to have a national gas/carbon tax. Here’s what they had to say:
Having college kids argue on the Internet in favor of a $1/1 gallon of gas tax is probably not the best way to convince folks that higher prices at the pump won’t unduly hurt the rural poor. But that’s what a new Facebook group is all about:
Amazingly-and counter-intuitively-a tax on gas consumption will not hurt consumers, but rather will be a definitive stroke of government policy that causes America to lead the world into the cost-efficient, environment-friendly, democratizing era of alternative energy. And amazingly still, this is, via probability, as plain as fact!
Simply enough, there will be less of a market for gas, meaning less consumption and less pollution, while there will simultaneously be a new, direct form of funding for alternative energies, which will be demanded more highly relative to gas with the price increase. And, Voila!
And with the communicative power of technology, here it is possible. If 1,000,000 people simply click “join,” we can literally change the world, and, in a deafeningly defining way.
The enthusiastic group was founded by Brandeis student Michael Kerns. He links approvingly to the idea that revenues from a gas tax should be contributed to the Social Security Trust Fund, which would then allow for cuts in payroll taxes. The problem with that, though, is that if the gas tax truly succeeded in decreasing demand for oil, eventually there’d be a shortfall on Social Security contributions.
This as been the latest episode of Brandeis kids do the darndest things.
Facebook Group here, by the way.
Hi everyone, I hope you’re all looking forward to a great summer, and thank you so much for reading Innermost Parts and making us more successful in our first full semester than any of us thought possible. Over the past few days, I’ve been talking to Sahar about what our summer posting schedule should look like. I’m perfectly willing to keep posting new content at a regular rate over the summer, but we question whether anyone will be as interested. So I’m posing the question to you, our readers. What directions do you think Innermost Parts should move in over the summer, and will you keep reading? Any ideas or suggestion would be great; I’ve got a few ideas myself that I think could turn out to be intriguing.
Once again, have a great vacation everyone, and I’ll see you all in August!
This is not a joke… really.
Brandeis Students At Odds Over Israel
Yes, that’s right, our tiny little campus scandal has turned into a major scandal! Soon CNN analysts will be discussing how the UJ will rule, and how the result will affect the world.
I find it pretty silly that the Globe is touching this. It’s such a silly problem here at Brandeis, it’s even less of an issue for the rest of the Boston area.
Either way, Innermostparts.org has now been mentioned in a major media publication. Awesome.
Whenever I order cage-free eggs at Usdan, they force me to use styrofoam trays.
Why? Because in order to make sure I pay the extra 20 cents, cafeteria workers have to write ‘cage-free’ on my food, and marker doesn’t take well on ceramic plates.
Isn’t that something? A victory for animal rights is negated by increased environmental damage. Buying local often precludes buying union-made. Buying used makes it much harder to order sweatshop-free. Even buying political television advertising feeds millions into the mega-corporations that control the airwaves.
Life doesn’t have to work this way.
Please welcome Nelson Rutrick, who is the newest member of the Innermost Parts team. He starts off his tenure here with a special report. ~ Sahar
As a former member of the Student Union Executive Board, as the only EBoard to attend nearly all Senate meetings although it was not mandatory (besides the VP and Executive Senator), and as the only student who attended Senate meetings regularly who didn’t “have” to be there – I, sadly, have a lot of experience with the procedures of the Brandeis University Student Union. Sure, maybe attending all of these meetings makes me a loser in some sense, but it also gives me the ability to speak knowledgeably about what goes on in our Student Union.
I am working on finals right now, but I am a bit bored writing about the morality of political assassination and instead would prefer to clue in the non-insiders of the Student Union as to what really goes on there on this relatively new blog which often deals with the Student Union.
So I spent my Saturday affirming four separate times that I did not, in fact, call someone a dinosaur. Yeah, it was one of those days…
Continue reading “Reflections on the Trial”
For those unfamiliar with the commenting policy of innermostparts.org, please see this post here
Essentially. You must use a real name and you must use a real email.
Innermostparts is not a place to be a douchebag simply because you can be anonymous. That’s what The Justice Online is for.
The writers of this blog are often douchebags, but at least all of you know who we are.
Yesterday, Sahar, Loki and I sat through seven hours of ridiculous, and live-blogged the whole thing. We were mean, obnoxious, petty, and all-around assholes. But we did it for a reason.
If you were to tell anyone outside of the small group of people very involved in Brandeis Student Union politics (especially people who don’t go to this school) that there was a major, seven-hour long trial over the results of an election, they’d laugh. They’d think it hilarious. The Student Union might be important to the lives of students at the school, but really, its not that important. It’s not critical too much beyond egos. The trial yesterday was an orgy of absurdity. The live-blog was written the way it was because we wanted to reflect how silly the process was, as very few other people in the room seemed to really get it.
The trial is just another example of my problems with the Student Union. Shreeya’s final words of advice to the Senate, as President, were “Don’t take yourself too seriously.” The Union has a lot of influence over the University and it can be used for good and important things, but only if we don’t get bogged down in silly procedures and ego-motivated seriousness.
With that said, the liveblog was pretty ridiculous. I’ll apologize to anyone who took personal offense to anything said, but try to have a sense of humor about it. The trial was pretty funny, but only if you were looking for the comedic value in it and not taking yourself too damn seriously.
3:52: They apparently want to drop the libel part of their case.
Exclusive executive IP summary of the discussion following this:
Brooks’ side: There were libelous statements. We refuse to let you see them. but in any case, when Nelson decided that they were in fact not libelous, he was biased. Even if they weren’t libelous. Which we admit they weren’t. So we’re dropping that part of the case. Cause we’re wrong.
Court: WTF you talkin’ bout? You crazy. We only heard your case cause you wanted to prove libel! Were you trying to trick us so we’d hear you blow some hot air out your ass?!?!?
Shiells: But wait you don’t get it! wah wah wah. (makes walrus face)
Court: slams gavel. Taylor. Taylor. stop throwing a tantrum. bad boy.
Taylor: Due to time constraints, our strategy was random. Therefore, its not a suit about law or the right thing. Its a suit about trying to get Brooks the seat illegitimately. Wait, was I supposed to say that?
Court: Uh, do you guys want to take a 5 minute break and sober up before you fuck yourselves over even more?
Brian: Uh, can we make our 5 minute breaks closer to 10 minutes than 15?
Break for recess.
Sheills: Ok everything we said just now was a jk. Get it? A joke! Hahaha, right? Right? Anyways, so they were committing libel. We just had a crisis of faith, but we’re past it. But it was fun, eh?
The trial continues.
NOTE: We reserve the right to say thing blatantly offensive and opinionated against those who make a fool of themselves. We are the final arbiters of who is a fool. This post is in no way balanced, nor does it present an unbiased view on anything. With that said, read on!
For a briefer synopsis, read the executive summaries of the closing statements at the end.
Some quotes of the night:
8:00: Taylor Shiells, representing Andrew Brooks: “My client should have run un-opposed, but a series of events eventually caused him to lose.” You mean, the series of events called Democracy?
2:47: Brian: “Objection: why?” The best kind of objection.
5:00: Court: “Would you like to call a witness?”
Taylor (lawyer for brooks):”no!”
Brooks: “yes!”
7:23: Noam, on being sworn in to give testimony: “Finally I get sweared into something!” Oh snap.
7:28: Q: Noam, did you put up any flyers or anything supporting your campaign?
A: No, I don’t like wasting paper.
Continue reading “ze livebloggin’: Brooks v. Shuster & Rutrick”
There will be an ‘Awesome Raging Celebration’ tonight, hosted by the Activist Resource Center. Essentially an excuse for Activists to kick back a little together before the end of the year.
I don’t want to publish the address of the house online, but here’s a link to the facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=12634667621
Looks like fun.
Contact Ari Fertig for more information.