ServiceNation: Campus Shuts Down, Prepares for Visitors

Obama and McCain have not yet arrived at Columbia, but already, Columbia is abuzz. The tickets have been distributed, the police is out in force, and the final preparations for ServiceNation's Presidential Forum are in progress. The weather appears gorgeous, perfect for sitting out on the Steps of Low Library to watch on the gigantic screen erected there. Security, as you might imagine, is tight and the sidewalk outside of Lerner is barricaded, in eager anticipation of the arrival of the Presidential candidates.



The jumbotron is already set up in front of the Steps, and later tonight, that will be the focus for all but the lucky few who managed to score a lottery ticket to get inside of Lerner.

The jumbotron, apparently in the process of testing.

Thanks to the Journalism School's blog, we know that McCain will be speaking at 8, followed by Obama at 9, though the program itself begins at 7. But you may want to come a little earlier, both to get seats and take part in the theme of the event.

Before the speeches start, from 4-6, several different campus groups will join us in our push to register every Columbia student, part of our First Tuesday voter registration initiative. Just as Barack Obama will bring the country together, we're bringing together a coalition of student groups that spans the true diversity of Columbia in order to register every voter. It's our way of getting into the spirit of ServiceNation. So if you aren't registered to vote or need an absentee ballot, register online at Barack Obama's voter registration site: VoteforChange.com, or stop by College Walk to sign up.

And if you are registered, why not stop by and register fellow students to vote?

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

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.

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.

"A Sorry State of the Union"

The Dems' own Brittany Brewer got an excellent Op/Ed published in yesterday's Spec on the numerous failings of Bush's poorly received (but cheerfully liveblogged) State of the Union. For your convenience and edification, you can find it reprinted below:

The State of the Union address is typically an opportunity for the President to dramatically present the successes of the past year and to gain support for an extensive list of new initiatives for the coming year. In last Tuesday's speech, President George W. Bush abandoned this tradition and attempted to address several key issues facing the nation. Much to the dismay of the newly elected Democratic Congress, however, the Bush's solutions were far less constructive and bipartisan than hoped for.

Bush seems to think that it is the government's responsibility to care for the elderly, disabled, and poor children, while all other Americans are responsible for supporting themselves. Every American should be appalled by a plan that ignores their needs: it penalizes people with high-quality, comprehensive plans, and fails to make health care more affordable for those suffering without. As U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee argued, the policy is a bad idea, as it increases middle-class tax liability, a move that will only temporarily and inadequately address the problem.

In his speech, Bush praised the No Child Left Behind Act, a contentious piece of legislation, for its continued success, stating that it "has worked for America's children" and asked Congress to reauthorize it. While it is no surprise that Bush requested reauthorization for a program he initially proposed and implemented, it does seem outlandish that he obscured the fact that his administration has neglected to adequately fund the program since its inception in 2001.

Democrats were unimpressed by Bush's proposals for education reform. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, who delivered the Democrats' response, argued that "college tuition rates are off the charts" and that Bush's programs will not succeed in resolving these issues if they are not properly funded.

Bush displayed a similar disingenuousness with his economic proposals: balancing the federal budget, reducing earmarks, and reforming entitlements. Bush promised to eliminate the federal deficit, one which he both created and worsened over the course of his tenure, within the next five years. He promised to expose earmarks, yet he has rejected ethics reform so many times that the Democrats made it one of their biggest priorities for the first 100 days. He promised to fix Medicare and Medicaid and save social security, all of which he has attempted and failed to accomplish in the last seven years of his presidency.

In response, Webb observed that "when one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries," a scrutiny that most Americans can probably identify with after listening to the Bush's address. There is a divide between the America of workers living from paycheck to paycheck and the America occupied by executives who earn more in one day than many of their employees make in an entire year. Tragically, when Bush discussed the economy, he did not deem this gap worth addressing.

After alluding to the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001 and the tenacity of our enemies, Bush reiterated his plan to send about 20,000 more American troops to Iraq, proclaiming that "to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." Democrats responded with contempt following his first proposal of the plan and in their response on Tuesday, they stood unified in demanding "an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq." Bush now stands alone in his belief in the potential of additional troops, since even his own generals have advised him that an increase in troops will not help the situation and Republicans continue to desert him on this issue.

Both the victory of the Democrats in 2006 and Tuesday night's address demonstrate one thing: this nation is ready for a change. Bush's approval ratings are lower than ever, with only a 28 percent job approval rating in a recent CBS poll. Democrats in Congress must force Bush to respect their demands and to seek bipartisan cooperation. While Bush has acknowledged this challenge verbally, he has done little to execute it. Fortunately, the American people have placed their trust in a party that is demanding change from their president. The Democrats have vowed to join Bush if he responds favorably to their demands. As Webb declared, however, "if he does not, we will be showing him the way."

Protest Coverage

Washington Post article on student anti-war coalition building and the Saturday protest. There's a nice mention of the Columbia University contingent with a quote from David Judd. Bwog also covered our trip. There is a great video of the protest on youtube.

60s and Now

Our former VP, Andrew Avorn, is over in Spain right now, and he sent us an email updating us about his trip. Included in that is a very interesting article from the Village Voice, where he and his dad (a Columbian who was active in the '68 demonstrations) walk around campus and talk about then vs. now, especially considering the similarity in conditions. Recommended reading.