Innermost Parts

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”

Alex Norris is tired and upset with all the organic pro-Obama content on the web.

Even if I were a diehard Clinton supporter, I would totally oppose this line of thinking.

We should be happy that our candidates are so compelling that people willingly take time off of their busy schedules to spontaneously create candidate-related content. It reflects well on how invested people are in their candidate, certainly, but more importantly, it’s a shift in culture from the TV-centric, big-media driven campaigns of the past. People are taking ownership of the campaign and participating more in the election process. As progressives, as decent human beings, we want more citizen participation in government, and Obama Is Your New Bicycle is part of that.

Alex, if you find Amigos de Obama so annoying, no one is forcing you to click that link.

edit: Turns out I misunderstood Alex after all. Whoops. Amigos de Obama is still really fun though.

I’m reading an interesting article in the Nation, taking a critical and nuanced look at Hugo Chavez. Is he a Democrat or Dictator? The article never really decides on one or the other, but instead chooses to discuss the contradictions, motivations, and context for Chavez’s Bolivarian Project.

The failed referendum did not end the polemics. But for the many, more sober observers caught in the middle, it did help to clarify the actual state of Venezuelan democracy. Chávez’s defeat was proof that Venezuela today is not a dictatorship. Still, the authoritarian tendencies of Chávez’s government, while exaggerated by some of his critics, are very real. His supporters may excuse them as responses to the problem of political exclusion that is, undoubtedly, a more fundamental threat to democracy throughout the region. But unless those authoritarian tendencies are curbed, the Bolivarian dream of overcoming this exclusion will almost certainly remain unfulfilled.

Interestingly enough, this article claims that Venezuela was a model of democracy throughout the 70s: it had a vibrant two-party system, the parties compromised when they needed to, etc. Yet this was bad thing, because, in the end, Venezuelan society was very unequal and fraught with class division. While both major parties contained members of all economic classes, both were also ruled by the economic and political elite. Chavez lead the disenfranchised to power, and tried to right some of those wrongs and oust these elites from power. By all accounts, he succeeded.

Continue reading “Chavez, Considered”

Notice how nearly all these presidential debates are co-sponsored by the Coal Industry?

Notice how all these presidential debates conspicuously don’t ask any questions on Global Warming, energy policy, etc?

Perhaps these two phenomena are related.

Bonus Thought: Coal is the enemy of the human race.

Over the break, Sahar regaled you with tales of intellectual property rights pioneer and would-be Congressman Larry Lessig. He is truly a great man, but like many great men, is truly no longer running for Congress. From his website:

After lots of thinking and advice, I have decided it does not make sense for the Change Congress movement for me to a run for Congress in CA12. We would have just over 30 days to introduce a district to me and to an idea. That would not be enough time to convince them to turn away from an extremely popular politician with 30 years of public service.

Well damn.

I was reading the archives of The Atlantic Monthly when I came across an article called Black Nationalism On Campus. It’s an interesting read, but this passage in particular jumped out at me:

Many whites see being black, once you’ve made it out of the ghetto, as a big advane: they think blacks are constantly getting little breaks that whites don’t. Many blacks have exactly the opposite view: race will always be an extra burden. The cost of housing is higher for blacks. The risk of crime is higher. Nearly every social relationship with whites eventually arrives at a chilling moment of revelation of the hard inner kernel of racism. At work the assumption of inferiority is ever present; affirmative action underscores it, but is the only way even to get in the door.

I don’t claim any special insight here, but this is really poignant. I will say, however, that anyone identifying with the “white” outlook should read Peggy McIntosh’s White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsackl.

Speaking of which, never use the term “Political Correctness”. It reinforces conservative frames and thinking. Instead, use the terms “respect” or “sensitivity”. “Political Correctness” reinforces both disgust with government and disgust with embracing diversity. Instead, it is more about realizing that our words and phrases can hurt others, and being good enough people to act accordingly.

(Crossposted to Blue Mass Group)

There’s a lot that’s been going on with FISA, wiretapping, and so forth lately. Maybe you find it somewhat confusing. I sure did. So I decided to write down a timeline and explanation to clear my head. I took that paper and turned into this post. First off, this video is the best way to explain what’s going on in the most concise way that I’ve found (and it’s a video starring a cute cuddly teddy bear!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxKYG6KTK-M&[/youtube]

In other words. Bush bragged about illegally spying on Americans a few years ago. Everyone was outraged. Then enough Democrats in Congress (and almost all Republicans), instead of punishing him for breaking the 4th Amendment, decided to retroactively make all the illegal stuff the White House has been doing legal. Now, Bush is fearmongering again that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is outdated, because it covers wiretaps but not email, etc. Instead of making a small technical change, enough Democrats (and almost all Republicans) in Congress decided to give the White House sweeping new PATRIOT-act style powers when they updated the FISA law.

FISA (remember, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) was a law Congress passed in the wake of Watergate, making sure that the FBI had to check with a court up to 2 days after wiretapping someone. Remember, this law governs spying on Foreigners. Spying on American citizens without a warrant is explicitly forbidden by the 4th Amendment.

This sweeping change to FISA with Patriot-Act style powers was called the Protect America Act. Congress passed it about 7 months ago, and gave it a 6 month window before it expired. So it was due to expire. The House passed a pretty good law to replace it. The Senate split consideration of the law into two committees: Intelligence and Judiciary. The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont came out with an ok version of the bill. The Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, came out with a version of the bill so horrible that it pardoned Telecommunication companies (such as AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint) for any and all crimes they made while aiding the White House. Remember, this spying all started *before* 9/11.

Now, Harry Reid, Senator from Nevada and Senate Majority Leader, had a choice. He could make the (comparitively good) Judiciary bill the official one, or the (horrible unconstitutional illegal) Intelligence bill the official one. Guess which one he chose? The way the Senate works, since Harry Reid chose to make the Judiciary bill the official bill that the full Senate worked on, it was much harder to amend the bad bill into the good one than keep the good one intact.

After a lot of boring parliamentary stuff that you don’t need to worry about (just know that Republicans are good at blocking stuff they don’t like in the Senate), the Senate rejected any sort of amendment to the (bad) Judiciary Bill that would make it any better at all, and then passed it as-is.

Where does this leave us? The bills that the Senate passed and the House passed are substantively different. We’re waiting to see what unified bill comes out of the conference committee (composed of elements of the House and Senate, this committee takes the two bills, comes up with a compromise bill, and sends it to the House and Senate to be voted on, with no amendments permitted).

While all this drama was going on in Congress, the (Patriot-Act style) Protect America Act expired. Democrats offered to extend it for a few weeks until the new bill could be voted on. Bush demanded that they extend the (Orwellianly-named) Protect America Act into a permanent law, or he’d veto it. House Democrats showed some spine* and basically didn’t buy his B.S.

So, on one hand we have the Republican White House and Republicans in Congress swearing up and down and frantically running to the press and creating other sorts of theatrics, urging that the Protect America Act (that is only 6 months old) is absolutely indispensable to the safety of the Country, terrorists will attack as soon as it expires, etc. On the other hand you have Bush vetoing (or threatened to veto such that no one even bothered trying, it’s a bit unclear) an extension of the Protect America Act.

This is a prime example of the Republican *Politics of Fear*.

For instance, look at the video ad that Republicans are running now on the issue. It’s a work of art, almost, how their ads look more and more like promos for 24.

And here’s a kickass response:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3r8VRnTW4w&e[/youtube]

See Louise Slaughter in the video? If my house was 500 feet over to the side of where it is now, she’d be my congresswoman. I’m proud of her today.

Innermost Parts is still on break. Since you were cool enough to check up on us even though school is out, we thought we’d return the favor by posting this “easter egg” before we really return from our one week hiatus\

Want to learn more about Professor Lessig?

There are three places that I’d encourage you to look and are the standard web articles people point to:

1. This feature in Wired Magazine. “Lawrence Lessig helped mount the case against Microsoft. He wrote the book on creative rights in the digital age. Now the cyberlaw star is about to tell the Supreme Court to smash apart the copyright machine.”
2. This feature in New York Magazine. It deals with his life today, but the main focus of the story -his experiences of sexual abuse as a child- really helps show what a decent man Prof. Lessig is. I cried after reading this.
3. Wikipedia. ’nuff said.

More recently, there exists a good interview in Ars Technica regarding his run for congress.

Perhaps most importantly, he’s released a 10-min movie in his deliberate, powerpoint style detailing the launching of what he calls the “Change Congress Movement” as well as his possible plans to run for Congress himself. The
“Change Congress” idea boils down to this:

The influence that money now has in Washington skews public policy in important areas. Good people working in a bad system. Change that system, change that ethic. It is the first problem that has to be solved. How? A bipartisan coalition of members of Congress who pledge to support three things:

1. No money from lobbyists or political action groups
2. Ban earmarks in the Congressional appropriations process
3. Public financing of campaigns

Continue reading “Who is that bespectacled man, anyway?”

Innermost Parts is still on break. Consider this posting snippet an “easter egg” in thanks for you still checking up on us, break nonwithstanding.

Lawrence Lessig is one my heroes.
Lawrence Lessig is, in fact, an academic and a lawyer.

I know what you’re thinking. “One of his heroes and not even a politician. This Lessig guy must really be special, huh.”

In a word: Yes.

From a time way before I got into the political scene, I’ve been interested in the Open Source / Technology scene. And the slashdot scene had a healthy respect for Internet Freedom, consumer freedom. Information, they say, wants to be free.

Well, Professor Lessig pioneered all this. He’s like the MackDaddy of all legal theorists when it comes to the internet. His wikipedia profile begins like this:

Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

Pretty cool, huh? Prof. Lessig has spearheaded, founded, and/or aided some pretty important movements, like Free Culture (Culture, (i.e. media) should be free for society to remix reinterpret, and redistribute), Creative Commons (A type of license that encourages derived works) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (ACLU for the Internet).

Right now, he’s moved his focus from patent reform to a broader fight against corruption, and specifically on the corrupting influence of money on politics.

Long story short, he’s probably running for Congress in CA-12. Thing is, the election is 6 weeks away (it’s a primary for the special election in a heavily blue district) and he’s facing a well-funded and strong competitor.

Prof. Lessig running is super cool. Like, he’s a totally legit possible Supreme Court pick. Imagine if Louis Brandeis ran for Congress. That’s how awesome this could be. Like Brandeis, Professor Lessig is of high integrity and has dedicated his life working on obscure points of law that impact real people. Louis Brandeis was known as “the people’s attorney”. Professor Lessig is also a people’s attorney, working to change the restrictive copyright and patent laws that stifle innovation and hinder our rights.

More on this later.

I’m the interim/initial chair of the Draft Lessig National Organizing Committee. I’d like to invite you to join me in my quest to put this singularly brilliant, intellectual, upright, honest, visionary man into Congress.

Innermost Parts is still on break. Consider this an “easter egg” as a thank you for still checking up on us.

Anti-Lobbyist Candidate Is Advised by Lobbyists

For years, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has railed against lobbyists and the influence of “special interests” in Washington, touting on his campaign Web site his fight against “the ‘revolving door’ by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided.”

But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JP Morgan and U.S. Airways.

Remember, the real McCain scandal: he took money from lobbyists in exchange for using his power on the Senate to tell the FCC to benefit their clients.
Continue reading “Front page of the Washington Post tomorrow:”

Hey all. Due to Brandeis being out due to break, we’ve decided to wind down our blogging for the next week. Check back when vacation  is over (Feb 24th). Great! Have a fun February Break!

Speaking of Net Neutrality…
The FCC, in a rare move, is having a hearing on the issue, open to the public, here in Boston. ArsTechnica has the goods:

 The hearing will be held at 10am on February 26 at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is open to the public (more details in the official announcement). With all the commissioners planning to be in attendance, this is as good a chance as most people will ever get to air their views directly to the FCC’s top officials, so take advane if you’re in the area

I can’t make it; classes. Hopefully someone else in the Innermost Parts community can go. If so, tell us how it went!

Still confused by Net Neutrality? Here’ s a fun primer:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE&feature=related[/youtube]

This is Ed Markey. Ed Markey represents Brandeis to Congress. Ed Markey also represents the American people. He’d like a word:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXkUahWnpTY[/youtube]

Net Neutrality. It sounds complicated. It sounds important.  Lucky for you, it’s the latter. Unlucky for you, it doesn’t exist in America anymore at this time.

Net Neutrality means freedom of speech on the internet. It means that Verizon has to treat your bits of data with the same care and resources as it treats Microsofts. It means that TimeWarner can’t block the websites of it’s competitors (like Newsweek, Skype, etc).

Except Net Neutrality doesn’t exist anymore. The democratic ideal that the internet was founded on is being crushed by the greed of Comcast, AT&T, and their ilk. To learn more about Net Neutrality, you can read my earlier work on the subject, or go to SaveTheInternet.com.

Suffice to say: Net Neutrality is the thing that keeps the internet fun and not controlled by any company or government. It’s gone, and there’s a big push to bring it back.

I’m proud that my Congressman is leading the charge.

Continue reading “Your Congressman would like a word”

After we learned of the horrible killing of 14 civilians in Iraq by Blackwater personnel last November, almost anything seems possible. Indeed, we are still learning about these private contractors and all the harm they are causing. An article in today’s New York Times tells of women who have been sexually assaulted, and then fired by KBR for speaking up to their employers. Really nice stuff.    

 

But the problem is deeper than the fundamental injustice of the treatment of these women. The worst part is that, unlike members of the military, abusive KBR employees can get off scot-free for their crimes. To begin with, they are immune to prosecution (because they are not technically government workers). According to the Times, “In cases involving sexual assault, soldiers and other military personnel can be prosecuted under the military justice system, but that system does not apply to contractors.”  But even in civilian courts back in the States, justice still cannot be obtained by these women, as the extent of the law over private contractors in foreign war zones still has yet to be determined, this far into the war. (Incidentally,  all of the above is true of the Blackwater employees who indiscriminately killed innocent civilians last Fall).     

 

These contractors are Americans. Whether they commit crimes while being hired out by our government to do work overseas in Iraq, or whether they do the same horrible things to other Americans here on American soil, they should be prosecuted. There ought to be less obscurity, and fewer barriers, on the road to justice. Until that happens, Iraq is utterly lawless – not just in the usual sense (that is, the insurgencies and sectional conflicts that is going on) – but also in the sense that you can go there, as a civilian working for a private corporation, and kill or rape people, without being held accountable.     

 

It has been clear for some time that post-Saddam Iraq will be a turbulent place with little law or stability. Only now is it becoming clear that the place is also a sanctuary for criminals who happen to be working for private corporations with clout.

Regarding the administration’s treatment of Professor Hindley, an alum speaks out: “I urge the administration in the strongest possible terms to drop the case and extend its apologies to Hindley. The reputation of Brandeis University depends on it.”

More info on Blue Mass Group.

I want you to be among the first to know that I am announcing today I am running for the Middlesex-Worcester Senate seat after last week’s announcement by Senator Pam Resor that she will not be running for re-election. I have worked closely with Pam in the Legislature for nearly six years and managed her State Rep. and State Senate campaigns. I know Pam not only as an incredible legislator who has shown leadership on environmental, public safety, education and economic development legislation, but also as a mentor and good friend. Her honesty, integrity, and work ethic will be greatly missed after this year.

Jamie Eldridge is a true progressive and is the only member of the Massachusetts legislature to come into office through clean money / clean elections. He’s a really great guy and I’m looking forward to helping him out in any way I can.

Important things you should know about that happened today:

– History was made today as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially apologized to the Aborigines on behalf of the Australian people and government.

– The Senate voted to trash the constitution today, giving a no-questions-asked pardon to telecommunications companies that probably helped the Bush Administration break the 4th Amendment (before 9/11!).

These are the Democratic Senators that voted for telecommunication amnesty (boo! hiss!):

Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

No Republican voted against amnesty, Senators Clinton (D-NY) and Graham (R-SC) didn’t vote at all.

More on this later.

– Today was the “Potomac Primary”. Obama swept.

– It looks like progressive champion Donna Edwards will defeat corrupt incumbent Al Wynn in the Democratic primary of Maryland’s 4th District. This is a huge victory for the progressive movement and for the citizens of MD-4.

edit: oh, how could I forget? U.S. Supreme Court Judge Anthony Scalia is fine with torture. Help me: I’m no law student; what part of “cruel and unusual” do I not understand correctly?

another update: Donna wins outright. Woot!

yet another update: The Writer’s Strike is over, the writers won, hooray!

Like be superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention. Imagine getting personal phone calls from Bill Clinton and John Kerry urging to endorse their candidate. At age 21.

Or totally school cynical newsmen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM[/youtube]

That’s why you should try to be a delegate to the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention or even the Democratic National Convention.

The Hamas-sponsored children’s tv show, Tomorrow’s Pioneers, recently debuted a Jew-eating rabbit as a new character. I believe this impacts Brandeis more than other area universities. Perhaps Public Safety should be informed?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8w7_P8wZ0[/youtube]

So you may have noticed that we here at Innermost Parts haven’t been talking much about the Professor Hindley situation.

That’s by design. There’s no point commenting until we have something useful to contribute to the debate. I will say that, at this time, I generally agree with the sentiment expressed here:

Rather than taking an objective approach to determining whether Hindley’s comments were discriminatory, the administration appeared to begin the process with a judgment already in mind. Due process was ignored, and the administration instant punitive response made Hindley’s guilt a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately, this is not the first event in recent years in which the administration has been criticized for failing to protect freedom of speech rights. While increasingly more competitive students matriculate at this University, the administration continues to exercise its ability to censor speech.

This seems to be part of a troubling trend of hamhanded authoritarianism on part of the Brandeis establishment. If we understand the accounts of the University correctly, it seems clear that the University has not been acting honestly in this case, with it’s own Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities finding that

Brandeis’s investigation had “lacked thoroughness and impartiality” and “concluded that decisions made by Provost Marty Krauss to threaten termination and place a monitor in Hindley’s classroom ‘should now be entirely withdrawn.'” The committee’s report also faulted the university administration for its vague standards on allegedly offensive speech and its relation to allegations of discriminatory harassment, noting that the standard for true discriminatory harassment involves far more than merely offensive speech.

Most tellingly, it seems the University has been flouting its own rules, threatening to fire a tenured professor, denying him some due process rights, etc.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education wrote a concerned letter to President Reinhartz. He never replied, but Provost Marty Kruass wrote that she considered the case “closed”.

When the ACLU makes a stand, we pay attention. We here at Innermost Parts do not consider this issue closed at all. We don’t know why the Administration has such animosity towards Professor Hindley, but it seems that the he is in the right.

Required reading:

Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party’s energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn’t fit Iraq into his busy schedule. “We have the presidential election,” Reid said recently. “Our time is really squeezed.”

Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation’s leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. “Our focus is on the Republicans,” one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. “How can we juice up attacks on them?”

In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party’s lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.

“Yeah, the amount of expletives that flew in our office alone was unbelievable,” says an aide to one staunchly anti-war House member. “It was all about the public show. Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough stand against Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote, it was like Swiss cheese. Full of holes.”

In the House, some seventy Democrats joined the Out of Iraq caucus and repeatedly butted heads with Reid and Pelosi, arguing passionately for tougher measures to end the war. The fight left some caucus members bitter about the party’s failure. Rep. Barbara Lee of California was one of the first to submit an amendment to cut off funding unless it was tied to an immediate withdrawal. “I couldn’t even get it through the Rules Committee in the spring,” Lee says.

This is ridiculous. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

SEA is working with the University to implement a “sustainability fund”. Good work. It’s nice to see the University showing an intention to live up to the Presidents Climate Commitment it signed; it’s also nice to see them working with a student group on the matter.

Kudos to both of them.

In his latest column, Brandeis celebrity Jordan Rothman has this to say:

I absolutely despise affirmative action and any programs in admission that give preference to people of racial minority backgrounds. First of all, why should people be judged better for the color of their skin? Like Martin Luther King jr., I belive that the content of one’s character should be the sole determinant of one’s success in life. However these, yes, racist officials seem to give preference for the arbitrary characteristic of race.

I respect Jordan, especially his uncanny ability to juggle so many activities (such as writing a column for the Hoot!) but in this case I think he’s viewing the situation in a narrow manner. We live in a society with a white-male power structure. Look at the composition in Congress, CEO’s in business, people in positions of power, etc. Colleges recognize this. Thus, Universities like Brandeis take in people who are disadvaned by the dominant rich-white-male power structure, such as minorities and the poor, and give them the extra tools they need to compete in a hostile environment.

The outside world is full of unfair competition. Racism and misogyny are alive and well. Brandeis wants to give some people a leg up so they can be better prepared for that unequal “real world” and I’m fine with that.

It’s not too late to go as a delegate: http://www.massdems.org/index2.cfm

And of course you can show up as a non-delegate and still participate in sub-committees and so forth, I hear.

Some people working for Student Events just stopped by North Quad and gave away tons of free pizza, making very sure to mention that they were “Student Events, Students working for fellow students!” They say they’ve been to many other quads as well tonight.

Is this a conscious PR pushback against the F-Board/Student Events funding controversy? I don’t know.

Did I score some free pizza out of the deal? Yes.

In a recent op-ed in the Justice, disgraced former Student Union Secretary Mike Goldman endorsed Senator McCain, saying:

McCain represents the broad middle of the nation. Despite the skepticism of most, including this writer, the Iraq “surge” he committed to has put the United States on the course toward victory

Oh really? So the broad middle of the country wants 100 more years of Iraq war, and thirsts to attack Iran? Remember, McCain is a “critic” of the Bush Administration’s war policy. It’s not bloodthirsty enough.

As for “the surge”. As I remember, it was supposed to secure a temporary space for the Iraqi parliament to pass the legislation and make the political movement it needed. Well, that isn’t happening. And seeing as how the whole point of adding 30,000 troops to Iraq was to achieve those political goals, I have to declare the surge a failure. Especially since we’re destroying the army by overworking our troops to the brink of destruction.

Anecdotal reports say that the BranVan, which shuttled students into Waltham to the polling locations, was overwhelmed by the rush to vote. I know I had to wait an hour and a half before any BranVan would take me to vote.

Alex and I voted together. At the polling location (the Banks school), there was a long line stretching out to the parking lot. My vote went fine: Alex had to get a provisional ballot (though our political friends assure us he’s in their voter databases). We voted by the end of the day: my ballot was number 1000ish. Is this high for Ward 7, Precinct 1?

The coolest part about voting was that my first vote was cast for myself. I got a few fun phone calls from friends confused to see me on the ballot as a member of the Waltham City Democratic Committee.

Voting used Optical Scan ballots. Those are much better than Diebold DREs. Good. Just like tests in grade school.

I made sure to thank the poll workers for volunteering. I also got a spiffy sample ballot (did I mention with my name on it?) commemorating the occasion.

All in all, a fun experience, and it would have been much faster if Alex didn’t need a provisional ballot.

How was your voting experience?

The results of the 2008 presidential primary:

(h/t FutureMajority)
Keep up the good work, everyone.

Hi, Sahar here.  Serby is a new contributor to IP. Please give him a warm welcome

Do you remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember the images on TV and in the newspapers, of people stranded on floating rooftops? Remember hearing reports about the awful things that were happening in the Superdome? Remember how the government, rather than supplying the basic necessities to these people – food and water – gave them Bibles? Remember how untold thousands of people could not return to their homes? Did you know that they still have not returned to their homes? Remember the criminal negligence of a government that would not invest in the infrastructure of a city, but would spill billions on a war no one wanted? Remember that this is still going on? Remember how Katrina exposed all the cracks in our society – the deepest being the hidden truth that if you are poor and black, you don’t matter to those who are in power? Remember the corruption and mismanagement of the housing and services for the hurricane refugees? Remember your feelings of powerlessness as you watched an entire city disappear before your eyes? Remember wishing that there was something you could do to help? America is waiting to be America again. Who is going to save it? Certainly not this government. It’s up to the citizens, the willing, the idealists, the young. Whether or not you decide to come with DFA to Mississippi this April (the 22nd to the 27th), I strongly encourage you to find some time to go down there and help rebuild soon. We all share the responsibility for the restoration of the well-being of our nation. Let’s make it happen.

Today is Super Tuesday. Go out and vote in the Primary.

Remember, you CANNOT vote in Gosman. You have to vote at the Banks School. The BranVan can take you there, starting at 4pm.

Remember, Independent/Undeclared voters can choose to vote in either (but not both) party’s primary.

The Brandeis Democrats have a short guide to voting up.

Tomorrow, we get to vote. My first primary. I’m excited.

But you know what’s even more fun that voting? Voting with your friends.
Why not making voting a social affair?

Therefore, Innermost Parts is pleased to announce Primary08, a voting party. Sign up on facebook!

The Massachusetts primary will be much closer than previously thought. Every vote will count.

We will all meet in Usdan. At 5pm, we march to Gosman, get the BranVan and vote in the primaries.

And then…we’ll see what happens from there.

No matter who you vote for, what matters is that you voted. The Youth Vote will matter. And next election, we’ll like the candidates more because they’ll finally be courting, rather than dismissing us.

5pm.
Usdan, then Gosman. the Banks School
Vote!

Update: Unlike every election before this one, we won’t vote at Gosman this year. Instead, we have to vote at the Banks School.

I get email:

The polling location for students registered at Brandeis is the Banks
School at the Corner of Russell and South Streets, it’s right across the
street from Walgreens. The BranVan will be able to give people rides
there starting at 4pm and the polls close at 8pm.

This looks bad. Why did the polling location switch so suddenly? Now it’s significantly harder for us college students to vote…

I just got off the phone with a friend waiting in line at the Kennedy/Kerry/Deval/Obama rally tonight. While the Brandeis delegation waits in line for until 8pm, they’re phonebanking using their cell phones and voter lists the Obama campaign printed out. Smart! They did in the South Carolina Oprah event too.

In case you missed it, there will be a huge rally tonight at 8pm in the world trade center. (Not the one that burned down, apparently there’s a building called “the world trade center” in Boston as well.)  It will feature the big 3 of Massachussetts politics – Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick (all who have endorsed Obama) and Barack having a grand old time. You can stream it online at ma.barackobama.com (I think. I will update if I find a link).

The Massachusetts Democratic Primary is tomorrow. Vote from 7am – 8pm at the Gosman Gym.

Cross-posted to Blue Mass Group

Why I support Barack Obama in his quest for the Presidency:

My endorsement of Barack has little to do with the man himself. As he is fond of saying, it’s not about him. It’s about us. Furthermore, thanks to the work of John Edwards, there’s little daylight between Obama and Hillary in policy terms, since they both raced to join Edwards on the fresh, smart ideological ground he had broken open. In effect, I will cast my vote tomorrow for the Barack Obama *campaign* and the movement it nurtured.

I support the Obama movement because it represents people who I believe should run the Democratic party: high-information activists and passionate “rank and file” Democrats.

I support the Obama coalition: youth, liberals, and African-Americans. I like Barack’s message of community empowerment. A lot of ink has been spilled (what’s the online equivalent of that phrase? A lot of pixels have been displayed?) over the significance of his time as a community organizer. I am in no position to judge how he brings those principles to his campaign, so I’ll ignore that chapter of his life. I will say that Barack’s campaign has distinguished itself from the outset by its reliance on what those in the business call “field”, i.e. boots on the ground, peer contact, etc, rather than advertising. That’s important for several reasons. In The Assault on Reason, Al Gore lays out many reasons why relying on television (and Television advertising) is bad. Long story short, TV ads are increasingly ineffective, they give tons of money to gigantic media corporations who run the ads and donate that money to Republicans. TV ads are one-way messages, and are reduced to sound-bytes and slogans by the constraints of the 30 second spot. Peer-to-peer canvassing and other contact involves a substansive, two-way dialog.

Continue reading “Countdown to the Primary: 1 day”