Two weeks ago, the Activist Council ended the semester on a high note with "Why is Alma Pregnant," an event to raise awareness about the skyrocketing cost of birth control pills for college women. The AC attracted attention with a sign on Low Plaza and a conspicuous baby doll on Alma Mater's lap. Curious Columbians were then encouraged to sign a petition pressuring Columbia to find a way to lower prices.
Until now, the issue has been widely covered, but with little sense of urgency for the millions of women affected. This morning, Slate's Amanda Schaffer weighed in with a vigorous call for Congress to fix the problem before the winter recess. She provides a snappy summary of the legislative tangle which caused this mess, and demands that Congress do something. "The necessary language would fit on a Post-It note," writes Schaffer,"Let's just hope it sticks to something—anything—that makes it into law this year."
12.18.2007
12.16.2007
Media Matters: YOU MAKE ME SICK! Edition
There are no words to describe the degree to which I loathe Senator Lieberman. The professional narcissist and great enabler of the neoconservative agenda has just endorsed Senator McCain for President. It's critical that the Democrats expand their Senate majority in 2008; their agenda should not rely on the support of this wolf in sheep's clothing. Bi-partisanship is a virtue, but endorsing the man with the third most conservative voting record in the Senate is a fierce abandonment of the party with whom he caucuses and, more importantly, his constituents.
11.18.2007
Media Matters: Classic Friedman
Liberals have waited and waited in vain for New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to issue a sincere apology for his vocal support of the Iraq war in its lead-up and aftermath. No voice of left was more responsible for creating the atmosphere which provided cover for spineless Democrats to endorse a misguided and illegal war, despite the fact that they held the majority in the Senate. Instead he grapples and rationalizes his support and tries to find rays of hope in the disaster that is the reality of current U.S. Foreign relations.
In today's column, Friedman reveals that he has learned nothing from years of writing that has had devastating consequences. Today, Friedman revealed his dream ticket for the 2008 Presidential elction: Obama/Cheney. The columnist suggests that Cheney's craziness would serve as a robust counter to Obama's negotiation-centric foreign policy approach, especially with regards to Iran. Nevermind that Cheney's craziness is the x-factor that gave birth to the implementation of the Neoconservative agenda, generated this country's Iraq War "strategy," and facilitated an unprecedented demise of support for US leadership worldwide.
This latest irresponsible idea from Thomas Friedman is further evidence that this man, though brilliant, should not be taken seriously in liberal arenas. Until Friedman takes responsibility for his past war cheerleading and any number of perplexing foreign policy suggestions, liberals should look elsewhere for enlightened punditry.
In today's column, Friedman reveals that he has learned nothing from years of writing that has had devastating consequences. Today, Friedman revealed his dream ticket for the 2008 Presidential elction: Obama/Cheney. The columnist suggests that Cheney's craziness would serve as a robust counter to Obama's negotiation-centric foreign policy approach, especially with regards to Iran. Nevermind that Cheney's craziness is the x-factor that gave birth to the implementation of the Neoconservative agenda, generated this country's Iraq War "strategy," and facilitated an unprecedented demise of support for US leadership worldwide.
This latest irresponsible idea from Thomas Friedman is further evidence that this man, though brilliant, should not be taken seriously in liberal arenas. Until Friedman takes responsibility for his past war cheerleading and any number of perplexing foreign policy suggestions, liberals should look elsewhere for enlightened punditry.
11.13.2007
CU Dems Statement on Solidarity Coalition Demands
The Columbia University College Democrats, like the Solidarity Coaltion, are frustrated by the group advising offices’ lack of accountability to students. We agree that the system must be reformed so that advisors can help their groups without feeling pressure from the larger administration. Furthermore, the Office of Multicultural Affairs
should be expanded, and we hope that the success of the OMA will serve as a model for student group advising in general.
There are clear and specific ways to address the problems as outlined in the Coalition’s Administrative Reform demand. Students should have significant representation on a committee for student group advising with hiring and firing capabilities. The current system of disconnected offices with poor communication unnecessarily hinders our efforts to improve life on campus.
The CU Democrats will continue to advocate for these reforms. These proposals are nothing new; the Columbia administration has witnessed repeated calls for a more robust student presence in the advising offices. Annual inaction on the part of the administration has the unfortunate effect of forcing students to confuse bureaucratic inadequacy and ineffectuality for disinterest or disregard. It saddens us to see that our peers are forced to resort to drastic measures in order for their voices to be heard, and we wish them health and success.
should be expanded, and we hope that the success of the OMA will serve as a model for student group advising in general.
There are clear and specific ways to address the problems as outlined in the Coalition’s Administrative Reform demand. Students should have significant representation on a committee for student group advising with hiring and firing capabilities. The current system of disconnected offices with poor communication unnecessarily hinders our efforts to improve life on campus.
The CU Democrats will continue to advocate for these reforms. These proposals are nothing new; the Columbia administration has witnessed repeated calls for a more robust student presence in the advising offices. Annual inaction on the part of the administration has the unfortunate effect of forcing students to confuse bureaucratic inadequacy and ineffectuality for disinterest or disregard. It saddens us to see that our peers are forced to resort to drastic measures in order for their voices to be heard, and we wish them health and success.
11.11.2007
Media Matters: Yepsen Pulling for Obama?
David Yepsen is the most prominent columnist in the Des Moines Register, Iowa's most widely read newspaper. One might think that such a title does not entitle him to overwhelming distinction, but come primary season, Yepsen's columns frame perceptions about the race.
Over the past weeks, I've noticed that Yepsen has penned several rosy accounts of Senator Obama's momentum in the first caucus state: None more so than today's blog post about Obama's performance at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, an event at which the Democratic candidates for the party's nomination deliver speeches in an attempt to reintroduce themselves to Iowans.
Yepsen had this to say about Obama's performance: "The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way...His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it." He concludes his post by saying, "Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday’s dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign."
Was Obama's speech good? I think so. Is it a little too early to begin talking about this as a turning point for the campaign? Undoubtedly so. Obama remains in a statistical tie with Senator Clinton and John Edwards and has shown little ability to separate from the pack, despite his campaign, and even his wife, candidly admitting that he must win the state's caucus to have any shot at winning the nomination.
Does Yepsen have an agenda outside of serving as a wide-angle lens to the goings on in Iowa? It's a question worth asking. Take a look at some of Yepsen's articles, and type up a post if you find something that strikes you as overenthusiastically optimistic about Barack Obama. It's important. This guy determines what Iowans think about the candidates and what the nation thinks about the Iowa caucus.
Over the past weeks, I've noticed that Yepsen has penned several rosy accounts of Senator Obama's momentum in the first caucus state: None more so than today's blog post about Obama's performance at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, an event at which the Democratic candidates for the party's nomination deliver speeches in an attempt to reintroduce themselves to Iowans.
Yepsen had this to say about Obama's performance: "The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way...His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it." He concludes his post by saying, "Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday’s dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign."
Was Obama's speech good? I think so. Is it a little too early to begin talking about this as a turning point for the campaign? Undoubtedly so. Obama remains in a statistical tie with Senator Clinton and John Edwards and has shown little ability to separate from the pack, despite his campaign, and even his wife, candidly admitting that he must win the state's caucus to have any shot at winning the nomination.
Does Yepsen have an agenda outside of serving as a wide-angle lens to the goings on in Iowa? It's a question worth asking. Take a look at some of Yepsen's articles, and type up a post if you find something that strikes you as overenthusiastically optimistic about Barack Obama. It's important. This guy determines what Iowans think about the candidates and what the nation thinks about the Iowa caucus.
11.02.2007
Campaign Advance Team Update
All is well on the Midwestern front. A van of ten eager campaigners arrived at the Lexington, KY Econo Lodge at 6:30 on Friday morning, November 2, 2007. The quaint and rustic domicile provided refuge for a brief but refreshing five hours of sleep. This followed a long night of driving (14.5 hours door-to-door) by Lead Activist Evan Thomas and Media Director Jonathan Backer. The drive featured a heated competition between Backer's Bob Dylan, Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, and, of course, Bluegrass infused i-pod and Thomas' techno-beat and NSYNC music selections.
Highlights along the trip include a stop at the world-famous Waffle House at Exit 52 in Pennsylvania on I-81 at 8:00 PM. The advance team commingled with interesting locals and a friendly wait staff. Van occupants distracted themselves by playing the Senator game (naming as many Senators as possible by state) and doing dramatic readings of ex-Congressman Mark Foley's passionate IM conversations with a Congressional page. After several awkward moments during the readings' most steamy moments, the voyagers contented themselves with singing along to the Campaign trip's theme songs: "Do You Hear the People Sing" from Les Misarables and "Wagon Wheel" by the Old Crow Medicine Show. Possible contender for this year's campaign song - "Old Kentucky Home" by Johnny Cash.
Stay tuned for more updates once the advance team make contact with Beshear staffer Christine Stoner!
Highlights along the trip include a stop at the world-famous Waffle House at Exit 52 in Pennsylvania on I-81 at 8:00 PM. The advance team commingled with interesting locals and a friendly wait staff. Van occupants distracted themselves by playing the Senator game (naming as many Senators as possible by state) and doing dramatic readings of ex-Congressman Mark Foley's passionate IM conversations with a Congressional page. After several awkward moments during the readings' most steamy moments, the voyagers contented themselves with singing along to the Campaign trip's theme songs: "Do You Hear the People Sing" from Les Misarables and "Wagon Wheel" by the Old Crow Medicine Show. Possible contender for this year's campaign song - "Old Kentucky Home" by Johnny Cash.
Stay tuned for more updates once the advance team make contact with Beshear staffer Christine Stoner!
10.28.2007
What Are You Doing This Weekend?
This weekend, five vans of over sixty Columbia University and Barnard College student activists will hurtle into Lexington, Kentucky as the Columbia University College Democrats launch an army of liberal campaigners into the final days of Kentucky’s gubernatorial race. This race is of tremendous importance, not just to Kentucky, but to our whole nation, as this Southern state becomes a potential battleground in the 2008 presidential race. The campaign trip has become an annual institution of the CU College Democrats Activist Council, bringing New York students to participate in major races across the country and boosting crucial campaigns in their final days. Previous campaign trips by the College Democrats to Virginia and Ohio were remarkably successful, leading to higher-than-predicted margins of victory in canvassed precincts. Columbia and Barnard students have proved themselves invaluable campaigners who come equipped with political smarts, enthusiasm, and an ability to survive on pure political adrenaline. Campaigns now seek out and generously accommodate the Columbia contingent in the hopes of drawing us onto their team and benefiting from our numbers and our energy.
The reason for this campaign trip, however, is both larger and more long-term than simply electing more Democrats. This campaign trip is about giving students the opportunity to participate more powerfully in their democracy and to have a genuine impact on national races. Election Day Weekend was created for a reason. Students must seize the initiative to leave campus and claim ownership of their government and their country. The campaign trip facilitates a type of student activism that is not possible in deep blue New York City, by targeting decisive districts in crucial races and training students to participate effectively in tough campaigns. Campaigners each meet with dozens of ideologically diverse voters throughout the trip, participating constantly in the political debate that makes democracy function. This Democratic campaign trip is a unique institution at Columbia that uses Election Break for its original and greatest purpose – empowering student voices in American politics, not just in an academic environment, but on the ground amongst voters of all persuasions and in a climate of direct political action and change.
We are thrilled that dozens of students have chosen to spend Election Day Weekend bringing change to Kentucky, and we hope that the University administration will soon show equal enthusiasm for this type of opportunity. In the spirit of fulfilling the promise of Election Day Weekend, Columbia University should actively support student political participation by funding or otherwise supporting activities that take advantage of the long weekend. We are lucky to attend a university that fosters debate and welcomes controversy. But no amount of on-campus discussion can give students the same stake in the democratic process as working door-to-door to win a critical, national-level race. We challenge the University to commit to consistently facilitating, rather than just regulating, these efforts, so that campus organizations are less limited by funds and logistics when they want to bring students further into the democratic process.
As students prepare, in record numbers, to immerse themselves in American politics, we are inspired by the surge of activism and expect it to build in the lead up to the 2008 presidential election. We hope that Columbia University will offer the help that students deserve to fully engage with the electoral process. Facilitating political activity is not only about winning elections, but about helping students to be activists whose voices are heard loud and clear in the national dialogue of their democracy.
The reason for this campaign trip, however, is both larger and more long-term than simply electing more Democrats. This campaign trip is about giving students the opportunity to participate more powerfully in their democracy and to have a genuine impact on national races. Election Day Weekend was created for a reason. Students must seize the initiative to leave campus and claim ownership of their government and their country. The campaign trip facilitates a type of student activism that is not possible in deep blue New York City, by targeting decisive districts in crucial races and training students to participate effectively in tough campaigns. Campaigners each meet with dozens of ideologically diverse voters throughout the trip, participating constantly in the political debate that makes democracy function. This Democratic campaign trip is a unique institution at Columbia that uses Election Break for its original and greatest purpose – empowering student voices in American politics, not just in an academic environment, but on the ground amongst voters of all persuasions and in a climate of direct political action and change.
We are thrilled that dozens of students have chosen to spend Election Day Weekend bringing change to Kentucky, and we hope that the University administration will soon show equal enthusiasm for this type of opportunity. In the spirit of fulfilling the promise of Election Day Weekend, Columbia University should actively support student political participation by funding or otherwise supporting activities that take advantage of the long weekend. We are lucky to attend a university that fosters debate and welcomes controversy. But no amount of on-campus discussion can give students the same stake in the democratic process as working door-to-door to win a critical, national-level race. We challenge the University to commit to consistently facilitating, rather than just regulating, these efforts, so that campus organizations are less limited by funds and logistics when they want to bring students further into the democratic process.
As students prepare, in record numbers, to immerse themselves in American politics, we are inspired by the surge of activism and expect it to build in the lead up to the 2008 presidential election. We hope that Columbia University will offer the help that students deserve to fully engage with the electoral process. Facilitating political activity is not only about winning elections, but about helping students to be activists whose voices are heard loud and clear in the national dialogue of their democracy.
10.24.2007
CU College Democrats Announce Anti-Bigotry Panel
Panelists will speak about strategies for countering right-wing hate on campus and in the media
Now in the midst of “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,”
This Friday, former Communist and current right wing demagogue David Horowitz returns to his alma mater to spread his message of hate and to conflate the religious extremism of a few thousand terrorists with the organized right wing nationalism of mid-twentieth century Europe. This foolish man has no interest in legitimate debate because he knows that his theories lack intellectual merit; his academically indefensible hate speech can only needlessly divide a campus already shocked by other recent manifestations of racism and bigotry.
As is demonstrated by the materials distributed by Horowitz’s minions, such as The Oppression of Women in Islam and Islam: What the West Needs to Know, the target of this campaign is not terrorism but Islam itself. The College Democrats strongly condemn these efforts to demonize an entire people by linking the moderate and peaceful religion of Islam to the extreme and violent actions of a very small number of Muslims—the goal of the “
Friday’s panel will provide attendees with an arsenal of strategies for restoring a sane, productive debate about the issues facing
###
10.19.2007
CU College Dems Fight for SCHIP, Call Idiot Congressmen
The Activist Council held an event this Wednesday to pressure the two members of the New York congressional delegation NOT voting to override Bush's veto of SCHIP. We thought they should change their votes and support healthcare for American children. Congressmen Kuhl and Reynolds obviously hate poor children though, since they're voting against giving them health insurance. But we made dozens of calls to their offices, and wrote letters with friendly notes like "please vote for SCHIP" and "good luck getting elected." Here are some pics (credit to Kaley Hanenkrat)!
Our table at set-up time
Glory Banner
Columbia in Action
Our table at set-up time
Glory Banner
Columbia in Action10.18.2007
Three lines for children
In the British Parliament, party whips distribute letters before important votes instructing members to attend. The number of underlines traditionally conveys the consequences for party members that fail to show up and vote with party leadership. The most important votes--generally the ones on which the government has staked its reputation--are underlined three times, with an implied consequence of party expulsion for disobeying members. This is called a "three line whip".
No such system formally exists in the United States Congress, where party controls have traditionally been much less important. Recent years have seen Republican Party leadership turn instead to dirty tricks and electioneering to effectively expel and intimidate unruly members, but the general idea is that we allow more personal voting freedom than most European systems. However, some votes are so crucial and so morally one-sided that party leaders should consider making consequences more clear.
While most Congressional activity leaves room for genuine ideological or practical disagreement, the imminent vote on an override of President Bush's S-CHIP veto is one instance in which there is a clear moral divide. Those who put their hateful right wing ideologies ahead of children do so for the cynical reason that a successful government health care program makes their opposition to universal health care look nonsensical. These people are not real Democrats, and the handful of Democrats who voted against the original bill and have not yet agreed to vote for the override should be made aware of their stance outside the acceptable realm of party positions.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of House leadership should announce that no person who opposes children's health care belongs in the Democratic Party. They should not run for re-election with Democratic Party funds and infrastructure, and they should not speak as representatives of the Democratic Party before the public. Speaker Pelosi should employ an effective three line whip by making absolutely clear to these renegade members that continued support of the right wing fringe in this dispute will earn them expulsion from the Democratic caucus and a refusal of party endorsement in the 2008 election.
UPDATE: The override has failed (by thirteen votes) and Representatives Jim Marshall (DINO-GA) and Gene Taylor (DINO-MS) both voted against it. Remember those names.
No such system formally exists in the United States Congress, where party controls have traditionally been much less important. Recent years have seen Republican Party leadership turn instead to dirty tricks and electioneering to effectively expel and intimidate unruly members, but the general idea is that we allow more personal voting freedom than most European systems. However, some votes are so crucial and so morally one-sided that party leaders should consider making consequences more clear.
While most Congressional activity leaves room for genuine ideological or practical disagreement, the imminent vote on an override of President Bush's S-CHIP veto is one instance in which there is a clear moral divide. Those who put their hateful right wing ideologies ahead of children do so for the cynical reason that a successful government health care program makes their opposition to universal health care look nonsensical. These people are not real Democrats, and the handful of Democrats who voted against the original bill and have not yet agreed to vote for the override should be made aware of their stance outside the acceptable realm of party positions.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of House leadership should announce that no person who opposes children's health care belongs in the Democratic Party. They should not run for re-election with Democratic Party funds and infrastructure, and they should not speak as representatives of the Democratic Party before the public. Speaker Pelosi should employ an effective three line whip by making absolutely clear to these renegade members that continued support of the right wing fringe in this dispute will earn them expulsion from the Democratic caucus and a refusal of party endorsement in the 2008 election.
UPDATE: The override has failed (by thirteen votes) and Representatives Jim Marshall (DINO-GA) and Gene Taylor (DINO-MS) both voted against it. Remember those names.
10.10.2007
The Great Immigration Debate: The Liveblog
Welcome to the L&D's first attempt at liveblogging one of our debates / smackdowns of the CU College Republicans. If you're reading this now, it means you're stuck in a 7-10 film class watching something artsy and in Flemish, so...we'll try to be slightly more edifying than that. Tonight's subject: immigration. We'll try to keep stage-rushing to a minimum.
Dems debaters: Greer Feick and Linda Magana.
9:05 Roone is surprisingly full for a student event. And free food was just promised by someone. So if you're reading this and not in the Flemish cinema class....come. Now.
9:12 Josh Lipsky is standing tentatively at the podium. Diana from CR is...no, wait, coming back, smiling awkwardly - this could very well be it. And only 12 minutes late.
9:15 OK, false alarm. Introductions now. The CR cheering section is (of course) small, but they sure are vocal. And suited up. Alastair from the CPU is announcing the format: opening statements, 35 minutes of CPU-created questions, and then questions from the audience. Apparently, Alastair can use his discretion to extend debate on a question - the committee on Presidential debates could learn a thing or two.
9:19 Opening statements. Linda comes out swinging, bringing this debate where it ought to be - the increasingly squeezed out middle class. Now Greer on terrorism - not a single 9/11 hijacker got into this country illegally. Sweet.
9:21 CR opening: didn't know you could end a sentence with the word "um." Seems they're in favor of the kind of guest-worker program their own party killed this summer. And for paying unnaturalized aliens below minimum wage - because honestly, who needs to both eat and have shelter, right? Pshhh.
9:28 The Republicans have already begun conflating national security issues with immigration. The Dems responded by excoriating the Republicans for--get this--misrepresenting the Cato Institute. Greer just got a round of applause for declaring that walls don't work in America.
9:30 Lauren of CR just came out against car insurance. The t-word elicits chuckles.
9:33 The CR board has just applauded their debaters for being non-white. After coaching them not to answer the question on sustaining the white majority. Greer's rebuts with history, 'cuz facts don't lie.
9:35 Greer just took the Republicans to task for pretending not to see xenophobia in immigration issues while at the same time inviting speakers like Jim Gilchrist to campus.
9:36 The Dems are outlining the rights they would like to see for immigrants--minimum wage, health care, and driver's licenses, yes; voting rights, no. We are pro-safety and pro-public health; let's see how the Republicans conflate that.
9:37 Of course, the Republicans are going after the idea of issuing driver's licenses to illegals or offering them minimum wage protections as clearly impossible--obviously they are unfamiliar with existing state laws. Illegal immigrants contribute economically to our country...they just don't exist.
9:39 The CR's Lauren wants to get foreign nationals to come to jobs that we can't get Americans to do...but want to build a wall in Texas. Because that's consistent.
9:41 The Republicans just argued that a guest worker program without a path to citizenship will increase the cultural exchange between our two nations (presumably, the United States and Mexico). This is accurate--the exchange of immigrants coming here to work in horrendous conditions for slave wages would continue to thrive.
9:42 The Dems are arguing against vigilante justice on the border. Presumably the Republicans will agree... They are also supportive of measures ensuring that the human rights of immigrants are not violated.
9:43 Republicans want to make it more difficult to cross the border--the same policy that has caused immigrant deaths to skyrocket, but has failed to actually stop immigration at all. Lovely. The Dems are responding that a large portion of illegal immigrants entered legally and have stayed illegally--the Republicans retort that their cute little guest worker program will solve that issue. Right.
9:45 Amnesty for certain groups of immigrants? What's going on CR? Linda of the Dems is actually answering the question, bringing things back to human rights and poorly-trained police.
9:46 Dems come out against NAFTA, because American farm subsidies (boooooo) are killing Mexican agriculture. A very coherent, concise, and effect answer from first-year Linda. Props, freshie. CR's response: the Mexican economy is "improving" (like the US stock market this summer?) and NAFTA is "working" (right)
9:49 The Dems are talking about the 80,000 unfilled unskilled labour jobs in California this year and saying that the issue of immigration is not entirely based around citizenship, but also around economics. A path to citizenship, they say, will only ensure that they actually have some rights when they arrive. The Republicans say that, unfortunately, they DO think that the path to citizenship will increase immigration. Wait, I thought they didn't oppose immigration.
9:51 "Require that they learn English" Wow, it took the Republicans almost an hour to throw that one out! They are arguing that bilingual education prevents people from entering our culture--right, American culture is inextricably tied to failure to learn more than one language. Well, maybe the American education system. Greer has just cited Bush's claim that the Senate bill to make English the official US language was the "goodest" thing he had heard in a long time.
9:54 Dems' again demonstrate an understanding of the big picture - building a wall would hamper diplomatic relations with Mexico. Which, contrary to popular Republican beliefs, we need. Also, anyone think it's funny that for all their talk of the importance of 'border security', CR hasn't mentioned Canada once? Just sayin.
9:57 Republicans: Where is your money coming from? TAXES! Really, did they just say that? They also just said that the massively expensive border wall will pale in comparison to the cost of the Iraq War. Yes, true... Is this really a Republican argument? It's telling that they have to run in the opposite direction from their own policies. Greer just pointed out the contradiction between Republican tax policy and immigration reform ideas.
9:59 Linda is arguing in support of the DREAM Act, which would ensure that immigrants are able to contribute to society as educated individuals (what the Republicans pretend that they want). The Republicans want the DREAM Act restricted to people who are already inside the borders (just like the Reagan amnesty program, right? These guys need to pick up a copy of the GOP's talking points).
10:01 CR finally says it: immigrants who cross the border deserve death. And where do they break with Gilchrist, exactly? Now the Canada question is asked, and CR's got a great response: no one's crossing that border, and we don't need to up security (like Bush's burdensome new passport policy does, for instance). Greer points out the obvious: terrorists, like the Millenium bombers, cross from the Great White North. And not Mexico.
10:05 The Republicans propose "other measures" for "dealing with" employment of illegal immigrants, but they don't list any. Maybe next question. The Republicans are arguing that we should make it so American citizens will WANT the jobs that illegal immigrants currently fill. By...raising the minimum wage, perhaps? I wonder how they'd feel about that. The Republicans are arguing something about paying more to workers, but Greer asked them up front if they want to pay higher wages and they said no. What? I'm really confused.
10:12 Greer brings back the middle class focus, for the 5th time this debate. And the Republicans wonder why they're losing so much electoral ground...
10:14 Closing statement time! That debate sure went out with a...fizzle, we have to say. But Lauren's repeating her talking points so let's recap: Guest workers, a 'path to citizenship', fines on employers (whatever happened to laissez faire?) , keeping out the nonexistent terrorists, and letting more Mexicans die in the desert.
10:15 The Democrats respond, sensibly - help develop foreign countries to lower the incentive to immigrate illegally. More civil rights, more human rights, and of course, the middle class - now these are values.
-Stephen Cox and Jacob Taber
Dems debaters: Greer Feick and Linda Magana.
9:05 Roone is surprisingly full for a student event. And free food was just promised by someone. So if you're reading this and not in the Flemish cinema class....come. Now.
9:12 Josh Lipsky is standing tentatively at the podium. Diana from CR is...no, wait, coming back, smiling awkwardly - this could very well be it. And only 12 minutes late.
9:15 OK, false alarm. Introductions now. The CR cheering section is (of course) small, but they sure are vocal. And suited up. Alastair from the CPU is announcing the format: opening statements, 35 minutes of CPU-created questions, and then questions from the audience. Apparently, Alastair can use his discretion to extend debate on a question - the committee on Presidential debates could learn a thing or two.
9:19 Opening statements. Linda comes out swinging, bringing this debate where it ought to be - the increasingly squeezed out middle class. Now Greer on terrorism - not a single 9/11 hijacker got into this country illegally. Sweet.
9:21 CR opening: didn't know you could end a sentence with the word "um." Seems they're in favor of the kind of guest-worker program their own party killed this summer. And for paying unnaturalized aliens below minimum wage - because honestly, who needs to both eat and have shelter, right? Pshhh.
9:28 The Republicans have already begun conflating national security issues with immigration. The Dems responded by excoriating the Republicans for--get this--misrepresenting the Cato Institute. Greer just got a round of applause for declaring that walls don't work in America.
9:30 Lauren of CR just came out against car insurance. The t-word elicits chuckles.
9:33 The CR board has just applauded their debaters for being non-white. After coaching them not to answer the question on sustaining the white majority. Greer's rebuts with history, 'cuz facts don't lie.
9:35 Greer just took the Republicans to task for pretending not to see xenophobia in immigration issues while at the same time inviting speakers like Jim Gilchrist to campus.
9:36 The Dems are outlining the rights they would like to see for immigrants--minimum wage, health care, and driver's licenses, yes; voting rights, no. We are pro-safety and pro-public health; let's see how the Republicans conflate that.
9:37 Of course, the Republicans are going after the idea of issuing driver's licenses to illegals or offering them minimum wage protections as clearly impossible--obviously they are unfamiliar with existing state laws. Illegal immigrants contribute economically to our country...they just don't exist.
9:39 The CR's Lauren wants to get foreign nationals to come to jobs that we can't get Americans to do...but want to build a wall in Texas. Because that's consistent.
9:41 The Republicans just argued that a guest worker program without a path to citizenship will increase the cultural exchange between our two nations (presumably, the United States and Mexico). This is accurate--the exchange of immigrants coming here to work in horrendous conditions for slave wages would continue to thrive.
9:42 The Dems are arguing against vigilante justice on the border. Presumably the Republicans will agree... They are also supportive of measures ensuring that the human rights of immigrants are not violated.
9:43 Republicans want to make it more difficult to cross the border--the same policy that has caused immigrant deaths to skyrocket, but has failed to actually stop immigration at all. Lovely. The Dems are responding that a large portion of illegal immigrants entered legally and have stayed illegally--the Republicans retort that their cute little guest worker program will solve that issue. Right.
9:45 Amnesty for certain groups of immigrants? What's going on CR? Linda of the Dems is actually answering the question, bringing things back to human rights and poorly-trained police.
9:46 Dems come out against NAFTA, because American farm subsidies (boooooo) are killing Mexican agriculture. A very coherent, concise, and effect answer from first-year Linda. Props, freshie. CR's response: the Mexican economy is "improving" (like the US stock market this summer?) and NAFTA is "working" (right)
9:49 The Dems are talking about the 80,000 unfilled unskilled labour jobs in California this year and saying that the issue of immigration is not entirely based around citizenship, but also around economics. A path to citizenship, they say, will only ensure that they actually have some rights when they arrive. The Republicans say that, unfortunately, they DO think that the path to citizenship will increase immigration. Wait, I thought they didn't oppose immigration.
9:51 "Require that they learn English" Wow, it took the Republicans almost an hour to throw that one out! They are arguing that bilingual education prevents people from entering our culture--right, American culture is inextricably tied to failure to learn more than one language. Well, maybe the American education system. Greer has just cited Bush's claim that the Senate bill to make English the official US language was the "goodest" thing he had heard in a long time.
9:54 Dems' again demonstrate an understanding of the big picture - building a wall would hamper diplomatic relations with Mexico. Which, contrary to popular Republican beliefs, we need. Also, anyone think it's funny that for all their talk of the importance of 'border security', CR hasn't mentioned Canada once? Just sayin.
9:57 Republicans: Where is your money coming from? TAXES! Really, did they just say that? They also just said that the massively expensive border wall will pale in comparison to the cost of the Iraq War. Yes, true... Is this really a Republican argument? It's telling that they have to run in the opposite direction from their own policies. Greer just pointed out the contradiction between Republican tax policy and immigration reform ideas.
9:59 Linda is arguing in support of the DREAM Act, which would ensure that immigrants are able to contribute to society as educated individuals (what the Republicans pretend that they want). The Republicans want the DREAM Act restricted to people who are already inside the borders (just like the Reagan amnesty program, right? These guys need to pick up a copy of the GOP's talking points).
10:01 CR finally says it: immigrants who cross the border deserve death. And where do they break with Gilchrist, exactly? Now the Canada question is asked, and CR's got a great response: no one's crossing that border, and we don't need to up security (like Bush's burdensome new passport policy does, for instance). Greer points out the obvious: terrorists, like the Millenium bombers, cross from the Great White North. And not Mexico.
10:05 The Republicans propose "other measures" for "dealing with" employment of illegal immigrants, but they don't list any. Maybe next question. The Republicans are arguing that we should make it so American citizens will WANT the jobs that illegal immigrants currently fill. By...raising the minimum wage, perhaps? I wonder how they'd feel about that. The Republicans are arguing something about paying more to workers, but Greer asked them up front if they want to pay higher wages and they said no. What? I'm really confused.
10:12 Greer brings back the middle class focus, for the 5th time this debate. And the Republicans wonder why they're losing so much electoral ground...
10:14 Closing statement time! That debate sure went out with a...fizzle, we have to say. But Lauren's repeating her talking points so let's recap: Guest workers, a 'path to citizenship', fines on employers (whatever happened to laissez faire?) , keeping out the nonexistent terrorists, and letting more Mexicans die in the desert.
10:15 The Democrats respond, sensibly - help develop foreign countries to lower the incentive to immigrate illegally. More civil rights, more human rights, and of course, the middle class - now these are values.
-Stephen Cox and Jacob Taber
10.08.2007
Activist Council Doings
Activist Council comings, goings, doings, and plannings.
We are prepping for Kentucky over election break! We'll be leaving on Friday, November 2 and returning after polls close on Election Day, November 6. This is the epic political journey of a lifetime, and we want you there. If you'd like to be on the list to receive more info or to sign up, please e-mail kentucky@cudemocrats.com.
We are also planning a major healthcare event to 1) educate students about universal healthcare, and 2) lobby Congress to override President Bush's veto of SCHIP. If you haven't been following Bush's battle to keep children from having healthcare, check it out now.
We recently made a great campaign trip to Long Island, as part of our efforts to take back the State Senate from evil Joe Bruno. If you'd be interested in future local campaign trips, please e-mail your lovely Lead Activists at ac.cudems@gmail.com.
We are launching a major voter registration effort, and if you're interested in planning it, the meetings are Mondays at 9:00 on the 4th floor of Lerner. Meet this week in the Tasti Lounge there (part of Ferris Booth).
And...
COME TO OUR MEETINGS! We'd love to see your shining faces every Sunday at 5:00 PM in Lerner 502.
We are prepping for Kentucky over election break! We'll be leaving on Friday, November 2 and returning after polls close on Election Day, November 6. This is the epic political journey of a lifetime, and we want you there. If you'd like to be on the list to receive more info or to sign up, please e-mail kentucky@cudemocrats.com.
We are also planning a major healthcare event to 1) educate students about universal healthcare, and 2) lobby Congress to override President Bush's veto of SCHIP. If you haven't been following Bush's battle to keep children from having healthcare, check it out now.
We recently made a great campaign trip to Long Island, as part of our efforts to take back the State Senate from evil Joe Bruno. If you'd be interested in future local campaign trips, please e-mail your lovely Lead Activists at ac.cudems@gmail.com.
We are launching a major voter registration effort, and if you're interested in planning it, the meetings are Mondays at 9:00 on the 4th floor of Lerner. Meet this week in the Tasti Lounge there (part of Ferris Booth).
And...
COME TO OUR MEETINGS! We'd love to see your shining faces every Sunday at 5:00 PM in Lerner 502.
Walkouts - Wearisome?
Hey activists! If you read the Spec, or at least had a chance to check out QuickSpec during lecture (hi Bwog!) you may have noticed this article chronicling the many, many walkouts called each year on Columbia's campus. Its author(s) seem to think that Columbia kids are plum-tuckered out from all the walkouts and student strikes, and note the failure of activists to achieve measurable progress on issues like immigration, the Iraq War, and grad student organizing. While the College Dems have traditionally chosen more constructive, or at the very least entertaining modes of protest, we're always open to new ideas.
So what say you? Is the walkout DOA, or just in need of a little TLC from an activist community that knows how to get this campus organized?
So what say you? Is the walkout DOA, or just in need of a little TLC from an activist community that knows how to get this campus organized?
10.02.2007
English Only for Giuliani
Glad to know the former mayor of our polyglot city (40 languages and counting!) is a proud patron of Philly's best-loved, English-only cheesesteak establishment.
Flip. Flop.
Flip. Flop.
Media Matters: Expectations Game Edition
Over the past two fundraising quarters, the Obama campaign has far outpaced the Clinton campaign in fudraising, despite its lower stature in national polls. The Obama campaign has been using this fact as a means to downplay Clinton's frontrunner status, arguing that the campaign's fiscal health would allow it to compete on Tsunami Tuesday (when most primary races will occur) on a level unattainable for Clinton.
Last week, it seemed like the Obama campaign would get to keep making this argument. That's before the Clinton campaign successfully managed a textbook execution of the expectations game. For over a week now, the Clinton campaign has been insisting that it would raise between $17-$20 billion during this fundraising quarter. When the Obama campaign announced that it raised $20 billion this quarter, Clinton's spokespeople claimed the best they could hope for would be that the two campaigns would draw even for the quarter.
Then, SURPRISE! Clinton raised $27 billion ($22 billion for the primary). Now the campaign has achieved something even better than a cash advantage for this quarter: process stories. Instead of talking about the intricacies of policy, the press will write stories all week about how Clinton exceeded expectations, outraised Obama for the first time, and has solidified her lead as the frontrunner. Obama will have significant difficulties stealing the spotlight during this week.
These are two very media savvy campaigns, but Clinton 's campaign won this match. Keep your eyes pealed for more expectation game follies. If you notice this or other media strategies employed by campaigns that you think are effective, post it on the blog, and let's discuss it.
~Jonathan
Last week, it seemed like the Obama campaign would get to keep making this argument. That's before the Clinton campaign successfully managed a textbook execution of the expectations game. For over a week now, the Clinton campaign has been insisting that it would raise between $17-$20 billion during this fundraising quarter. When the Obama campaign announced that it raised $20 billion this quarter, Clinton's spokespeople claimed the best they could hope for would be that the two campaigns would draw even for the quarter.
Then, SURPRISE! Clinton raised $27 billion ($22 billion for the primary). Now the campaign has achieved something even better than a cash advantage for this quarter: process stories. Instead of talking about the intricacies of policy, the press will write stories all week about how Clinton exceeded expectations, outraised Obama for the first time, and has solidified her lead as the frontrunner. Obama will have significant difficulties stealing the spotlight during this week.
These are two very media savvy campaigns, but Clinton 's campaign won this match. Keep your eyes pealed for more expectation game follies. If you notice this or other media strategies employed by campaigns that you think are effective, post it on the blog, and let's discuss it.
~Jonathan
10.01.2007
In Case You Missed It...
Just more proof that when Fox News hates you, you must be doing something right. Props, Josh.
The Obama Surge?
In 2003, John Kerry began slowly surging in various Iowa field polls in mid-october. By early December the once formidable lead build by the Dean camp had dwindled to five points, according to a pew survey. Could we be witnessing the same trend?
One poll does not a momentum shift make... still, this may the good news the Obama campaign has been desperately seeking.
One poll does not a momentum shift make... still, this may the good news the Obama campaign has been desperately seeking.
Media Matters Roundup: CHIP Edition
On September 18, 2007, the Columbia University College Democrats conducted a phone banking drive to put pressure on Representatives Peter King and Jim Walsh, both NY Republicans to rethink their votes on the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization. Over the course of the day, activists made over 150 phone calls to the two Congressional offices. The effort paid off, both Congressmen voted "yea" on the conferenced version of bill . In total, the roll call vote garnered 265 yeas to 159 nays, just 25 votes shy of a veto-proof majority.
Borrowing a page from the CU College Dems' playbook, the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is funding automated (ROBO) calls in seven competitive Congressional districts, hoping to change a couple of Republicans' minds.
Via TPM, D-Trip is also running radio ads against eight vulnerable Republicans for their votes on CHIP reauthorization. Reps. Steve Chabot (OH-01), Thelma Drake (VA-02), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Sam Graves (MO-06), Joe Knollenberg (MI-09), Randy Kuhl (NY-29), Jim Saxton (NJ-03), and Tim Walberg (MI-07).
Looks like the pressure's on. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was really on the defensive today when asked questions about CHIP.
Keep tabs on the CHIP veto showdown. If you see anything, comment to this post and we'll keep a running media update going.
~ Jonathan
Borrowing a page from the CU College Dems' playbook, the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is funding automated (ROBO) calls in seven competitive Congressional districts, hoping to change a couple of Republicans' minds.
Via TPM, D-Trip is also running radio ads against eight vulnerable Republicans for their votes on CHIP reauthorization. Reps. Steve Chabot (OH-01), Thelma Drake (VA-02), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Sam Graves (MO-06), Joe Knollenberg (MI-09), Randy Kuhl (NY-29), Jim Saxton (NJ-03), and Tim Walberg (MI-07).
Looks like the pressure's on. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was really on the defensive today when asked questions about CHIP.
Keep tabs on the CHIP veto showdown. If you see anything, comment to this post and we'll keep a running media update going.
~ Jonathan
9.30.2007
Rethinking ROTC?
"Meanwhile: As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969....Some of you mentioned at the Dems' Ahmadinemania debrief that you were interested in reopening discussion on Columbia's ban on ROTC recruiting (for violating University discrimination policies). We here at L&D are willing to stay above the fray, for now, but tell us what you think. Outmoded, unpatriotic policy or principled defense of civil rights? Comment away...
A perfect synecdoche for too much of American higher education: they are friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military."
-William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
9.27.2007
Bush at the UN: Sound it out
It appears that the White House has learned just a bit too late that the President requires some assistance in public speaking. From Australia's Daily Telegraph:
The U.S. press, when reporting this, was much kinder. From the LA Times, for example:
How do you keep a leader as verbally gaffe-prone as US President George W. Bush
from making even more slips of the tongue?When Mr Bush addressed the UN General
Assembly yesterday, the White House inadvertently showed exactly how -- with a
phonetic pronunciation guide screened on the teleprompter.It included phonetic
spellings for French President Nicolas Sarkozy (sar-KO-zee), a friend, and
Zimbabwe leader Robert Mugabe
(moo-GAH-bee), target, and for Kyrgyzstan (KEYR-geez-stan), Mauritania
(moor-EH-tain-ee-a) and Zimbabwe capital Harare (hah-RAR-ray).
The U.S. press, when reporting this, was much kinder. From the LA Times, for example:
For his address at the General Assembly, President Bush was not taking any chances. His speechwriters put phoneticThis was subsequent to several paragraphs on the difficulty of pronouncing Ahmadinejad, thus situating this barb at Bush's oratory flaws within a larger, more acceptable context.
guides into his speech, so that the leader of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe
(moo-Gah-bee), would understand he was being told to stop the crackdown in
Harare [hah-RAR-ray]. Bush didn't talk
about Ahmadinejad because the Iranian president had gotten enough attention, not
because Bush couldn't pronounce the
name, an aide said.
9.24.2007
Transcript
There is a transcript available courtesy of the Washington Post. Video is expected eventually at CTV News, but it looks like there is some delay.
ps
"Women are ten times more respected than men in Iran. "
... just thought we should let the world know that... Which explains the rape rallies, and the drastic and draconian punishments and daily restrictions they live under.
... just thought we should let the world know that... Which explains the rape rallies, and the drastic and draconian punishments and daily restrictions they live under.
uhm....
"We don't have homosexuals in our country, and I dont know who has told you that"
.... There really isn't commentary on this. I'm not sure there can be...
.... There really isn't commentary on this. I'm not sure there can be...
Holocaust + Physics...
Ahmadinejad, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that we should continue to investigate the Holocaust like we continue to question physics...
... becuase they're clearly very similar. And we have no research or evidence about concentration camps, or the number of dead - while Ahmadinejad says "there are no absolutes" I'm pretty sure that death is absolute.
He's starting to make those people who question evolution or global warming sound sane...
... becuase they're clearly very similar. And we have no research or evidence about concentration camps, or the number of dead - while Ahmadinejad says "there are no absolutes" I'm pretty sure that death is absolute.
He's starting to make those people who question evolution or global warming sound sane...
And the questions
**"Do you, or your government, seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state"
"We love all nations; we are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security."
Now he is talking about the special Jewish MP in Iran (despite having too small a population).
He stated that Palestinians must decide about their future themselves--as part of Greater Palestine, of course, not the Palestinian territories.
**"Mr. President, I think many members of our audiences would like to hear a clearer answer to that question." And he asked for a yes or no answer.
"You asked the question and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it..." He is calling this a Palestinian issue, not an international issue. Of course, he is not a Palestinian, either... "Our solution is a free referendum."
**"Why is your government providing aid to terrorists. Would you stop doing so and provide international monitoring to prove you have stopped."
He is now claiming that the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. "The elected president of Iran and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives." He is referring here to the assassination of Mohammad. This goes on for some time.
**"A further set of questions challenge your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s from the actions of the Nazi government. Since this is well-document, why are you asking for more research?..." This is a silly question--he is simply going to argue for ongoing research in all topics, and he is now doing so. Questions need to be tougher than they have been so far. Maybe he should be asked whether he thinks the Holocaust occurred...
He said, "I am not saying that this didn't happen at all. That is not the judgment I am passing here." He appears to have just said that the Holocaust did happen, and he wants to know why it has to affect the Palestinian people.
**The next question is about persecution of women in public society and homosexuals.
"Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. The Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom. We have two vice presidents that are female at the highest levels of speciality; in our parliaments, in our governments in our universities, they are present..." He is now accusing the American government of spreading falsehoods about freedom in Iran.
"But as for the executions, I like the wasted questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking..." We do object to executing them, but I don't think those are the most objectionable cases. "Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too." Yeah, let's do something about that. Look whose company we keep.
**"The question was about sexual preference and women"
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country." Finally, something completely and totally absurd! And laughter! "In Iran, we don't have this phenomenon, we don't know who's told you that we have it." "Maybe you think that being a woman is a crime; it's not a crime to be a woman." That's nice to hear, even if the explanation was a bit draped in religious language, but let's hear about your government's complete failure to reflect that view in its policies...
Women are "exempted from legal responsibilities" out of respect! Oh, how nice. I can't believe we missed that one the first time. "We are proud of this culture." Well, that's nice.
**"What did you hope to accomplish by visiting Columbia today, and what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy."
"Well here I'm your guest... In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them..." Now he is talking about the rejection of his invitation to Ground Zero. He just wanted to pay respect! Blah blah blah. This is not interesting.
"I wanted to speak with the press. The September 11th tragedy was a huge event. It led to a lot of events afterward..." And then Iraq and Afghanistan. "Insecurity, terror, and fear" in "our region" for six years.
Now he is talking about "root causes" of 9/11, but he doesn't say anything specific about them.
*"...Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium, suitable for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Will you stop doing so?"
He is, of course, claiming still that his nuclear program is peaceful, that it is within the law, and that he will not refine uranium above the 5% weapons threshold. Now he is complaining again about the monopoly on nuclear technology (he should be challenged on the inconsistency of this with his statement that he supports IAEA regs, which codify this monopoly."
A joke! "I think the politicians that are after atomic bombs--making them, testing them--I think that politically they are backward, retarded." Ha ha?
**"...How do you see resolution of the points of conflict between the United States and Iran?"
He can obviously just argue here that they are ready to talk to all nations and that Bush will not talk to him. This is one of the most damning weaknesses of Bush foreign policy--a world leader that fails to engage others denies his entire nation leverage in challenging the terrible foreign policy of other world leaders. The Bush administration is completely to blame for the lack of useful, specific disputes to which questioners might be able to allude in pointedly criticizing Iranian foreign policy as it relates to the United States.
He is now bashing American support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War, another idiotic Republican venture that has destroyed our ability to challenge other world leaders from moral high ground.
He is thanking the audience. Pat yourselves on the backs.
He is inviting Columbia faculty and students to Iran, to speak to their university students. Ok, let's get the administration to put up some money and pay for a trip! This could be interesting, and challenging Ahmadinejad on his home ground could really put more pressure on him than challenging him in New York. I wonder if the invitation will still stand a week from now.
"Best of luck to all of you." How nice. Ahmadinejad must now leave to give his UN speech. The questions could have been more tough, but this was interesting overall. The real test of our country will be whether American foreign policy starts to directly challenge Ahmadinejad similarly, or whether we continue to restrict opportunities for debate to the occasional visit to a college campus with more foreign policy legitimacy than the White House.
"We love all nations; we are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security."
Now he is talking about the special Jewish MP in Iran (despite having too small a population).
He stated that Palestinians must decide about their future themselves--as part of Greater Palestine, of course, not the Palestinian territories.
**"Mr. President, I think many members of our audiences would like to hear a clearer answer to that question." And he asked for a yes or no answer.
"You asked the question and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it..." He is calling this a Palestinian issue, not an international issue. Of course, he is not a Palestinian, either... "Our solution is a free referendum."
**"Why is your government providing aid to terrorists. Would you stop doing so and provide international monitoring to prove you have stopped."
He is now claiming that the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. "The elected president of Iran and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives." He is referring here to the assassination of Mohammad. This goes on for some time.
**"A further set of questions challenge your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s from the actions of the Nazi government. Since this is well-document, why are you asking for more research?..." This is a silly question--he is simply going to argue for ongoing research in all topics, and he is now doing so. Questions need to be tougher than they have been so far. Maybe he should be asked whether he thinks the Holocaust occurred...
He said, "I am not saying that this didn't happen at all. That is not the judgment I am passing here." He appears to have just said that the Holocaust did happen, and he wants to know why it has to affect the Palestinian people.
**The next question is about persecution of women in public society and homosexuals.
"Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. The Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom. We have two vice presidents that are female at the highest levels of speciality; in our parliaments, in our governments in our universities, they are present..." He is now accusing the American government of spreading falsehoods about freedom in Iran.
"But as for the executions, I like the wasted questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking..." We do object to executing them, but I don't think those are the most objectionable cases. "Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too." Yeah, let's do something about that. Look whose company we keep.
**"The question was about sexual preference and women"
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country." Finally, something completely and totally absurd! And laughter! "In Iran, we don't have this phenomenon, we don't know who's told you that we have it." "Maybe you think that being a woman is a crime; it's not a crime to be a woman." That's nice to hear, even if the explanation was a bit draped in religious language, but let's hear about your government's complete failure to reflect that view in its policies...
Women are "exempted from legal responsibilities" out of respect! Oh, how nice. I can't believe we missed that one the first time. "We are proud of this culture." Well, that's nice.
**"What did you hope to accomplish by visiting Columbia today, and what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy."
"Well here I'm your guest... In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them..." Now he is talking about the rejection of his invitation to Ground Zero. He just wanted to pay respect! Blah blah blah. This is not interesting.
"I wanted to speak with the press. The September 11th tragedy was a huge event. It led to a lot of events afterward..." And then Iraq and Afghanistan. "Insecurity, terror, and fear" in "our region" for six years.
Now he is talking about "root causes" of 9/11, but he doesn't say anything specific about them.
*"...Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium, suitable for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Will you stop doing so?"
He is, of course, claiming still that his nuclear program is peaceful, that it is within the law, and that he will not refine uranium above the 5% weapons threshold. Now he is complaining again about the monopoly on nuclear technology (he should be challenged on the inconsistency of this with his statement that he supports IAEA regs, which codify this monopoly."
A joke! "I think the politicians that are after atomic bombs--making them, testing them--I think that politically they are backward, retarded." Ha ha?
**"...How do you see resolution of the points of conflict between the United States and Iran?"
He can obviously just argue here that they are ready to talk to all nations and that Bush will not talk to him. This is one of the most damning weaknesses of Bush foreign policy--a world leader that fails to engage others denies his entire nation leverage in challenging the terrible foreign policy of other world leaders. The Bush administration is completely to blame for the lack of useful, specific disputes to which questioners might be able to allude in pointedly criticizing Iranian foreign policy as it relates to the United States.
He is now bashing American support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War, another idiotic Republican venture that has destroyed our ability to challenge other world leaders from moral high ground.
He is thanking the audience. Pat yourselves on the backs.
He is inviting Columbia faculty and students to Iran, to speak to their university students. Ok, let's get the administration to put up some money and pay for a trip! This could be interesting, and challenging Ahmadinejad on his home ground could really put more pressure on him than challenging him in New York. I wonder if the invitation will still stand a week from now.
"Best of luck to all of you." How nice. Ahmadinejad must now leave to give his UN speech. The questions could have been more tough, but this was interesting overall. The real test of our country will be whether American foreign policy starts to directly challenge Ahmadinejad similarly, or whether we continue to restrict opportunities for debate to the occasional visit to a college campus with more foreign policy legitimacy than the White House.
And the question time begins...
Do you seek the destruction of Israel?
"We love all nations and we're friends with the jewish people? Many jews living in Iran peacefully... "
... and yet... denies the holocaust.
"Democratic proposal to the palestinian plight for a sixty year old problem and let the palestinians decide for themselves and determine their own fate."
AND SIPA PRESSES FOR A CLEARER ANSWER WITH A YES OR NO ANSWER.
Damn it's good to be a Columbia student today.
"We love all nations and we're friends with the jewish people? Many jews living in Iran peacefully... "
... and yet... denies the holocaust.
"Democratic proposal to the palestinian plight for a sixty year old problem and let the palestinians decide for themselves and determine their own fate."
AND SIPA PRESSES FOR A CLEARER ANSWER WITH A YES OR NO ANSWER.
Damn it's good to be a Columbia student today.
Questions
Ahmadinejad is now asking questions of his own. To paraphrase...
As he remains primarily an academic who teaches university courses, he addresses us a fellow academic, but was attacked by "certain groups". "Palestine is an old wound." Repeating "sixty years" and outlining all of the bad results of the Israeli occupation. Nothing incorrect so far, but I bet he's going to finish with something just a bit offensive. "As an academic, I ask two questions":
I doubt that spare parts for civilian aircraft are really a major plank of Iranian nuclear energy policy.
"We are a peaceful, loving nation--we love all nations". And scene. Questions now.
As he remains primarily an academic who teaches university courses, he addresses us a fellow academic, but was attacked by "certain groups". "Palestine is an old wound." Repeating "sixty years" and outlining all of the bad results of the Israeli occupation. Nothing incorrect so far, but I bet he's going to finish with something just a bit offensive. "As an academic, I ask two questions":
- "Given that the HOlocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" Uh, right... "There are researchers who want to approach the topic from different perspectives, why are they being put in prison?" Fine, Europeans shouldn't be putting Holocaust deniers in prison--I agree--but calling these people "academics" is beyond ludicrous. And the Holocaust is not nuclear physics--it's pretty clear what happened.
- "Given this historical event, if it is a reality, we still need to ...?... why the Palestinian people need to pay for it." And so on--you can guess the rest.
I doubt that spare parts for civilian aircraft are really a major plank of Iranian nuclear energy policy.
"We are a peaceful, loving nation--we love all nations". And scene. Questions now.
For the love of god...
"All researchers and scientists are loved by God" which is why Ahmadinejad locks up and tortures those who disagree with him and restricts scientific research in Iran...
Scientists
Now he is attacking scientists for helping develop chemical and nuclear weapons. Ok, fair enough...
He has started to complain that "big powers" are preventing other nations "from developing and advancing" in the sciences, presumably a reference to the Iranian nuclear ambitions currently thwarted forcefully by, among others, Sarkozy.
He has started to complain that "big powers" are preventing other nations "from developing and advancing" in the sciences, presumably a reference to the Iranian nuclear ambitions currently thwarted forcefully by, among others, Sarkozy.
Physical and spiritual knowledge
"If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge, but its scientists are not pure..."
I'm beginning to see where he is going with all of this. He is probably about to attack Israeli scholars and American secularists.
I'm beginning to see where he is going with all of this. He is probably about to attack Israeli scholars and American secularists.
The international Influence of Karl
Indeed. Karl Rove seems to have managed to inspire Ahmadinejad as he makes no political statements, liberally apply and mangle religious statements and make outright lies that put our own hypocrites to shame... encouraging to see though that while the Bush administration has indeed succeeded in exporting a part of the American political spectre...
Ignorance...
... Starting to be a ripple of wonder about if this man knows what he's talking about or is just going to read from the Qu'ran.... "The almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of" Too bad they forgot to educate the man spouting the quote...
Science + Religion
Ahmadinejad is trying to compare science to "a conversation between the Almighty and his Angels." That might be a bit of a stretch, but I guess this guy can't go too long without pouring pseudo-religious nonsense all over his speech.
This has turned into a bad scripture lesson dotted with references to the sciences. He just flew through the Hebrew Bible, the Greek scriptures, and the Qur'an in about six minutes. If we wanted a convoluted attempt to turn science into religion, we'd turn to one of our own conservative politicians. Still no political statements...
This has turned into a bad scripture lesson dotted with references to the sciences. He just flew through the Hebrew Bible, the Greek scriptures, and the Qur'an in about six minutes. If we wanted a convoluted attempt to turn science into religion, we'd turn to one of our own conservative politicians. Still no political statements...
hip hip... hooray?
While Ahmadinejad continues to berete the University for its disrespect towards him and what he says is disrespect for the audience for not allowing Ahmadinejad to voice his views and convince his audience on his own (because I'm sure there are lots of people on the fence about these subjects... ) More about god, and odd cheering from occasional comments made by Ahmadinejad - anyone who is aware of WHY there is cheering, we'd love to be enlightened...
Science
Ahmadinejad is reciting platitudes about the importance of scholarly inquiry and the sciences right now. Let's hope he says something that doesn't sound like the first day of an overenthusiastic middle school science class soon.
liveblogging from the lawn
While Stephen and Sarah are blogging from John Jay, Evan and I will be blogging off the lawn directly about the Columbia reaction to the comments made.. a well deserved standing ovation was given to Bollinger's powerful challenge to Ahmadinejad... Bollinger did take Ahmadinejad to task over everything from his nuclear program to the denial of the holocaust. From shirtless frat boys to islamic women wearing the hijab cheered for a call to truth...
Foreign Relations
Bollinger is bringing up all of the international criticism surrounding Ahmadinejad and the domestic criticism he faces--hey, what a novel idea. It's nice that the president of our university understands working with and speaking alongside other world leaders in trying to solve a rough diplomatic situation--too bad the president of our country doesn't get it.
Ahmadinejad just came on and is going through the usual cordial welcoming statements, praise for academia, lots about God. He's now complaining about the lack of hospitality shown by Bollinger--a bit of an understatement.
Ahmadinejad just came on and is going through the usual cordial welcoming statements, praise for academia, lots about God. He's now complaining about the lack of hospitality shown by Bollinger--a bit of an understatement.
Reciprocation and the Holocaust
Bollinger just asked Ahmadinejad to conduct similar open debates in his own country--a very important point to drive home since our ability to uplift Iranian academia by speaking freely as they cannot is key here.
He has also just brought up the Holocaust, and asked Ahmadinejad to stop the outrage of Holocaust denial and to retract his offensive statements about the destruction of Israel. He is now bringing up the boycott of Israeli scholars, which seems a bit tangential--asking him if he wants to "wipe us off the map, too" is just going to give him an easier point to address than what he has actually said about Israel.
He has also just brought up the Holocaust, and asked Ahmadinejad to stop the outrage of Holocaust denial and to retract his offensive statements about the destruction of Israel. He is now bringing up the boycott of Israeli scholars, which seems a bit tangential--asking him if he wants to "wipe us off the map, too" is just going to give him an easier point to address than what he has actually said about Israel.
Liveblogging!
Sarah Leonard and I are liveblogging the speech. Bollinger is giving his opening statements right now and has just switched from speaking about our freedom to engage in controversial debate to speaking directly to Ahmadinejad's policies. He just invited Haleh Esfandiari to be a visiting professor at Columbia next year, which is cool. He is being very direct and critical--just the kind of engagement that makes this event so essential to helping turn around American isolationist foreign policy. He has just called Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator" and is asking him about oppression of women, academics, Baha'i, the press, and other minorities and dissidents.
9.22.2007
Columbia Dems Official Statement on Ahmadinejad
Below is a copy of the body email sent out yesterday to the 1,500 strong organization we call the Columbia University College Democrats. It's our official statement on where we've been and where we're going.
College Democrats,
Over the past few days the news of President Ahmadinejad's appearance has sparked intense debate on our campus.
As your President and Vice President we want to take a moment and outline some of the controversies happening right now and explain our organization's role in this process.
It is our belief that the general body of students at this school has been shut out of these important decisions and we'd like to change that right now.
Many of you first learned about the Ahmadinejad's appearance at our general body meeting this past Wednesday. By the time we announced the event, registration had closed, meaning few if any of us were able to register. This was the product of the administration only announcing the event to a select few campus leaders before opening the registration process. The leadership of the Democrats spoke with President Bollinger on this issue and he assured us it will not happen again.
Over the past 24 hours we have worked hard to ensure that this event live up to it's billing - 'a free exchange of ideas.' It would be difficult to meet that standard if most of the students on this campus were not allowed to participate. We're proud to say that through the leadership of the democrats, the councils and various other campus groups, we have gotten the administration to agree to simulcast the speech in both John Jay and Wien Lounges. Additionally, students will be allowed to email in questions from now until the middle of the speech. Please send any questions to worldleaders@columbia.edu. These are relatively small concessions but they can help turn this event from a spectator show into an opportunity to challenge one of the most controversial figures of our time.
The Democrats have also decided to organize a '10 Questions' campaign. The concept here is to craft, along with other student groups, a series of 10 questions that we feel President Ahmadinejad must address. A copy of these questions will be submitted to everyone entering Lerner on Monday in the hope that a few of these questions are asked. Everyone is encouraged to submit these questions through email before the event. If anyone would like to help in the process of putting together these questions please email Kate Redburn at krr2105@columbia.edu
You may or may not also know that an adhoc coalition of students- the Columbia Coalition- has formed in response to the event. We'd like to take this opportunity to explain how the Dems board has been involved up to this point, and to solicit your input as to how we should go forward.
Today, there has been an unfortunate campaign of misinformation by another coalition, the Columbia Coalition Against the War (CCAW). Although none of their
representatives have attended any of the Columbia Coalition meetings, they have issued an open letter accusing the Columbia Coalition and any forum participants of advocating for a war with Iran. This could not be
further from the truth.
The Columbia Coalition itself is a non-partisan group which itself is expressing no views on the Iranian President or his visit to our campus. It is not
advocating for any action toward Iran, belligerent or otherwise. It is providing a public forum on Low Plaza giving any and all interested
student groups the opportunity to speak for around 15 minutes each. The forum will not be a pro-war rally, and it will include only Columbia
affiliates, not outsiders. To suggest anything to the contrary is a ploy for attention, not an informed comment.
The board feels that the forum is a positive and appropriate response to the event, and that it is in keeping with our dedication to free speech on campus. Our board has also voted to accept a slot during the Columbia Coalition's Forum. We welcome and encourage your input in helping prepare our remarks for the event.
As Democrats, we seek to engage in dialogue with Iran, and we endorse the decision to invite him unto our campus. This is a unique opportunity to challenge and expose one of the most radical leaders in the world, and as Democrats we welcome this chance. We believe in preventing another war in the Middle East. And we believe that Iran's state sponsored terrorism represents a serious threat to the United States and her president's anti-antisemitism and Holocaust denials represent a serious threat to moral sensibilities across the globe.
And that is precisely why we need to grill and engage Ahmadinejad in every forum possible - not avoid him.
Hopefully everyone made it through the email - it's a long one.
Thanks to all of you who have joined in this debate in the last few days and we hope more of you email us and get involved and continue to give us feedback.
- Josh & Chris
College Democrats,
Over the past few days the news of President Ahmadinejad's appearance has sparked intense debate on our campus.
As your President and Vice President we want to take a moment and outline some of the controversies happening right now and explain our organization's role in this process.
It is our belief that the general body of students at this school has been shut out of these important decisions and we'd like to change that right now.
Many of you first learned about the Ahmadinejad's appearance at our general body meeting this past Wednesday. By the time we announced the event, registration had closed, meaning few if any of us were able to register. This was the product of the administration only announcing the event to a select few campus leaders before opening the registration process. The leadership of the Democrats spoke with President Bollinger on this issue and he assured us it will not happen again.
Over the past 24 hours we have worked hard to ensure that this event live up to it's billing - 'a free exchange of ideas.' It would be difficult to meet that standard if most of the students on this campus were not allowed to participate. We're proud to say that through the leadership of the democrats, the councils and various other campus groups, we have gotten the administration to agree to simulcast the speech in both John Jay and Wien Lounges. Additionally, students will be allowed to email in questions from now until the middle of the speech. Please send any questions to worldleaders@columbia.edu. These are relatively small concessions but they can help turn this event from a spectator show into an opportunity to challenge one of the most controversial figures of our time.
The Democrats have also decided to organize a '10 Questions' campaign. The concept here is to craft, along with other student groups, a series of 10 questions that we feel President Ahmadinejad must address. A copy of these questions will be submitted to everyone entering Lerner on Monday in the hope that a few of these questions are asked. Everyone is encouraged to submit these questions through email before the event. If anyone would like to help in the process of putting together these questions please email Kate Redburn at krr2105@columbia.edu
You may or may not also know that an adhoc coalition of students- the Columbia Coalition- has formed in response to the event. We'd like to take this opportunity to explain how the Dems board has been involved up to this point, and to solicit your input as to how we should go forward.
Today, there has been an unfortunate campaign of misinformation by another coalition, the Columbia Coalition Against the War (CCAW). Although none of their
representatives have attended any of the Columbia Coalition meetings, they have issued an open letter accusing the Columbia Coalition and any forum participants of advocating for a war with Iran. This could not be
further from the truth.
The Columbia Coalition itself is a non-partisan group which itself is expressing no views on the Iranian President or his visit to our campus. It is not
advocating for any action toward Iran, belligerent or otherwise. It is providing a public forum on Low Plaza giving any and all interested
student groups the opportunity to speak for around 15 minutes each. The forum will not be a pro-war rally, and it will include only Columbia
affiliates, not outsiders. To suggest anything to the contrary is a ploy for attention, not an informed comment.
The board feels that the forum is a positive and appropriate response to the event, and that it is in keeping with our dedication to free speech on campus. Our board has also voted to accept a slot during the Columbia Coalition's Forum. We welcome and encourage your input in helping prepare our remarks for the event.
As Democrats, we seek to engage in dialogue with Iran, and we endorse the decision to invite him unto our campus. This is a unique opportunity to challenge and expose one of the most radical leaders in the world, and as Democrats we welcome this chance. We believe in preventing another war in the Middle East. And we believe that Iran's state sponsored terrorism represents a serious threat to the United States and her president's anti-antisemitism and Holocaust denials represent a serious threat to moral sensibilities across the globe.
And that is precisely why we need to grill and engage Ahmadinejad in every forum possible - not avoid him.
Hopefully everyone made it through the email - it's a long one.
Thanks to all of you who have joined in this debate in the last few days and we hope more of you email us and get involved and continue to give us feedback.
- Josh & Chris
Freedom of Blog
Welcome back to the columbia dems blog! This is the place to come for constant updates on everything the Dems are doing with the Ahmadenijad event from start to finish.
9.09.2007
Transatlantic Trends from citizenry and élites
Two reports were released earlier this month containing survey results of Europeans and Americans on transatlantic affairs. The first report, Transatlantic Trends from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, 'is an annual public opinion survey examining American and European attitudes toward the transatlantic relationship.' Here are some highlights:
A second survey, by the University of Siena, Italy, looked also at the opinions of EU officials. The European Élites Survey 2007 found that 74% of Members of European Parliament and 77% of top EU officials 'felt strong US leadership to be desirable.' Over half of élites thought the swearing in of a new president will improve transatlantic relations.
The entirety of both reports are available online, and they contain many more interesting insights into the divisions and commonalities in American and European opinions.
Fifty-eight percent of Europeans viewed U.S. leadership in world affairs as “undesirable,” compared with 36% who saw it as “desirable.”Though these numbers signify much less European confidence in US leadership than is desirable, European citizens could still be persuaded back into support of US policies if properly packaged (and sold by a different administration).
European attitudes toward Bush’s international policies remained critical (77% disapproval compared to 17% approval).
Forty-six percent of Europeans felt that transatlantic relations will stay the same following the U.S. presidential election in 2008 regardless of who is elected, compared with 35% who felt relations will improve and 6% who felt relations will get worse.
A second survey, by the University of Siena, Italy, looked also at the opinions of EU officials. The European Élites Survey 2007 found that 74% of Members of European Parliament and 77% of top EU officials 'felt strong US leadership to be desirable.' Over half of élites thought the swearing in of a new president will improve transatlantic relations.
The entirety of both reports are available online, and they contain many more interesting insights into the divisions and commonalities in American and European opinions.
The Activist Council Kicks Off Today!
Dear (new and old) Democratic Activists,
Our year is beginning and our first meeting is TODAY (Sunday) from 5:00 - 6:00 PM in 502 Lerner Hall. Here's why you want to be there:
Democratically Yours,
Sarah Leonard
1/3 of your Lead Activists
Our year is beginning and our first meeting is TODAY (Sunday) from 5:00 - 6:00 PM in 502 Lerner Hall. Here's why you want to be there:
- YOU will guiding us this year. What's your passion? Universal healthcare? The Iraq War? Protesting the shit out of idiotic Republican policies (and fighting for better ones)? You want it, we're doing it.
- You can take charge of our efforts. We are a collective of equals. If there is an issue that you are passionate about and would like to plan an event around, we can help you.
- We have crazy amounts of fun. See our global warming bash.
- You will be helping to develop the voice of the campus left in America. The CU Dems were proud to win Chapter of the Year this summer and we will continue making our presence felt throughout the 2007-2008 school year.
- We want to be your new liberal friends.
- We're planning a trip to KENTUCKY for November to campaign for gubernatorial candidate Steve Beshear. Kentucky.
We're taking over. Wanna help?
Democratically Yours,
Sarah Leonard
1/3 of your Lead Activists
9.03.2007
Welcome to the Columbia University College Democrats Official Blog
As the new year kicks off in style I wanted to take a moment to welcome everyone to the Democrats and our shiny updated blog. Last year ended with a promise to make this campus the hub for progressive activity in the New York are and that's precisely what we plan to do. Whether you're interested in equal marriage rights, legislative action, the primary season (and who isn't interested in that), or just partying with fellow liberals, the democrats have a place for you. Our organization is one of the few on campus that not only allows but strongly encourages freshmen to take on leadership positions and start working towards our goal of creating the pulse of liberal activism at Columbia. In the coming weeks you'll search around, look into some of the other student groups on campus and hopefully remember that the Columbia Dems mean Action. And this is college folks - everyone wants action. So post on the blog, come to our open house, join an umbrella group, and become part of the progressive movement in this country. And if you think it all sounds too good to be true just come to a meeting and we'll show you why Columbia Dems are the national college democrats chapter of the year.
Josh Lipsky
President, Columbia University College Democrats
Josh Lipsky
President, Columbia University College Democrats
8.26.2007
Shifting the sands from Westminster.
Gordon Brown's government this month has continued to distinguish itself from the Blair years, with the release of a Parliamentary report that criticizes the UK's Middle East policy under Blair. This comes on the heels of rhetorical efforts aimed at losing the foreign policy baggage left by Blair, and includes several recommendations in line with our progressive efforts in the United States, including a more dialogue-oriented approach to Iran.
It was a disappointment when Blair failed to mount even cursory challenges President Bush before the invasion of Iraq. It appears that Brown's government will not be as complacent, perhaps even visioning itself as the example the American government should follow. The report states, 'We note that it has long been the policy of the Government to engage with Iran, and we are encouraged by signs that the US Administration is now accepting the wisdom of this approach.' Though Britain has never been substantially important militarily, its political weight has still been hefty. Maybe the loss of steadfast British support for American policies will be as important as Blair's early submissiveness.
While this report is not more than an outline of possible changes to British foreign policy, nor is directly from the Prime Minister, it seems indicative of a substantially different course is being shaped for the UK. Brown is expected to elaborate his foreign policy further in October, so more definite conclusions must wait until then.
It was a disappointment when Blair failed to mount even cursory challenges President Bush before the invasion of Iraq. It appears that Brown's government will not be as complacent, perhaps even visioning itself as the example the American government should follow. The report states, 'We note that it has long been the policy of the Government to engage with Iran, and we are encouraged by signs that the US Administration is now accepting the wisdom of this approach.' Though Britain has never been substantially important militarily, its political weight has still been hefty. Maybe the loss of steadfast British support for American policies will be as important as Blair's early submissiveness.
While this report is not more than an outline of possible changes to British foreign policy, nor is directly from the Prime Minister, it seems indicative of a substantially different course is being shaped for the UK. Brown is expected to elaborate his foreign policy further in October, so more definite conclusions must wait until then.
6.07.2007
The Big Green Apple
New York is going GREEN, bit by bit.
Recently, it was announced that the New York cab fleet will be made up of hybrids by 2012. Mayor Bloomberg has finally gotten behind the plan of Councilman David Yassky, who has been pushing environmental measures since arriving on the Council. Despite some initial skepticism from New York Taxi Workers Alliance, due to the higher cost of hybrids (although this should be offset by lower fuel costs), reactions have been very positive. Yassky wrote to supporters:
And he describes another environmental project for NYC:
Yassky has decided to get behind Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal, as well. Governor Spitzer seems open to the proposal, if not immediately enthusiastic. He may be holding out to gain more control over upcoming projects in the city.
All of this seems to be a good start to making NYC a sustainable city. The congestion pricing has it's detractors. Will it actually decrease traffic? Make the areas outside the pay zone a parking lot? Meetings have been scheduled to discuss.
Columbia is even cooperating! Amazing.
And most fun of all, we can all guess about whether Bloomberg will run for president!
Recently, it was announced that the New York cab fleet will be made up of hybrids by 2012. Mayor Bloomberg has finally gotten behind the plan of Councilman David Yassky, who has been pushing environmental measures since arriving on the Council. Despite some initial skepticism from New York Taxi Workers Alliance, due to the higher cost of hybrids (although this should be offset by lower fuel costs), reactions have been very positive. Yassky wrote to supporters:
Some of you may remember that I first introduced a “Clean Air Cabs” bill five years ago, soon after joining the City Council. Since then, we got a pilot program for clean-fuel cabs implemented in 2003, and we got incentives for hybrid cabs enacted in last year – but until today, the taxi lobby had been able to block a more comprehensive requirement.
And he describes another environmental project for NYC:
I want to tell you about a new initiative that is moving forward rapidly. Last month, I joined with Environmental Defense, the League of Conservation Voters and the American Lung Association to propose legislation mandating increased use of biofuels in heating oil. The idea is to replace some of the highly polluting diesel fuel that is now used to heat homes and offices with cleaner fuel made from soy or palm plants. This is technologically achievable right now – as with taxis, the only impediment is an industry used to the old ways of doing things.
Yassky has decided to get behind Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal, as well. Governor Spitzer seems open to the proposal, if not immediately enthusiastic. He may be holding out to gain more control over upcoming projects in the city.
All of this seems to be a good start to making NYC a sustainable city. The congestion pricing has it's detractors. Will it actually decrease traffic? Make the areas outside the pay zone a parking lot? Meetings have been scheduled to discuss.
Columbia is even cooperating! Amazing.
And most fun of all, we can all guess about whether Bloomberg will run for president!
5.24.2007
Widgets For Peace
Please post this widget around your personal web world. The code is available here. This is a great educational tool to continue rallying support for Senator Feingold's plan (endorsed by the CU College Dems) to end the war in Iraq.
Perhaps another example of the Dems' superiority on the web.
Perhaps another example of the Dems' superiority on the web.
5.04.2007
4.05.2007
Obama Raises $25M
Senator Obama has raised an impressive $25 million for his campaign so far, putting him just behind Senator Clinton, who has thus far raised $26 million. Obama will be able to spend $23.5 million of that money on the primary race.
What is most impressive about this story is not just how much money Obama has raised; it is the fact that this money came from 100,000 different donors.
What is most impressive about this story is not just how much money Obama has raised; it is the fact that this money came from 100,000 different donors.
3.18.2007
Because sticking it to the nutjobs is always fun...
I just thought I'd rehash the cover story from the National Review on May 9, 2005.
The first sentence: "It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq."
The rest here.
The first sentence: "It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq."
The rest here.
Regime Change Done Right
From within, that is. It looks like real change is on the way in Zimbabwe, where it does not seem that Mugabe will hold on much longer. The crackdown on dissent has been bloody, but nothing like what we have seen in Iraq, of course. Consider: would this be under way if the West had decided to invade at some point after Mugabe thumbed his nose at us? Even if the regime does not fall for a year or five years to come, surely this slow process of genuine revolt is preferable to a bloody attack from outsiders. And should not conservatives agree with that?
The BBC on mounting pressure in Zimbabwe
The BBC on mounting pressure in Zimbabwe
Senator McCain: "..."
A question about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of H.I.V. stumped Senator McCain, leading to a rather awkward and revealing moment in McCain's '08 campaign.
Senator McCain, this is not a matter of opinion. This is science. The use of condoms dramatically reduces the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and infections, including H.I.V. Please stop this ridiculous pandering to the socially conservative right.
Senator McCain, this is not a matter of opinion. This is science. The use of condoms dramatically reduces the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and infections, including H.I.V. Please stop this ridiculous pandering to the socially conservative right.
3.09.2007
Another one.
You have got to be kidding me. Newt Gingrich not only had an affair while pursuing Clinton's impeachment, but he actually stands by his decision.
"Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity."
hyp·o·crite [hip-uh-krit] –noun
"Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity."
hyp·o·crite [hip-uh-krit] –noun
É™| a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. |
3.08.2007
3.06.2007
The Verdict is In
Former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby has been found guilty of four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements for his role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
We've known for years that the men (and token women) running Bush's White House are incompetent, but criminally so? This is a sad day for America.
We've known for years that the men (and token women) running Bush's White House are incompetent, but criminally so? This is a sad day for America.
3.05.2007
Rudolph the Red-Faced Father
Commendation is due to Gawker for their insight into the true Rudy Giuliani and for their coverage of his rather pathetic feud with his uber-spoiled son. I have never been a fan of hounding the children of Dick Cheney and Bill Frist just to point out that their fathers are hypocrites (like more proof was necessary), but I think "sorry Dad, I have to go golfing for the next two years straight" says something about the quality of the parenting at hand, not just about genetics.
3.04.2007
Coulter Strikes Again
During an address at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Ann Coulter called former US Senator John Edwards (D-NC) a faggot, to raucous applause. And it's on video.
There are no words.
There are no words.
3.02.2007
Galileo Redux
Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum, a nine-term Democrat-turned-Republican, recently forwarded a memo to every member of the Texas State House that challenged the notions of a heliocentric Universe as heretical. You read that correctly—a sitting legislator, charged with managing complex issues like global warming and energy security in the Internet age refuses to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. We'd make a snarky comment, but we think the quote below speaks for itself:
"Indisputable evidence - long hidden but now available to everyone - demonstrates conclusively that so-called secular evolution science is the Big Bang 15-billion-year alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion,"
2.28.2007
McCain To Seek Presidency
Tune into Letterman tonight to see Senator John McCain (R-AZ) announce his candidacy in the 2008 race.
Rabble-Rousing
John Kerry
What is with these guys after they bungle their presidential runs? Is there something about the Democratic nomination that removes one's charisma? It certainly seems to return immediately after they lose. I don't even have to post the story; just look at this picture (and ok, click on the picture for the Crooks and Liars piece that--as always--has the video):
Don Imus
Conservatives do not support the troops. When Democrats go out of their way to support the troops, Republicans attack them!
2.27.2007
No One Is Pro-War
Laura Bush went on Larry King last night and said, "No one's pro-war." She also suggested that we will probably still be in Iraq at the end of the Bush presidency. These do not sound like the typical White House talking points to me, which could mean one of two things. Either Laura Bush is unable or unwilling to stay on message or Laura Bush is trying to prod her husband closer to reality. Given her track record, the former is certainly more likely, but the latter is certainly more intriguing.
Crooks and Liars has the video
Crooks and Liars has the video
2.26.2007
Old Man McCain
John McCain seems to have once been a reasonable fellow. He was always very conservative--I never understand his popularity on the left during the 2000 campaign, except perhaps as a reaction to the obvious doublespeak of the Bush camp--but he at least stood for something. As we face the frightening prospect of this old man running for the highest office again despite apparently slipping into senility and losing all conception of justice in his quest to become president, I am posting here two McCains--then and now.
Then:
Now:
Then:
"If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."
John McCain, New York Times, August 19, 1990.
Now:
2.19.2007
No Go for Joe
As a Sabbath-observant Jew myself, I have nothing but respect for Senator Lieberman's (I-CT) decision to put his faith first over the years, refusing to, among other things, campaign on the Sabbath, and voting in Congress only when absolutely crucial - that is, to say, when lives are on the line. You can imagine my dismay, then, when I read that this past Saturday "Joementum" walked to the Hill to cast a vote against allowing for debate of a non-binding Senate resolution symbolically opposing the McCain-endorsed escalation of the War in Iraq. Apparently, Lieberman feels so strongly that any Congressional debate of our increasingly murky mission in Iraq would give comfort to the enemy that he's willing to violate the sanctity of the Sabbath to keep his colleagues from so much as opening discussion as to the efficacy of an American mission that has left 3000 of our own servicemen and women dead, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children. For shame, Joe, for shame.
2.14.2007
Nadler: Use the Power of the Purse
Representative Nadler gave a long speech against the war, the escalation, and the pathetic lack of resolve from Congress on the floor of the House today. Crooks and Liars has video, as usual.
" In the Supplemental Budget we will consider next month, we should exercise the only real power we have - the Congressional power of the purse. We will not cut off the funds, and leave our troops defenseless before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply, but we should limit the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We should provide funds to rebuild the army and to raise our readiness levels, for diplomatic conferences in case there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war, and for economic reconstruction assistance, but above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq.
"We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil war they cannot win, and that is not our fight.
"I know that, if we withdraw the troops, the civil war may continue and could get worse. But this is probably inevitable, no matter how long our troops remain. And if the Iraqis must fight a civil war, I would rather they fight it without 20,000 more Americans dying.
"Yes, the blindness of the Administration is largely to blame for starting the civil war in Iraq, but we cannot end it. Only the Iraqis can settle their civil war. We can only make it worse, and waste our blood and treasure pointlessly."
" In the Supplemental Budget we will consider next month, we should exercise the only real power we have - the Congressional power of the purse. We will not cut off the funds, and leave our troops defenseless before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply, but we should limit the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We should provide funds to rebuild the army and to raise our readiness levels, for diplomatic conferences in case there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war, and for economic reconstruction assistance, but above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq.
"We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil war they cannot win, and that is not our fight.
"I know that, if we withdraw the troops, the civil war may continue and could get worse. But this is probably inevitable, no matter how long our troops remain. And if the Iraqis must fight a civil war, I would rather they fight it without 20,000 more Americans dying.
"Yes, the blindness of the Administration is largely to blame for starting the civil war in Iraq, but we cannot end it. Only the Iraqis can settle their civil war. We can only make it worse, and waste our blood and treasure pointlessly."
Another element of the war...
One problem with the war that has received a great deal of attention with the forward-thinking Dems body as we discussed our unified position on Iraq is that of regional instability. The war itself has led to enormous regional instability, and we felt that any plan we endorsed would have to address that. It is, therefore, sadly inappropriate that--on the very night that we chose to endorse a position--news of just such instability came out of Iran. A bus bombing killed eighteen people a few hours ago in Iran. Yes, that's IraN. Bush's mishandling of this debacle seems to be pushing us ever closer to a protracted regional conflict in a region prone to disastrous conflicts. Whether Douglas MacArthur really said it or not, the Princess Bride was almost certainly right about the follies of a land war in Asia.
2.13.2007
Obama Slips Up
Obama, didn't you learn anything from Joe Biden or John Kerry's botched joke about thinking before you speak? Today, Mr. Obama apologized for saying that the lives of American soldiers who have died in Iraq were "wasted."
Oy.
Oy.
Gallup: People want Congressional action
Gallup has a new poll out showing that the majority of people would like to see a binding timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, just like the Columbia Democrats. Not surprisingly, they also give a decidedly lukewarm response to the idea of a "nonbinding" resolution (feckless is a more appropriate adjective) that effectively does nothing to bring the troops home. Clearly, the American people are sick of useless, symbolic gestures of disapproval from all involved and are ready to see Congress take legislative action to stop the war. A majority has long thought that the war itself was a bad idea; now they want the Democrats in Congress to find a way out, and that is just what they are going to do.
2.11.2007
Target: Obama
Barack has been catching flack from all sorts of frightened right-wingers since he announced his candidacy officially, but by far the most interesting has just come in from nutty Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Mr. Howard believes that the terrorists should be hoping for an Obama victory (is this sounding familiar?) due to Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq.
Mr. Howard is apparently so committed to prolonging the disaster in Mesopotamia that he has agreed to deploy an additional 25,000 troops to Iraq in lieu of the proposed American surge. Just kidding, Australia still has only 1,400 troops in Iraq. I am certainly not one to argue for more feet on the ground in a war that is only hurting all involved, but I also think that these wingnuts should hesitate to criticize sacrifices being made by others as not big enough when they themselves refuse to sacrifice anything. Here is a further illustration of Mr. Howard's understanding of the intricacies of Middle East politics:
UPDATE: Australian Labour Leader Kevin Rudd gives a response to Mr. Howard that many Congressional Democrats would do well to watch over and over.
Mr. Howard is apparently so committed to prolonging the disaster in Mesopotamia that he has agreed to deploy an additional 25,000 troops to Iraq in lieu of the proposed American surge. Just kidding, Australia still has only 1,400 troops in Iraq. I am certainly not one to argue for more feet on the ground in a war that is only hurting all involved, but I also think that these wingnuts should hesitate to criticize sacrifices being made by others as not big enough when they themselves refuse to sacrifice anything. Here is a further illustration of Mr. Howard's understanding of the intricacies of Middle East politics:
He said that defeat for the US would end hopes for peace in the Palestinian Territories and cause widespread destabilisation in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
UPDATE: Australian Labour Leader Kevin Rudd gives a response to Mr. Howard that many Congressional Democrats would do well to watch over and over.
2.10.2007
'08AMA
It's official...Barack Obama announced today that he is running for president. Welcome to the campaign trail, Barack.
2.09.2007
Direct from the Quagmire
What to do, what to do? Democrats won the elections in the fall largely because of the whole country being so fed up with the hideous Republican strategy for democratizing Iraq. But I am really concerned over the lack of concrete action that has been taken. This past week, the Dems were being a "symbolic, nonbinding resolution" criticizing the White House's usual lack of responsibility and common sense. Why is it that the Democrats haven't pushed anything significant through? It's my sincere hope that next week--during the 36-hours allotted for discussion which allows every single Democrat to talk about Iraq for 5 minutes--some type of conclusion will be reached. There's not enough time to waffle around on this issue, for every day gets the USA more and more involved in an irreconcilable ethno-religious conflict.
At least the Dems realize that they need to get their act together, with Pelosi stating the obvious:
The people “called for a new direction,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and no place do they want that direction to be more clear than in the war in Iraq.”
But then there's always the concern of getting whatever materialized resolution through to the executive branch before Bush vetoes it. The Republicans are on to this:
“They are now in the majority,” said Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, the chairman of the Republican Conference. “They finally have the opportunity to change policy and they are putting up a sense of the Congress resolution, which is worth about as much as the parchment it’s printed on.”
Welcome to politics, ladies and gentlemen. The sad fact is that anything coming out of the house is unlikely make it all the way though. The Senate seems even more unsure about what to do. Then what's to do? Hold out on the financing. The power of the purse seems to be the only realistic approach for the time being, as Rep. Nadler highlights,
“The president is not going to listen to anything we have to say,” Mr. Nadler said later in an interview. “There’s nothing we can do to stop him unless it’s the real consequence — the power of the purse.”
And does that really accomplish all that much?
At least the Dems realize that they need to get their act together, with Pelosi stating the obvious:
The people “called for a new direction,” Ms. Pelosi said, “and no place do they want that direction to be more clear than in the war in Iraq.”
But then there's always the concern of getting whatever materialized resolution through to the executive branch before Bush vetoes it. The Republicans are on to this:
“They are now in the majority,” said Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, the chairman of the Republican Conference. “They finally have the opportunity to change policy and they are putting up a sense of the Congress resolution, which is worth about as much as the parchment it’s printed on.”
Welcome to politics, ladies and gentlemen. The sad fact is that anything coming out of the house is unlikely make it all the way though. The Senate seems even more unsure about what to do. Then what's to do? Hold out on the financing. The power of the purse seems to be the only realistic approach for the time being, as Rep. Nadler highlights,
“The president is not going to listen to anything we have to say,” Mr. Nadler said later in an interview. “There’s nothing we can do to stop him unless it’s the real consequence — the power of the purse.”
And does that really accomplish all that much?
2.07.2007
One Closer in the New York Senate
The Democratic failure to take back the New York State Senate is one of the greatest shortfalls of the 2006 election. This morning, we are one seat closer to taking back control of that house (we already hold a supermajority of 107 out of 150 in the New York State Assembly). A Democrat was pulled into office on Spitzer's belated coattails in a historically Republican part of Long Island. The voters have sent a message: they want Democratic change in Albany. It is time for the moderate Republicans in the Senate to switch parties and support Spitzer's agenda of reform.
2.01.2007
Oops for Biden
Senator Joe Biden announced yesterday that he would run for President...and that's when his campaign started to go downhill. Biden made some very controversial remarks about Senators Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Way to start the campaign off right, Joe.
It's Go Time for Al
IT'S OFFICIAL. AL FRANKEN IS STARTING HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN IN MINNESOTA!!!
glorious. Simply glorious. He'll be running against Sen. Norm Coleman (R). The biggest concern? Establishing himself as a "serious" candidate.
glorious. Simply glorious. He'll be running against Sen. Norm Coleman (R). The biggest concern? Establishing himself as a "serious" candidate.
1.31.2007
Cribbing from the Best
In a speech right here in New York, today, Bush addressed the state of the economy and decried the sort of wildly disproportionate compensation for CEOs that has become par for the course. Some choice remarks:
It's funny...I almost feel like I heard something just like that recently:
Poor Jim Webb...less than a month on the job, and he's already been co-opted by the Plagiarist-in-Chief.
''The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years,'' the president said. ''The earnings gap is now twice as wide as it was in 1980,'' Bush said
It's funny...I almost feel like I heard something just like that recently:
"When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries...The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day."
Poor Jim Webb...less than a month on the job, and he's already been co-opted by the Plagiarist-in-Chief.