Lefty's Last Cry: Progressive Headquarters

The Man-phibian Candidate

2012-01-24T14:03:00.009-05:00

According to Wikipedia, newts (pleurodelinae) "have the ability to regenerate limbs, eyes, spinal cords, hearts, intestines, and upper and lower jaws."

With his win in the South Carolina Republican primary, Newt Gingrich has put himself back in front of the Republican line-up and has set himself up for an extended battle with Mitt Romney. Yet, many people (myself included) did not expect Newt to still be in the running and completely wrote off his candidacy long ago.

From what has happened I can only conclude that if Ronald Reagan was the "Teflon President," then Newt Gingrich is the "Regenerative Candidate."

Newt has been hit by multiple scandals (Freddie Mac consulting fees, Tiffany's credit line, Greek cruise, the "open marriage" interview, and the list goes on) and he has a good deal of baggage from his past; but everytime a scandal "wounds" Newt's campaign he somehow "regenerates" the viability of his campaign and comes back with all trace of his "wounds" removed.

I am forced to admit that there is something to his ability to keep himself a part of the conversation, and the increasingly real possibility of his becoming the Republican nominee. This ability, however, is most likely being helped by the lackluster Republican field and the unwillingness of many Republicans to support Mitt Romney.

I do not think Gingrich can keep pulling off his amphibian act in a general election, but it is for that reason that I wouldn't mind his being the Republican candidate. If Newt Gingrich does defeat Romney, either it ensures an Obama win (seeing as Gingrich is racist, hypocritical, undecorous, unethical, and in my view unelectable) or he wins, I move to Canada, and Republlicans officially forfeit all rights to their claims of "family values" and their denials of bigotry (what little right they still have to profess these things).

For all of his slippery and unre-mitt-ing (had to be done) efforts, Newt Gingrich is ultimately unelectable; whether or not he can edge out Romney in the primary process.

Why?

1. Because it is impossible to support him when one takes all of his scandals and unethical behavior cumulatively. It is true that "the Japanese fire belly newt can regenerate its eye lens 18 times over a period of 16 years and retain its structural and functional properties," but I think most people want a president who only goes through at most a handful of eye lenses, whether or not he manages to recover (metaphorically speaking of course).

2. Because you have to make this type of argument to support the man (and you'd have to take it seriously):
"Newt Gingrich's three marriages mean he might make a strong president -- really"

Personally, I'm going to cast my vote for President Obama. I'll wait until Senator Mudpuppy runs to vote amphibian.

Newt GinGrinch

2011-12-15T17:41:00.000-05:00

It's been a while, but I couldn't resist, and I knew you all would appreciate this one. Happy Holidays Lefties!

It's Time For Finals...

2011-12-06T22:22:00.000-05:00

...so you're obviously looking for a reason to procrastinate anyway. Watch this video.

And also this one.

"Being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights."

Let's Talk About Sex

2011-10-29T14:53:00.001-04:00

The following is a post from guest writer Athena Hughes, the producer of Notre Dame's Loyal Daughters and Sons. Notre Dame remains extremely conservative and quiet about a major issue on college campuses: sex, sexual assault, and sexuality. As Halloween Weekend arrives, we think it an appropriate time to open the dialogue about a topic that should never be made taboo. Be safe this weekend, and go Irish!

Do you have something to say about sex? If you want to contribute to the conversation about sexuality and relationships on this campus, whether it is an experience or an opinion, we want to hear it!

Loyal Daughters and Sons is an annual theatrical performance comprised of scenes and monologues, all of them based on interviews with Notre Dame students. It began five years ago as a Gender Studies thesis project with an interest in increasing awareness and promoting discussion about relationships, sexual violence, sexuality, religion, and gender relations at Notre Dame. Each year includes new scenes based on new interviews, in addition to scenes from past performances.

This year we want to diversify the discussion as much as possible, but we can only do that if we have a range of interviews to draw from. This is where you come in! If you have had an experience, positive or negative, painful or joyful, that you feel comfortable sharing with our interviewers, we would love to hear from you.

If you don’t have a story to share but you have an opinion, we want to hear that too! Whether it’s your personal beliefs about or your experiences with sex, sexuality, relationships, or assault, or how these issues are dealt with at Notre Dame, you can make a valuable contribution to this year’s performance, and possibly future performances as well.

This semester is dedicated to collecting interviews that the writers, Tara Duffy and Jodie Sullivan, will use to create new scenes and monologues. The interview content is sometimes quoted directly in the script and is sometimes used as a jumping-off point, but always with a commitment and sensitivity to the intention and feelings of the interviewee. Rest assured that the identities of all interviewees are always kept strictly confidential. If you would prefer to be interviewed by a male student, arrangements can be made.

If want to set up an interview, or if you have any questions, email us at loyaldaughtersandsons@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you!

If you can't beat 'em, disenfranchise 'em

2011-10-04T16:31:00.013-04:00

Republican legislators realize that they can continue to disparage those below the poverty line and enable the corporations that exploit them if they simply make it more difficult to vote.

I thought it was bad enough that corporations can spend unlimited funds on political "speech," but apparently we still hadn't undermined our democratic rights enough.

According to a recent New York Times article, a number of states have recently passed laws related to voting and voter registration; these laws limit opportunities to register to vote and to vote, while also requiring specific types of photo identification that not all voters posess.

These laws are being challenged under the Voting Rights Act (1965), but given a similar law has already been established here in Indiana.

The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU school of law conducted a study from which they concluded:
"These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012."

The following video is the Senate Judiciary hearing on this subject. It is a long video, so I recommend that you listen from 2:30 to 9:55 to hear Senator Richard Durbin explain the problem and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina try to defend the new laws. Also, listen from 37:20 to 45:00 to hear Congressman Emanuel Cleaver object to the laws and from 45:00 to 52:05 to hear Congressman Todd Rokita defend the laws based on Indiana's law:

Early voting is a very popular reform that helps increase turn out and makes elections easier to monitor. Yet, early voting reforms are being reversed.

Preventing independent organizations from registering voters, especially when carried out by non-partisan groups, is absurd. Poor people, the elderly, the young, and the disabled don't always have access to registration without these groups.

The only reason Republicans want to pass these laws is their fears about illegal immigration. The "airport" argument that Lindsey Graham makes is ridiculous; he himself reveals that ID requirements don't stop those who are committed to comitting a crime. They do, however, impact people who don't have the resources or opportunities to obtain such IDs and make it to the polls on a certain day.

Congressman Rokita makes a decent argument, but nothing he says proves the law is preventing fraud. Also, in my (albiet limited) experience those who help oversee elections do take voting seriously. Further, I don't feel that I should have to prove myself with a photo; I feel confident when the system takes me at my word that I am who I say I am.

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver says these laws are reminiscent of poll taxes and other measures that were used in the past to prevent African-Americans from voting.

Cleaver also says, "Why in the world are we doing things to make voting more difficult? It would seem to me, in the United States of America in the 21st century we would do everything concievably possible to give everybody encouragement to vote. We're encouraging democracy in Iraq; let's demand it at home and do away with anything that prevents any American from voting."

I think, like the Congressman, that in 2011 we should not only be able to say everyone has the right to vote, but also that everyone actually has an opportunity to vote.

Voter fraud exists, but it is not a significant problem. So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it; especially when the solution is a greater injustice than the problem.

Worth Fighting For

2011-10-02T16:44:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I spent $5.95 on a Pizza Pollo at Recker’s. It tasted like happiness, as always. It also cost the same as about 12 human lives.

Let me explain.

This week is ND Fighting NTDs Awareness Week. NTDs are Neglected Tropical Diseases, a collection of chronic, preventable diseases that plague over 1.4 billion people worldwide. That’s 20% of the global population. All of these diseases can be treated or prevented for just 50 cents per person per year.

NTDs are chronic parasitic illnesses. They are mostly transmitted through water, dirt and human feces. I’ll spare you a technical rundown of the diseases, but just know that they cause unimaginable suffering: malnutrition, respiratory illness, debilitating, painful blindness, paralyzing swelling of the limbs, mental retardation, and the works. The medicines to treat NTDs have been developed and donated by major pharmaceutical companies, but we have no way of physically getting them to the people who so desperately need help. We need money to transport the medication and train and educate distributors to safely administer the medicine.

This is no easy undertaking, but it is do-able. That’s why ND Fighting NTDs is launching a major initiative around campus this week to raise money and awareness. You’ll see us and our posters all over, but here’s a quick overview of the events you don’t want to miss. We will be giving out free Einstein bagels in front of Debartolo on Monday and Tuesday, hosting a documentary screening on South Quad Monday evening, a faculty panel to discuss various solutions to global health problems on Tuesday in Geddes Auditorium, and a Dirt Cup Dessert Sale in Lafortune on Thursday.

If you are starting to feel really guilty about your latest Starbucks coffee, don’t. I don’t feel guilty about my pizza, but I will go to Five Guys Eddy Street on Wednesday evening after 7 pm, because 15% of all proceeds will be donated to fight NTDs. And I will indulge in a Dessert Cup on Thursday (buy one with FlexPoints!) to help the cause. And yeah, for the chocolate, too.

But really, why should you care? NTDs are neglected precisely because no one cares. They're chronic, they don't kill people quickly so they don't inspire the same horror and fear as diseases like Malaria. Because of this, they just don't have the star power, they don't get attention and therefore they don't get the funds and global interest. These diseases are major humanitarian problems, though. Their symptoms collectively slow down economies, prevent children from reaching their full mental capacity, and imprison entire populations in a cycle of pain, poverty, and illness. This is so much more than a medical issue, it's a social issue.

We are seeing progress in the fight against NTDs and it's because people like you and I are finally mobilizing, so I really I hope I see you at one of our events. NTDs are so fixable, and as a proud member of the Fighting Irish Community, I will happily fight to end the neglect. So should you.

Hoosier Governor?

2011-09-28T00:59:00.006-04:00

Seeing as I live in Indiana now, though I still don't vote here or enjoy IndyCar racing, I felt it was worth watching and passing along John Stewart's interview with Mitch Daniels.

It is nice to know what the man running this state thinks, and more importantly that he is not completely crazy (AKA not Bachmann) nor unintelligible (AKA not Perry). Daniels is reasonable, but still holds party line economic views. He has trouble defending the current Republican talking points, for that I can't blame him because there is no good argument for supporting enormous income inequality. John Stewart is on his game, as usual, keeping Daniels honest.

Enjoy:

Exclusive - Mitch Daniels Extended Interview Pt. 1

Exclusive - Mitch Daniels Extended Interview Pt. 2

Exclusive - Mitch Daniels Extended Interview Pt. 3

Justice Served?

2011-09-22T00:45:00.000-04:00

I really hoped I wouldn't have to write this post.

It's amazing how American can uplift one day and completely destroy the next. Wednesday night, at 11:08 p.m., Roy Davis was executed via lethal injection for a crime he may not have committed.

There are several inconsistencies in the case which led to Davis' conviction. According to his attorneys, seven of the nine witnesses who testified against Troy later recanted parts of their stories in regards to the 1989 slaying of an off-duty police officer. Officials repeatedly denied Davis' appeal for a polygraph test, and the case made it's way all the way to the Supreme Court, while supporters considered going so far as to ask President Obama to intervene. The case has drawn attention in Europe as well, where human rights groups called the death sentence a tragedy and an injustice. Despite a last minute four hour delay while the Supreme Court reviewed a stay request and support from three House Democrats, attorneys and activists were unable to stop the killing.

While the specifics of the case are unnerving, I'm just as concerned with the fact that the United States still uses capital punishment as a viable means of justice. There is no justice in pretending to be God, there is only arrogance and error. Whether guilty or not, no person deserves to be deliberately murdered at the hands of the government. No one on earth should have the power to determine whether someone lives or dies. At this point, sadly, it doesn't matter whether Troy Davis was guilty or innocent. What matters is that he was a human being, and because our country still utilizes a barbaric and outdated form of punishment, I now have to write about him in the past tense.

A Celebration of Progress

2011-09-20T17:08:00.000-04:00

Congratulations, America! At 12:01 this morning the repeal of the infamous 1993 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Law went into affect, thereby freeing homosexuals in the military to live openly and honestly while serving the country they are willing to die for.

Despite continuing opposition from some members of Congress, top Pentagon officials have confirmed that the change in policy will have no affect on the ability of the military to fight wars or defend our nation. In anticipation of the repeal, 97% of the military has been trained to incorporate the changes.

Gay rights activists organized celebrations across the country, and gay Navy Lt. Gary Ross married his partner in a Vermont ceremony just minutes after the repeal became official. Other soldiers celebrated by officially coming out, with the official launch of a military magazine titled "OutServe," or, in the case of prominent gay activist Dan Choi, re-enlisting in the armed forces.

Today is a reminder that, while our country isn't perfect, while it has a lot to work on, we are still a country willing to change for the better, a country working towards complete social freedom and equality, a country putting in the work to live up to that old U.S. Army slogan: be all you can be.

I'll close with these two videos about what the repeal means to military members and this quote from President Barack Obama, when he signed the official repeal: "We are not a nation that says, 'don't ask, don't tell.' We are a nation that says, 'Out of many, we are one.'

Screwed By A Weiner

2011-09-15T17:31:00.003-04:00

As you may recall, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner resigned from office in disgrace after it had come to light that he had a habit of sending pictures of his junk to women he liked. I've never tried this move, but I imagine it's not especially effective. Anyway, despite being one of the few Democratic congressmen with any energy, this scandal derailed his career, and his seat was recently up for re-election. It should be mentioned that his district has not elected a Republican representative since 1923. So the Democratic candidate can't lose, right? Wrong. Republican representative Bob Turner won the race. This is intensely disturbing. If Democratic strongholds like New York's 9th are going red, despite constant coverage of the crazytown frolics that have been the Republican presidential debates, how do Democrats have a chance in 2012? But maybe this isn't a sign of the national mood. Maybe this is just what happens when a Democrat who actually has balls feels the need to show them to everyone he meets.

The Truth Behind the "Invisible Hand"

2011-09-11T14:33:00.001-04:00

So, have you ever heard a Republican talk about government being too big and getting in the way of businesses?

Okay, that's an obvious one, but in their explanation did they talk about the "invisible hand" of the marketplace? Politicians, journalists and economists really seem to love this phrase, but the problem is that none of them appear to have read the phrase in its original context.

See way back in 1776, a guy named Adam Smith wrote this book called The Wealth of Nations and its been generally been considered the foundation of modern economics. But for some reason no one ever actually reads it. I'm guessing the 1200 pages, and specifically the 100 pages digression on silver might have scared some people off. But recently I was fortunate enough to read it for a class, and I was very surprised but what I discovered.

Now, before I drop my list of quotes you never would have expected, I want to emphasize that this is a very complex and long book and just as the phrase "invisible hand" leaves much to be desired, so too will my quotes fall short of explaining the full depths of Adam Smith. But maybe the next time you hear someone talk about the "invisible hand" you can remind them of these other lines from that brilliant work that stand as a direct counterpoint to their interpretations. Here goes nothing.

On the struggle over wages, "The workermen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number can combine much more easily... But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate."

On the concept of a living wage (that would be HIGHER than the minimum wage) "There is however a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour. A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more."

An explanation of why high wages can never be bad, "Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed, and lodged."

Smith's actual problems with big government, "Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters."

On the dangers of profit makers, "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with prosperity, and fall with the declension, of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society as that of the other two... Their superiority over the country gentlemen is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, on many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

I know that was long, especially that last one, but doesn't that last line respond directly to the Republican claim that millionaires and billionaires are "job-creators".

Anyways, you've now read more of The Wealth of Nations than 90% of people quoting the "invisible hand". So next time you hear the phrase and you don't like the usage, quote this stuff back at them and leave them gasping for air.

Why Mututal Respect Has Become So Difficult

2011-09-09T19:36:00.005-04:00

I want to respect Republicans and give them the benefit of the doubt on some of their opinions that I disagree with, I really do.

However, this is why I can't:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

If Rick Perry is elected I don't think Canada is far enough away and Europe is collapsing, so I'll probably end up in Australia. I don't know how people can approve of almost anything the man says. I know things are different in Texas, but it doesn't bother me when it stays in Texas.

(I do feel sorry for rational people living in Texas)

Bachmann's Greatest Hits

2011-09-02T15:14:00.000-04:00

Happy first football weekend! To kick things off on a light (horrifying?) note, take a minute to check out Michele Bachmann's finest moments as a representative of our great nation. And remember, President Obama may have caved to empty politics and pushed his speech back a day to please John Boehner, but he will never say things as ill-informed and vacuous as this aspiring Commander in Chief.

Debt solution at our doorstep

2011-09-01T17:04:00.012-04:00

In one of my classes we have looked very closely at the issue of America's debt and deficit crisis. We read over numerous budget plans, proposals, tables, and charts. One thing that is clear is that a viable budget solution must employ all 4 "options": Cuts to security related discretionary spending, cuts to non-security discretionary spending, cuts to mandatory spending (entitlements), and increased revenue. Bipartisan plans, such as the Simpson-Bowles report, take this into account.

The problem is that mandatory spending for entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is already the most troublesome of the three main categories of spending and will become even more difficult as our population ages and income inequality increases.

So, it all essentially boils down to what to do with entitlement programs; from there we can find ways of solving our many other problems.

We need a solution that maintains these programs as a safety net for disadvantaged, disabled and elderly Americans and doesn't hurt our recovering economy.

Where can we find such a magical solution?

It won't be easy or be found all in one place, but CNN's Fareed Zakaria knows one place we can start and it makes a lot of sense.

Immigration reform is the subject of an article by Zakaria from CNN World online, and he makes a compelling point that is even more compelling in light of what has happened in the time since the article was posted.

Immigration policy and the contributions of immigrants is what made America great, what continues to make America great, and what has the potential to help America get back on her feet.

The hardworking people who come here for a better life are more than just a solution to our demographics problem, but they also are indeed a counterweight to an aging population of baby-boomers. If we can reform our policies in such a way that more immigrants can come here legally and those who are already here illegally can legitimize their presence, we will have more than enough money flowing into entitlement programs to support future retirees.

In fact illegal immigrants already put more into the economy and taxes than they take out in services, and that difference would only increase were they granted amnesty.

As Zakaria argues, immigrants maintain a demographic vibrancy that separates America, for the better, from other industrial powers in Europe and Asia. We simply cannot afford to lose any social or economic advantages nowadays. Reforming our immigration to be competitive in the 21st century and beyond is something that we have to do sooner or later if we want to remain a prosperous nation, and sooner is preferable to later.

If you somehow aren't convinced that immigrants can help our economy, read this article to see what they can do for society as our neighbors. If you are convinced, I still recommend reading it to see just how inspiring the story of one Pakistani man can be.

The only drawback of this idea, which ideally wouldn't be an issue, is that it might not be politically viable.

In our current political climate we can't even manage to raise the budget ceiling for the umpteenth time or agree what the government is going to spend in the next year. How then are we going to find compromiseon an issue as important and divisive as immigration reform? Republican law makers know that no amount of rational argument for the economic and social benefits of immigration reform will convince their base to support anything but a really big wall. It is also going to be nearly impossible to get anything real done on something this big until after the election.

As excited as I am about the prospects of immigration reform for addressing our nation's money problems, I might have to wait a while before the issue is addressed.

I hope our next president is willing to take a good look at the benefits of immmigration reform and to do something about it. By which I mean that I hope we reelect President Obama.

Have We Truly Sunk This Low?

2011-08-30T14:13:00.002-04:00

I'm truly not sure about the future of America anymore.

We used to the be the country that came together in times of need to solve problems. When deficits loomed, people like Tip O' Neill and Ronald Reagan who had nothing in common when it came to policy would find ways to make deals that were real compromises. They were civil and cordial and some would say that when the day was over they were almost friends.

But today something's changed. Today, winning the next election is more important than governing. And that's just sad. I thought this debt ceiling crap was as low as we could go. I didn't think the situation could look any grimmer. But earthquakes and hurricanes, true disasters which SHOULD unite our country are instead highlighting this broken system.

With parts of the South STILL rebuilding from Katrina, with the Midwest rebuilding from Joplin, and with the East Coast rebuilding from one earthquake and Irene, nature has really given us a run for the money. Literally. Because according to majority leader Eric Cantor, we can't give FEMA more money unless we cut something else out of the federal budget. So in the meantime they are pulling money out of all rebuilding projects to help the Northeast.

This is what happens when you hold hard line commitments live an anti-tax pledge or a no new spending pledge, or whatever the hell you want to call it. Principles are all well and good, but we live in a real world, that is changing and brutal. No line liberal, conservative, green, democrat, republican, libertarian or whatever should be held constant through all times and all places. To even think to do so is insanity. Maybe the reason Mr. Cantor can't believe in Evolution is because he never developed the ability to adapt to new circumstances.

Times of tragedy and disaster require us to surrender some principles in the name of others. The Christian right believes in the sanctity of human life and maybe they should consider THAT principle when they're still talking about deficits over disaster relief.

Because see they are the problem. We always try to equalize or be fair and say that both sides of the aisle are being unreasonable but that's JUST NOT TRUE. Obama has throughout his presidency reached out his hand to deal with Republicans. He has made offers that liberals hated. And yet the Republican party continues to say that defeating him is their number one goal.

Right now there are people who need help. And we, "the most powerful nation on Earth", are leaving them out to dry because some uppity Republicans think the bottom line on the budget matters more than human lives. And that's a danger to our country. When one party has decides that their principles and their next election really are more important than the public they represent, it's we the American people who lose. And it's time for us to demand that the Republican party wake up come back to reality. They don't agree with us and they don't have to like us, but they have to work with us. That's what democracy means.

An Analysis of The Iowa GOP Debate

2011-08-13T16:47:00.003-04:00

This is the first post from new writer Maria Wilson. She will be without internet access for a little while and doesn't have time to set up an account and wanted me to post this while it was still relevant. We look forward to more of her writing as the year progresses.

Thursday night was the Iowa GOP Debate in Ames, Iowa, an event in a state that has been known to make or break presidential campaigns. The debate consisted of those who have officially tossed their hat into the ring: Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. The debate was interesting, to say the least, and simply a reiteration that almost any Republican president would be devastating to the social progress that the Obama administration has strived to make. Most of the candidates came across as petty, starting fickle fights with each other and blaming Obama for literally every problem under the sun. I feel like if the debate went on for much longer, someone would eventually blame Obama for the Joplin, Missouri tornado and Steve Carrell’s departure from The Office.

Two candidates were able to rise above this, I believe. There must be something in the water in Utah, because the only two candidates that stood out as genuine presidential hopefuls were Mitt Romney and John Huntsman, both of the Beehive State. Both men were able to convey their stances on issues while avoid the derogatory sparring that occurred between other candidates. Romney, especially, was excellent in his response to the many attempts to break his cool, salesman façade, where most of the attempts to rouse him regarded his health care reform during his time as Governor of Massachusetts. As he seems like the only candidate that has actually ever attempted to implement a solution to solve the healthcare crisis, he earns my respect on this issue. However, that respect was lost the instant he began to call for the repeal of “Obamacare,” a move I found very ironic, considering much of the recently passed healthcare reform was partly based off of his Massachusetts plan. When it comes to social issues, Huntsman has my support most of all. Though he said that he did not support gay marriage, he said that he supports civil unions. This certainly isn’t the ideal position for a potential leader of our country to have, but it separates him from the other contenders. My support also goes toward him for his excellent record as the former governor of Utah. Additionally, as the former ambassador to both China and Singapore, Huntsman has experience in foreign policy that he could bring to the Oval Office.

Thus, to this liberal, it is clear that Romney and Huntsman are the only reasonable Republican candidates for the President of the United States. Unfortunately, though, neither of these candidates will likely receive the nomination, and prejudice is to blame. Both are Mormon, and to the extreme right that has been gaining strength, this seems to be the equivalent of being a Satan worshipper. This is only the Republican Party’s loss, though, because I believe that these two are rational and intelligent, and out of all of the potential candidates, they are the only ones with the experience and leadership to lead our country, if Obama were to lose.

Michele Bachmann stood out from the rest of crowd…literally. Her shiny silver outfit starkly contrasted the drab black suits of the men. Fashion aside, though, Bachmann is considered by many to be the most popular candidate for the Republican nomination. Though a woman president, or even Republican candidate, would certainly be a step forward, it would be about one hundred steps backward for our nation if Bachmann was elected. She has shown herself time and time again to be the absolute worst of the Tea Party and an absolute bigot. (I recommend this video, where my favorite comedian Kathy Griffin recounts her tale of calling her out on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLXJ_7I7uXI) She is essentially Sarah Palin, minus the fun “you betcha” accent and plus some actual debating skill. I had hoped that America had learned its lesson for keeping “crazies” like her out of political office in 2008, but this lesson obviously hasn’t been learned, as Bachmann has a huge support base. Possibly the most awkward moment of the debate, though, came when she was asked if she would be submissive to her husband if she would be elected President. The crowd instantly booed this question, and I was booing it as well. It was extremely sexist, and even Bachmann doesn’t deserve a question like that. I quite enjoyed the sparring between Pawlenty and Bachmann. Pawlenty accused Bachmann of having no real legislative spine and having no actual results on the promises she has made (which is a very apt analysis), and Bachmann accused Pawlenty of abandoning his conservative principles in his time as governor. She finished her list of Pawlenty’s “liberal” actions (which in reality were just acknowledging that carbon emissions need to be cut and healthcare needs to be reformed) by telling Pawlenty that he sounds like Barack Obama. If being a reasonable individual that might not be entirely blinded by bias is a bad thing, I don’t want anyone to be right.

Ron Paul and Herman Cain were the entertainment of the evening. Paul is always good for a laugh, and his ramblings on immigration and Iran did not disappoint. My personal favorite moment, though, was Cain’s call for a giant wall on our borders to keep out illegal immigrants, while maintaining “wide open doors.” Because, obviously, in this time of a huge deficit, the first thing we need to do is build a replica of the Great Wall of China.

Who am I missing? Oh yes, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. This is no coincidence, as I repeatedly forgot they were even present at the debate. Though I’m sure they spoke at some point, their views were indistinguishable from anyone else’s, and I can’t help but wonder if either candidate is taking their campaign entirely seriously.

All in all, the GOP candidates are underwhelming to anyone outside of their loyal base. They repeatedly used Obama as a punching bag, while none of them were able to provide real solutions to our country’s problems. All of them acknowledged that they would not even consider accepting a 10-to-1 spending cut to tax increase ratio. It is clear to this liberal that the only chance at getting out of this deficit has to include compromise from everyone, which would probably include minutely raising the taxes of those that own private jets. (*gasp!*) Having any of these candidates as President would put a great leader out of office and lead us down a very dangerous path back to the Bush years.

Stephen Colbert Is A Genius

2011-08-11T23:38:00.002-04:00

Between the debt ceiling debate and the Republican primary, it's hard not to feel like the American political system has become a parody of itself. Thanks to Stephen Colbert, this may actually become true.

A Super PAC is a political action committee with the right to spend unlimited money on campaign ads and propaganda for or against any political candidates. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, our electoral process is now more influenced than ever by shady, semi-anonymous corporate interests and fringe groups. If you don't think this is scary, not long ago - during the Wisconsin recall elections - the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity group sent notices to Wisconsin Democrats about absentee ballots, helpfully reminding them to turn in their ballots on August 11. The only problem was, Election Day was August 9. This is just the beginning of the kind of voter suppression we can expect to see over the next few years.

As viewers of the show know, Mr. Colbert has started a Super PAC of his own. When he first announced this a while back, I thought it was funny, but I was confused when he actually went through with it. I couldn't possibly imagine the purpose of donating to this cause. I figured he would let this play out a little more and then donate the funds to charity and move on to skewer some other part of our political system. Instead, he used the funds to purchase television ad space in Iowa, where this advertisement is playing now.

Colbert has made a living, like most satirists, commenting on the political scene and twisting it through comedy. From the beginning, he took it a step further than many by creating a full time character that was the limit of moronic conservative punditry (was, until Glenn Beck came along). Now he has done something that I'm not sure any satirist has done before. He has become part of the system he is parodying, much more so than his short-lived bid for President in 2008. This isn't just satire. This is Gonzo satire (I can't help thinking that Hunter S. Thompson would love this). It is entirely possible that Rick Parry (with an A for America and IowA) could come out on top in the Ames Straw Poll, which has an inexplicable influence on primary elections. Given Colbert's influence, and ColbertPACs essentially unlimited funds, I would not be surprised if Rick Parry wins a few states in the upcoming primary. And I would love it if that happened. It may just take a joke for America to realize what a joke our democracy has become.

To become a member of Colbert Super PAC, go here: http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/

The Lessons We Never Learned: How America Today Compares to a Dying Soviet Russia

2011-07-23T12:54:00.000-04:00

Hello out there readers. Sorry that I haven't posted in the past two months, but I've been working on behalf of the President, so I've been busy (gotta love Organizing for America!). But something occurred to me in the middle of the night (the hottest night of the summer of course) and I couldn't go on with my day unless I shared it. So here goes, for the past decade we have been making the same mistakes that led Soviet Russia to it's downfall.

Let me explain.

While it is undoubtedly true that the end of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR was complicated, I think that in broad strokes it can be loosely simplified to this: We, the United States, pushed them, the USSR, to match us in military might and spending knowing that their economy was weaker and that they could not afford to continue to pour money into their military forever. A great example of this is Star Wars (not the movie). We poured billions of dollars down the drain on a technology that was nowhere in sight, but it had the desired effect. The Russians truly believed we were close to figuring out how to stop their nuclear missiles. They had to try and waste that same money but their economy couldn't afford that kind of waste. Eventually it had to go to hell.

Now let's fast forward to the 2000's. A group of small but dedicated terrorists launch a horrible attack in order to start a war. They wanted us to come in after them. They knew that from their caves, they didn't have to match our military might. And they also knew that we wouldn't be smart enough to adapt, and would instead do the exact same thing as the USSR. And we did. We spent money we did not have on a war we could not afford. AS our economy continued to decline throughout the decade this was more and more clear. And now here we are, $1.2 trillion later. And of all the military spending IN THE WORLD, we are responsible for 48%. When the USSR fell, there was no one left who we needed to match militarily, but we never really stopped. The military-industrial complex that had been built up refused to go away. They didn't care that the enemy was gone.

Flash forward again to our budget conversations today. We are in the middle of the Great Recession. Our economy is still barely on the mend. And we are talking about deficit negotiations that involve massive amounts of either spending cuts or tax increases, both of which will inevitably slow the economy down in the short term. And as we talk about trillions of dollars, I start to think, "What if we just had that 1.2 trillion back?" Don't get me wrong. Our deficit would not be solved. Our economy would still be broken. But it takes a perfect storm to end a world superpower. And if anything is to be learned from the downfall of the USSR, its that when a struggling economy is burdened with an unending military budget, eventually something has to give.

It takes two to ... compromise

2011-07-06T00:27:00.007-04:00

With Congress gridlocked over the debt situation, Minnesota's state government officially shutdown, the NFL locked out, and a similar impasse looming for the NBA, I find myself wondering what happened to the American ability to compromise.

The United States of America is home to a great diversity of peoples and opinions, which is why we have been so far successful with a government predicated on compromise. However, with today's polarized politics it is becoming more and more difficult to reach a middle ground on important issues.

On each side of the aisle politicians have demonized the opposition and committed themselves to untennable positions. If Republicans invariably oppose any increase in taxes and Democrats prohibit cuts from any program it is difficult to solve our collective problems. Both sides need to make reasonable concessions to get things done, but when options are taken off the table this becomes almost impossible.

In the particular case of Minnesota's shutdown, Governor Dayton's proposal to increase the income tax for the top 5% of earners in Minnesota. Dayton and Democrats in the legislature have made concessions, but Republicans refuse to budge on this issue and now the Minnesota state government has shutdown and many Minnesotans are feeling the effects.

I think that the majority of Americans realize the need for compromise and want the elected officials who represent them to make a greater effort to compromise. I don't think politicians believe this is the case; politicians refuse to compromise in the hopes of winning and retaining votes from their party base.

I also believe the ability to compromise is still within us. I've seen it demonstrated while working as a counselor at Minnesota Boy's State. I also want to believe it is still there for the sake of our country.

I think the solution lies in the people letting their representatives know that they approve of needed efforts to compromise and, as Minnesota's State Representative Matt Entenza advocated, punish uncompromising legislators at the polls -regardless of their party.

This problem didn't just arise out of nothing, our culture and politics have been moving in this direction for some time.

That movement is the subject of a lecture that NYT columnist David Brooks gave at the Aspen Ideas Festival a few days ago. The lecture is titled The Modesty Manifesto and I recommend both listening and taking some time to think about it.

I hope our modern society can move a little more toward a balance between narcissism and self-effacement in order that our politics also become more balanced.

We showed our national pride just the other day, now let's show our national humility and make the effort to compromise for the greater good.

The World's Turned Upside Down and Why the Patriot Act Doesn't Make Us Safe

2011-05-25T10:29:00.001-04:00

Today was a strange day to be a progressive.

As I read the news, I surprisingly found myself rooting for Rand Paul and the Tea Party to be victorious over Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership in the Senate. What cause could unite the libertarians and the liberals? Well, the Patriot Act is up for renewal, and I agree with Rand Paul that this exchange for security in the name of freedom is wrong.

My primary objection is stated beautifully in the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Patriot Act has clearly breached this freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and eliminated the requirement for probable cause. This act was originally passed in the wake of 9/11, without proper consideration of what it truly meant. There is no question that acting in such moments we often make mistakes and fall victim to our emotions. But we have defeated Osama Bin Laden, and we need to decide that fear no longer rules our lives.

I could continue on this track, but the questionable morality of this act is an argument about ends and means which is both obvious and endless by its nature. Instead, I suggest that we think about whether this act actually makes us more safe.

One of the important findings of the 9/11 Commission, was the same exact findings that we had seen after Pearl Harbor, so many years ago, namely that all the intelligence was there, it just wasn't noticed. The blame in both situations was placed upon the competing intelligence agencies within the government and a lack of centralization. But this doesn't explain the whole picture. In the weeks before before December 7, 1941, there were seven reports of Japanese submarines in the Pearl Harbor area, and all of these reports were false. In the modern era, there are easily a hundred false leads for every good one. Would a centralized agency have definitely known which information was worth following up?

Consider an interesting and important parallel. In the 1970's, a psychology professor named David Rosenhan conducted an experiment. He sent a random group of people to a mental hospital where they were to report that they had been hearing voices. They were to tell the staff that the voices were now gone and other than this simple fact, they were to answer every other question truthfully. These eight subjects were hospitalized for an average of 19 days and were given a total of 2100 pills. This is a disturbing problem, but it doesn't end there.

Next, Rosenhan told a hospital staff that over the next three months he would be sending pseudo patients. Of the 193 patients seen during that time, 41% were diagnosed by a least one staff member as certifiably sane. But once again they screwed up, because Rosenhan hadn't sent anyone. When we try to treat one intelligence problem, such as over diagnosis, we often end up with an opposite problem, in this case, under diagnosis.

Now let's take this back to the Patriot Act. We have increased the amount of intelligence available from a ridiculous amount to a practically unmanageable amount. And yet it remains true that fruitless information and important information are hard to separate. Inevitably, we either end up over diagnosing, or under diagnosing the situation. And when we try to fix it we will swing the pendulum the other way and call it progress. Adding more information does NOTHING to solve this clear problem with our intelligence system. We need better analysis of the evidence we have if we really want to improve our counter terrorism.

So once again I ask, does the Patriot Act make us any safer, or does it just add more false leads and more confusion into a system that's already difficult enough. If we had enough intelligence to prevent 9/11, why didn't we stop it? Why were obvious clues ignored? If they were buried under the avalanche of useless clues, is it really a good idea to expand the scope of intelligence?

These are questions that need answering and unlike most Democrats, Rand Paul has shown the courage to propose amendments and seek out debate. And yet Harry Reid, insists that this four year extension needs to be be passed without consideration of amendment or even debate. So today, the world had turned upside down, because I'm standing firmly with those crazy libertarian Tea Partiers to ask, "Why are we giving up freedom for the promise of security, without even a debate or evaluation of whether its making us more secure?"

***I would like to note that much of the evidence supporting my argument was drawn from an essay entitled, Connecting the Dots: The Paradoxes of Intelligence Reform by Malcolm Gladwell, a brilliant writer for the New Yorker, whose work I highly recommend.

UnCommon Ground: Stewart v. O'Reilly

2011-05-18T13:55:00.000-04:00

President Obama recently welcomed the rapper/poetry slam phenom Common into the White House for a special poetry event, much to the indignation of Fox News. They object to some of his lyrics, which, according to them, promote cop killing. I don't really think this issue is even newsworthy, honestly, but I came across these two videos of Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly debating the issue, and they were too hilarious not to share. I dare you not too laugh at the end of the second one.

One candidate, two candidate, which red candidate will challenge the blue candidate?

2011-05-17T10:11:00.020-04:00

Yesterday my not doing anything was interrupted by the news that everyone's favorite hairdo was no longer running for president. It appears the Donald has decided that campaigning takes too much time away from his celebrity apprentice show and combing his hair.

I think the real reason is that Trump's campaign was such a joke from the start that even Trump eventually acknowledged it. Thus, dropping out now while he is still considered a contender is better than waiting until he is laughed out of the race. Trump is a publicity man and now that he got us talking about him his work is done.

Either that or the roasting of Trump that President Obama and Seth Meyers carried out at the correspondent's dinner finally hit Trump and he needs to recover.

Here is Trump's official announcement.

After getting this news I eagerly tuned in to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report to hear the last of the Trump jokes and was shocked to learn that Mike Huckabee had also taken himself out of the race.

I was puzzled by this decision; why would Mike Huckabee, a reasonable, respected, and Chuck Norris endorsed Republican, give up when the Republican candidacy was still up-for-grabs?

I am still not sure why Huckabee dropped out. It could be that he didn't want to sell-out to the base to beat tea party candidates like the looney Michele Bachmann and, if she gets around to running, Sarah Palin. It could also be due to the fact that it is seems more and more like Obama is going to be very difficult to beat and Huckabee doesn't want to struggle through a tumultuous primary just to lose; he could be biding his time for 2016.

Here is Huckabee's announcement on his Fox News show.

As usual with news like this, Colbert says it best. So here is the Report's take on the two dropouts.

With the most egotistic and out of touch candidate as well as the most humble and down to earth candidate gone, what will the Republican party come up with?

I think the candidates to watch are Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, and Sarah Palin- if she steps in.

I don't think Gingrich, especially if he keeps showing his age by trying to appeal to youth, has it in him anymore.

I would like to see Bachmann get the nod, but only because I would have the satisfaction of watching Obama annihilate her in the general election.

Whoever the Republican's come up with, he or she will have a tough time running against Obama, for good reason. But all I know for sure is that I finally get to vote for President Obama and I can't wait to do so.

Greetings from Your New Editors

2011-05-13T21:21:00.000-04:00

Dear Lefties,

Greetings from your new editors, Tim Ryan, Eileen Lynch, and Gordon Stanton!

Just as Lefty’s said goodbye to Henry, Bill and Brendan a year ago, so now, we must also say goodbye to Chris. It’s been a great year under his watch as we picked up new writers and surpassed the 100,000 hit mark proving the staying power of Lefty’s.

This summer while the rate of posting may slow down a bit, we can promise you’ll still be hearing from us. Tim will be in the Michigan Upper Peninsula working at Notre Dame's Environmental Research Center. Eileen will be working right in Washington DC, the heart of all things political, as an intern for Congressman Larson. Gordon will be working for Organizing for America in Massachusetts as they kick the Obama reelection campaign into gear. We’ve got all the progressive bases covered.

And then next fall, you better prepare yourselves for a revamped Lefty’s. We want to get you, the readers, more involved, and we have some ideas about how. First off, we will have a weekly topic of debate for you to weigh in on. These will be timely, relevant topics, and we hope everyone will comment and tell us what you think. Debate is one of the greatest and most crucial tools of democracy. Secondly, we will be having bi-weekly polls, where you can tell us your opinion and then you can check the results to see what your fellow Lefties are thinking. Thirdly, we will be bringing back some elements from Lefty’s past. We plan to bring back the caption contest on a biweekly basis and the Lefty’s podcast on a monthly basis.

With so much fun stuff, we expect every one of you to be checking in regularly next year. Our writers can make Lefty’s great, but only the feedback and comments from you, our readers, can make it the best.

Thank you so much for reading, and get excited, because Lefty’s is going to “win the future”.

Sincerely,

Tim, Eileen, and Gordon

A Good Day to be Catholic and Jon Stewart's Rap Music

2011-05-12T10:05:00.001-04:00

I know posting has slowed in the horror that is finals week, but here's two things to cheer you up.

First off, its a good week to be a Progressive Catholic. This week teachers at Catholic University, where Speaker John Boehner has been chosen to deliver a commencement speech, and at other Catholic Universities, including our own Notre Dame, wrote the Speaker a letter in which they called him out on a voting record that is "at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings." They also said that, "your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress." You can view the full letter here. And you can also view a letter of a similar vein from United States Conference of Catholic Bishops here. Both of these letters have reaffirmed values that conservative Catholics have for too long tried to ignore, namely our firm commitment to helping the poor. It's on days like this that I can be proud to be Catholic.

In other news, Jon Stewart was at his finest last night, demonstrating Fox News hypocrisy so clearly, that as he himself put it, "This isn't even fun anymore." He followed this up with one of the funniest raps that I've ever heard. truly priceless. This is a must watch video:

The Daily Show - Tone Def Poetry Jam
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show - Tone Def Poetry Jam - Lyrics Controversy
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I hope that put on a smile on your face during a stressful week.

What are your thoughts on the killing of Osama bin Laden, and the reaction that took place on campus and around the US?

2011-05-02T12:51:00.001-04:00

I'll start celebrating when we bring our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. I am proud that our president accomplished a major goal. I hope we can unify around this accomplishment, and transition to the peace that we have been promised ever since we put troops in the Middle East. -Chris Rhodenbaugh

Let's start a discussion in the comments. Other Lefty's writers are encouraged to post thoughts in their own posts or comments!

Osama bin Laden: Dead At Last

2011-05-02T00:18:00.004-04:00

Osama bin Laden was just officially confirmed dead by President Obama. I hope that this triumph brings a bit of closure to those who lost loved ones in the September 11th attacks and the resulting war. While I listen to the periodic chant of "USA! USA! USA!" erupt from the first floor of the LaFortune Student Center at Notre Dame, I also hope we pause to once again celebrate the lives that were lost almost ten years ago. But certainly, I do not fault anyone who pops open a bottle of champagne - it's been a long time coming.

M.E.Ch.A Viewpoint Article in Its Entirety

2011-04-28T23:24:00.003-04:00

"In response to some current debate over the Observer article, "Latino students maintain culture on campus," MEChA would like to clear up a number of the misinformed comments Ms. Lujan made in her Viewpoint, "A different way to be Latino."

First, I would like to thank Amanda Gray from the Observer for providing M.E.Ch.A and Latina/os at Notre Dame with exposure and a positive portrayal of the work that we do here on campus and in the South Bend community. I would also like to thank Jessica Lujan for her views in the “A Different Way to be Latino” letter to the editor—she is right, there are many different ways of expressing our identity. However, I would like to address a few points and challenge several incorrect assumptions that she made about the nature of our club “M.E.Ch.A.” The viewpoint article ignored and so essentially denied the existence of a nationwide attack on the Latino population via discriminatory legislation, police harassment, and the misinformed anti-immigrant hysteria that plagues our country. Allert Brown Gort also argues that in today’s political lexicon Latinos are often associated with being immigrants, who are equated with being “illegal”, and who are then in turn demonized by a society which—at the same time—benefits from their disadvantaged socio-economic status. I am glad that the author was fortunate enough to never experience this type of discrimination, but the truth is that Latina/os, even the majority who are U.S.-born, are targeted and scapegoated everyday by a misinformed population.

M.E.Ch.A., a nationwide organization whose members espouse a Chicana/o identity that can be shared by any individual, fights for the empowerment of all people through education, activism, and the preservation of culture. We “fight” ignorance by educating ourselves and the people around us. We use the aggressive term “fight” because contentious issues require more than pleasant conversation as we challenge ourselves and others to be more tolerant and just. We do not, however, condone violence and we in fact champion the nonviolent protest strategies practiced by César Chávez, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi. To say that our organization is in any way exclusionary is both misinformed and contradictory to our message and goals. Perhaps because she has not been involved in the work that M.E.Ch.A does, the viewpoint author’s commentary on our organization was completely misinformed. Throughout the years we have been a vehicle for students to share and maintain their culture in the face of the United States’ tradition of pressuring immigrants to assimilate and mask their ethnic identities. In fact, our efforts to educate and retain Latina/o culture have been recognized by Student Activities as we were recently awarded the honor of Cultural Club of the Year and Program of the Year for our Diversity Panel event. In our chapter, as in chapters throughout the country, members include ethnic Mexicans, African Americans, Anglos, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Salvadorians and individuals from all ethnicities, races, and socio-economic backgrounds. We encourage all people who share our goals of social justice and equality to participate in our work. At the same time, we are also very aware and supportive of the fact that M.E.Ch.A. is not the only way Latina/o students maintain their culture on campus. We recognize that we have a very dissident style of reaching our goals-one that we are proud of, but that may not appeal to other students. For this reason, other clubs exist on campus that we are either members of or we work closely with them in cooperative event planning.

While Notre Dame has provided an endless amount of opportunity for growth and advancement for minority students, within the student body there still exists a considerable amount of ignorance about different backgrounds and lifestyles that often leads to insensitive remarks and offensive incidents. Again, I am happy that some Latina/o students have not experienced discomfort, isolation, and discrimination, but these experiences are a reality for too many minority students on campus. A viewpoint discussing these unfortunate moments is forthcoming.

Finally, we would like to say that in light of all the work that still needs to be done in support of unity, combating ignorance, and maintaining culture, we encourage all Notre Dame students to participate in and become involved with the multicultural clubs here on campus. Our efforts are futile when only our members attend our education nights, meetings, and other various events. We have successfully worked together with Domers of all backgrounds in the past and we look to continue to foster that unity in the future.

Oh, Birthers...

2011-04-28T00:18:00.000-04:00

President Obama released his long-form birth certificate to the press today. In 2008 the president released his state-issued birth certificate, and has faced increasing scrutiny from a faction of conservative birthers who, blinded by prejudice, claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen (I highly recommend you check out the site, linked above. It's fascinating and nauseating).

The president says he released the long-form certificate because the press became fixated on the issue, which distracted from more pressing matters, like rising oil prices, budget negotiations, etc. I'm pretty disgusted that Obama's citizenship became such an issue that he actually needed to take the time to address it. We should certainly blame the media outlets who have allowed this issue to dominate their newscasts. And we can also blame Donald Trump.

In fact, Donald Trump is proud of his role in stirring up a ridiculous controversy grounded in baseless fear-mongering and Palin-esque hysteria. Trump cautions, though, that he still has questions about the validity of the form, and asks why it took so long for President Obama to produce a certificate.

Really?

Predictably, people are unhappy. Among the grab-bag of mixed reactions, birthers have already concocted various conspiracy theories, other are angry that the president is catering to crazy minorities, and many think the Obama wasted too much time avoiding the issue, and he should have silenced his critics by presenting this at the very beginning of his presidency. Here's Obama's justification for devoting time to "this silliness."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hopefully this issue will be put to rest once and for all, but I have a feeling that, in this political climate, any mention of the topic at all is just fanning the flames of craziness. It will certainly be interesting to see what the birthers come up with next.

Carbon Tax: the reasonable solution

2011-04-19T12:39:00.000-04:00

This column was published in the Observer on April 19, 2011.

Growing unrest in the Middle East has resulted in a more than 60 cent jump in U.S. fuel prices in a two month time period. Rising fuel prices are threatening recovery from the recession just as job numbers and economic indicators are showing real signs of improvement. Why does the United States continue to tolerate economic reliance on foreign oil from volatile Middle Eastern countries? The answer is fear among legislators that any policy solution responsible for a short-term increase in energy prices will destroy a political career. This political cowardice is already resulting in drastic increases in energy prices by making the well-being of U.S. citizens and the health of the economy liable to foreign governments. Political inaction is resulting in the worst-case scenario. Costs are increasing for non-renewable energy sources while the US is falling behind the rest of the world in developing renewable technology.

A carbon tax is the most transparent, feasible and efficient strategy to make the United States a leader in the international green economy, reduce dependence on foreign oil and address the crisis of global warming. Even the most ardent free-market proponent would be challenged to argue that the problem of global warming will be solved without some government intervention. Pollution is an economic externality, meaning the entity profiting from the polluting activity is not fully absorbing the external costs of pollution on society in the price of the good or service. Therefore, the key is this: a policy solution to force energy suppliers to internalize pollution costs that have the smallest possible negative impact, while creating the most effective incentive for innovation or behavior change to reduce pollution.

Republicans and conservative business advocates have consistently called for more certainty and simplicity in the U.S. tax code. A carbon tax prices carbon in an exact manner, by levying a fee on carbon emissions per metric ton. In contrast to the open-ended pricing mechanism of a cap-and-trade system, the proposal that failed to pass Congress last year, a carbon tax will provide certainty in the market that will best allow all stakeholders to prepare for additional costs

Concomitantly, the IRS is equipped to implement the tax, significantly reducing the need for additional bureaucracy to manage a more convoluted federal solution.

The implementation of a carbon tax would ignite a wave of innovation by making renewable technology and energy efficient decisions cheaper, or price competitive, to their environmentally unfriendly alternatives. Yet, for the tax to be successful in promoting innovation without inducing economic contraction, a carbon tax must include a variety of stipulations to minimize negative impact on U.S. businesses and low income families. Implementation must occur on a lengthy timeline that includes a two year grace period for companies and families to increase energy efficiency or transition to renewable power sources in advance of increased costs. Also, the tax should be set to increase at defined intervals over a long period of time to account for increasing feasibility of improving energy efficiency as technology develops.

To make the carbon tax politically feasible the implementation should specify unequivocally that all revenues will go towards reducing the U.S. corporate income tax and providing a payroll tax rebate and equivalent social security rebate to help offset the increasing energy costs that will be faced by businesses, low income families and seniors. According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax in the world at 40 percent. The high tax rate is pushing away investment from the U.S. and is an unreasonable burden on U.S. companies trying to compete in the global economy. A carbon tax, coupled with a significant decrease in the corporate tax rate, would not only lead to the expansion of the green economy, but drastically stimulate business growth across every sector. If the tax is implemented, inevitably technology will improve, making renewable energy options increasingly affordable. With lower energy costs, payroll tax and social security rebates will become long-term tax relief for low income families and seniors, without affecting the reduction in the corporate income tax.

Current legislative proposals for a carbon tax that vary in the size of the carbon tax, project between $69 billion and $126 billion in tax revenues in 2015, and between $263 billion and $361 billion revenues in 2030, in 2005 dollars. To put that in perspective, the federal government in 2005 earned $771 billion in tax revenue from payroll taxes and $307 billion from corporate income taxes.

A carbon tax, if proposed correctly, can unite interest groups across the political spectrum in support of a major step forward in environmental policy and ending dependence on foreign oil. What are we waiting for?

Calling on Joe Donnelly to change his views on immigration policy

2011-04-14T14:59:00.000-04:00

College Democrats of Notre Dame and the greater South Bend community must work hard to move Joe Donnelly's position on immigration reform. He voted against the DREAM Act in 2010, and in response to an e-mail I sent to him through the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on immigration reform his office had this to say:

April 14, 2011

Dear Mr. Rhodenbaugh,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about immigration reform. I value your views, and your input helps me to better represent the people of Indiana's Second Congressional District.

First and foremost, I believe that securing our nation's borders is critical to our homeland security and essential for protecting our communities. Today it is estimated that over 12 million illegal immigrants are living within the United States with an additional 300,000 crossing our borders each year. Clearly, the current immigration system is broken.

Now, more than nice years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, we still lack the manpower and resources to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into our country. That is why I support proposals to increase the number of border patrol agents, as well as increased funding for the technology and equipment necessary for these agents to prevent immigrants from entering our country illegally.

However, border enforcement alone will not solve the problem. Each year thousands of undocumented workers enter the United States in search of employment opportunities. Although it is against the law to knowingly hire undocumented workers, the incentives of cheap labor combined with the lax enforcement of employment laws have encouraged many employers to hire illegal immigrants. As a result, we must improve the workplace enforcement of our employment laws and crack down on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Illegal immigration will likely continue to be a highly contentious issue. Although a solution will inevitably require bipartisan support, I will oppose any proposal that amounts to amnesty. Rest assured, when the House of Representatives considers immigration legislation, I will carefully review it to determine if it is in the best interests of our district.

The United States has a rich tradition built upon the hard work of immigrant citizens from all over the world. Out of respect for our laws and those who have followed them, I will continue to work hard to ensure that American citizenship is reserved for those who play by the rules.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to write, call or email me again if I can ever be of assistance. Also, if you would like to receive regular updates on my actions on your behalf in Congress, sign up for my e-newsletter, The Donnelly Dispatch, at http://donnelly.house.gov/contact/email-updates.shtml.

Sincerely,

Joe Donnelly

Member of Congress

I replied to the e-mail:

I am deeply dissatisfied with the tone of this e-mail, and the priorities laid out by the Congressman. Border protection is an essential part of immigration reform, but to pretend the problem will be solved by tougher border security without mentioning the need to embrace the humanity of the immigrant is reckless and negligent. It is irresponsible for a member of Congress to provoke discrimination, fear and hatred by using the term "illegal" to describe a group of people. I understand he is vulnerable to conservative and populist pressure in the district, but his most loyal supporters will question their faith in Joe as their Congressman if he continues to join the other side of the aisle in belittling undocumented immigrants and blaming them for a larger set of economic problems in this country.

Thank you for your time. I hope Joe remains open to holding a more moderate position on immigration policy, particularly the DREAM Act.

-Chris

Do not give up hope on Congressman Donnelly! We have pressed him before and he has come around on social justice issues, most notably health care reform. This should be a call to all activists at Notre Dame, Saint Mary's and the greater South Bend community to make it a goal to change his position on immigration before the 2012 election.

There's My Obama!

2011-04-13T16:53:00.006-04:00

I know that many fellow progressives have wondered where our Obama went. Where was the guy who would fight for the middle class? Governing from the middle and compromise are important, but why hasn't he ever offered a story to counter the Republicans myth that all government is bad? Where's the Obama from the 2008 campaign?

Fortunately, in this budget proposal speech, Obama seems to take a hard line stand against the Republican budget. The video is long, but it's worth listening to. He talks about the positive role of government, that Republicans would like to ignore. He explains that tax cuts for the wealthy are coming at the cost of health care for seniors. He says we need to cut wasteful and excessive spending everywhere (military included), but that we also need to fix the tax code and raise taxes on millionaires, who have the lowest tax rates in half a century, and any of whom are willing to give more to help us through this crisis. He says we should tackle the deficit problem with an all of the above approach rather than only thinking about cutting vital services.

It's good to hear Obama stand for something again, and specifically to talk about the positive value of government. I hope his actions will match his words, and that in the continuing budget fights he will not compromise away everything he believes in.

Buzzer-Beater

2011-04-09T12:46:00.011-04:00

Possibly inspired by last month's NCAA madness, party leaders in Washington pulled through last night and compromised just in time to avert a government shutdown; the political equivalent of a buzzer-beater. However, the compromise was reached at the end of a long and contentious negotiation process. So it was less like Christian Laettner's 1992 jumper, and more like Chris Farley's reenactment:

In fact, as negotiations proceeded and each side conceded more and more the differences being debated in the face of a government shutdown became almost comedic (that is they would have been comedic if not for the seriousness of the issue).

According to a New York Times article, the dollar difference was below $2 billion dollars. A large number, but very small in the context of the federal budget and small when compared to the approximately $28 billion dollar discrepancy between the proposals of each party going into the negotiations ($33 billion and $61 billion).

The New York times article said Virginia Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat, was embarassed that arguing over a relatively small sum might force the government to shutdown. the article quoted him as saying, "People across Virginia cannot understand why we can’t get this done."

The final way in which the budget agreement resembles a buzzer-beater is that, although both sides support the agreement reached last night, the actual legislation won't go through until sometime next week (after the buzzer). The government will keep running until Thursday, thanks to a short-term resolution. The budget agreement will be translated into legislation and passed in the meantime.

On a positive note, after all the ridiculousness and last minute drama, the government will not shut down and Democrats and Republicans demonstrated that it is at least possible to compromise.

A real compromise allows both sides to save some face but ensures one is entirely pleased with the end result. So let's look at how Washington did:

Representative Boehner had his chance to appease tea party republicans by demanding outrageous cuts from Obama and opposing compromise until the last minute. But in the end republicans didn't get the ridiculous budget cuts they wanted and had to give up on targeting groups like Planned Parenthood for especially harsh cuts.

Democratic leadership and President Obama were able to protect important government institutions and programs as much as they could in the face of Republican demands and fiscal realities. However, Democrats had to agree to cut more than they wished and will have tough job trying to help impoverished Americans when so many programs facing large budget cuts.

So both sides, eventually, made the effort to compromise.

We are in a difficult time when the economy has yet to fully recover and the federal budget is being strained by defense spending, failing entitlement programs, and a number of other factors. The Republicans have decided to respond by attacking the public sector and trying to eliminate any government program they can (at least the one's they disagree with). This has put Democrats on the defensive as they try to preserve vital programs that help the poor, sick, and disadvantaged in our society.

This trend has progressed to each side scoring political points instead of addressing real problems. The way to address problems when no one party has an overwhelming majority is to compromise, which this latest crisis has shown to be very difficult but possible.

Hopefully Republicans and Democrats can reach more compromises in the future and eventually come together on issues with less unnecessary squabbling.

Otherwise, our government might as well have shut down for all they'll manage to get done.

The Case for Government Shutdown

2011-04-07T12:48:00.008-04:00

Let me be clear. I hope desperately, that some TRUE compromise can be reached on the budget before time runs out. But Republicans, from the very beginning, have sought to use this threat to shove their agenda down our throats. They have proposed massive cuts that significantly hurt the low income families who need government the most. They have targeted Planned Parenthood in an outrageous overreach of the abortion debate. They have targeted NPR and PBS, the last standing beacons for educational media. They have proposed slashing the EPA budget, because they have forgotten that our clean air and water is one of the few remaining things that separates us from a third world country, since our income inequality does not. And throughout it all, they have avoided military spending, a constantly ballooning source of debt.

This isn't "budgeting". This isn't "fiscal responsibility". This is an agenda being driven through a budget and carried out under threat of shutdown. To see the full extent of the policy changes being proposed through the Republican budget click here.

A few months ago, we faced a similar stand off on the expiring Bush tax cuts. The Republicans said there, as they have said now, it is our way or no way. Obama backed down at that time and chose to give them their tax cuts in order to obtain unemployment benefits. But truly, compromise under threat is not compromise, it's extortion. At some point we have to stand up for what we believe in and be prepared to make sacrifices for that cause. As progressives, we believe in a government that helps the people who need it most, not just the top 1%. I still believe in Obama, and I believe he wants to do good things. But as President he has allowed the Republicans to get under his skin. Right now, he has a chance to stand strong again. If the government must shutdown for a few days in order that Republicans come to the table with real compromise, then so be it.

In this matter, I must admit to having a TV-based source of inspiration. While the show the West Wing, is most surely fiction, the issues it raises are in fact all too real. The Obama White House has had several moments of similarity with the Bartlett Administration, but none have been so eerie as this. In the clip below, from the end of the episode "Separation of Powers" you will see the attempts of a young, more radically conservative, Speaker to extort the President in the 11th hour negotiations around the budget. (For those who want to see how the crisis is eventually resolved, watch the episode "Shutdown" where Josh Lyman pulls out some absolutely brilliant political moves.)

There's an eerie similarity between the fictional Speaker Haffley and today's Republicans. In the words of Harry Reid, “We’ve been more than reasonable. More than fair. We meet them halfway, they say no. We meet them more than halfway, they still say no. We meet them all the way, they still say no.” They have truly become the party of no, and they believe threats hold more value than compromise.

So I ask, is Obama prepared to say "shut it down"? I hope so. Because like Bartlett, I wonder, "What next?" This is not the first showdown, and it will not be the last. We cannot afford to set a precedent of fake compromise. We must prepare for real sacrifice and a real fight. Republicans have shown that they have a whole lot of bark, but I think if we force them to act, we'll see they're still growing baby teeth.

Playing Catch-Up

2011-04-06T23:31:00.001-04:00

I've sort of been paralyzed by indecision lately (so much to write about, so little time!) and the result has been complete silence on a number of really important issues. In an effort to fix that, in this post I'm going to address a few things that have been happening in our crazy country lately. Bear with me.

First: Freedom of Speech v. Freedom of Information
Some really disturbing news came out of the labor rights controversy last week. Conservative Michigan Think Tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy used the Freedom of Information Act to demand the emails of a handful of professors at Michigan public universities. In Wisconsin, the Republican Party demanded the emails of prominent scholar William Cronon, who challenged Governor Walker's attack on union rights. I understand the legal right to access information about public employees, but it's undeniable that these measures are a blatant form of political bullying. The GOP is seeking to create an atmosphere of fear and repression among scholars and vocal challengers. Rachel Maddow tackles the issue in the clip below, and while she tends towards the dramatic, she makes some great points about "big intrusive government conservativism" and it's implications.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Second: Good News (Finally!) for the EPA
There's plenty to be upset about when we take a look at the environment (tsunamis, leaking radioactive material, news broke that the ozone level thinned by FORTY percent this winter). I'm going to focus, though, on two positive developments for a change. Senate Democrats defeated a bill to ban the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases this week. The bill, which was backed by Republicans Mitch McConnell and James Inhofe, will reappear in the House later this week and will probably pass, unfortunately, but the White House has vowed to veto. I'm encouraged, though, simply by the fact that Democrats are saying no to the party of no.

In other news, at the Phillies season opener last Friday, fans witnessed the first "green fly-over." The Air Force debuted an F-15 fighter jet powered in part by fuel made from plant oil. The fuel was 50% plant product, primarily camelina, a weed considered more fuel efficient than ethanol. While still financially unfeasible, the Air Force is actively developing cheap, eco-friendly fuel, and has proven that this fuel is capable of powering the fastest jets in the world. The military's interest in green energy is an incredible gesture of hope and progress.

Finally, the very opposite of progress. I can't ignore the prospect of a government shutdown, but financial entanglements frustrate and confuse me. I'll leave the ranting to Jon Stewart, and just say this. The prospect of a shutdown absolutely terrifies me. The economic and political repercussions are far more expensive than a few concessions by either party. Let's all cross our fingers that this crisis is averted, and with minimal damage to the programs that define our country.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

A Salty CommUniversity Day to You

2011-03-31T20:22:00.000-04:00

CommUniversity day is coming up this Saturday. For your sake, I hope you’ve signed up. The day is a fantastic opportunity to interact with the South Bend community, make visible improvements in the community and have a really great time with really great people. Afterwards, everybody should come to the wrap-up picnic at the Robinson Community Learning Center. There will be free food, more great people, and a free concert hosted by ND Fighting NTDs, featuring some AcoustiCafe favorites.

ND Fighting NTDs is putting on the concert to promote a really incredible project that has the potential to raise Haiti’s national IQ by ten points. The project, Notre Dame Haiti Project Salt Initiative, seeks to provide fortified salt for the residents of Haiti. Fortified salt contains Iodine and DEC, a compound that prevents Lymphatic Filariasis. All these scientific compounds have very concrete benefits. Iodine is necessary to prevent cretinism in young children. Cretinism stunts mental and physical growth, leaving young brains trapped in various stages of development. Lymphatic Filariasis, as all you faithful readers might remember, causes grotesque swelling of the limbs and drastically impedes quality of life.

NDHPS already has a factory running in Haiti which produces salt for less than 50 cents per pound. Getting fortified salt to the people who need it allows children to grow up healthy, enjoying full mental capacity, the ability to learn and live. Celebrate your life and education, and learn more about the Salt Project this Saturday at the Robinson Community Learning Center, and catch some great music while you’re at it!

For more information about the SALT project or ND Fighting NTDs, check out the links below:

http://haiti.nd.edu/

http://www.nd.edu/~ndfntds/index-2.html

Why I Stand With Obama on Libya

2011-03-29T18:00:00.012-04:00

Last night Obama delivered his first speech defending his intervention into Libya. On the left, he is accused of having ulterior motives, involving us in Libya but not in other countries with similar problems. On the right, he is accused of supporting rebels who are in fact Islamic extremists. On all sides he is accused of entering into a third war. I suggest we step back and analyze the situation for what it really is, keeping in mind that while there are vague notions of precedent, when it comes to military action every single situation is somewhat different than the rest, and must be examined independently.

We begin with a quick rundown of what's going on. Muammar Gaddafi the dictator of Libya has fallen in disfavor with his people. Like in other countries, they have risen up and made it crystal clear that they do not support him. A group of rebels has chosen to defy violently. While no one thinks Gaddafi is anything but dangerous, the presence of these rebels, make the Libyan revolution much more dangerous and precarious than the non violent uprising in Egypt. Adding to the madness, Gaddafi hired foreign mercenaries to come in and attack his own people. Before our involvement, the situation there had already become incredibly precarious.

Enter the UN. On the world stage, we have this difficult problem where instead of some police force we have something more akin to citizen watch guards, meaning that on the world stage we are all responsible for preventing atrocities. As a result, it is all the more necessary that before intervention there is a large agreement among the various nations of the world that something needs to be done. In this case, members of the Arab world ALSO voiced their opinion that something needed to be done. Gaddafi's insanity was apparent even to them. And so the member nations of the UN authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone.

Libya responded by declaring a cease fire publicly whilst simultaneously moving their army into the rebel occupied Benghazi, a rather large city where military action would have undoubtedly resulted in the deaths of untold innocents. At this point, a challenge had been issued. This dictator had asserted that if even if the UN says you need to stop and what you are doing is criminal, it doesn't matter and you can continue to kill your own citizens. The danger of letting him continue his atrocities now extended beyond this country because it would set a precedent that would void the UN of all power, and would likely cause other such dictators to follow his lead and ignore the UN's orders.

So, with the backing of the UN, and with the promise that NATO would take charge in the enforcement after the initial bombing, Obama agreed to commit US troops in the air attacks on troops that were threatening Benghazi and thus preventing a massacre, as well as attacks on other anti-air targets that could prevent a no-fly zone from being enforced. We committed no ground troops and we incurred little cost. Tomorrow, as promised, NATO takes charge of the operation, ensuring that we do not bear the brunt of the cost for this universal decision.

This was not a true war. We were given the unique chance to accomplish much with little cost. We saved countless lives, without a long term commitment of any kind or the commitment of ground forces. That is a substantial accomplishment.

However many criticisms have arisen, and I would like to address some of them:

First, there is question about the rebels that we are supporting. To which I respond, "Does it matter?" Are we the kind of people who are so afraid of the unknown that we will embrace the known EVIL? Gaddafi is a madman. We can't know how the rebels feel about the US (although they expressed both desire and later gratitude for our support). We CAN know that they have the support of the people, and that they aren't the ones using foreign mercenaries to attack civilians. There is this false belief that once we intervene to prevent one madman it is our job to fill his power. That is the job of the people of Libya. We don't have to like their decision, because it is THEIR decision, not ours. I would rather live in a world of democracies that hated us than a world of tyrannical dictators that love us.

Second, there is the question about involving ourselves in Libya and not other countries. The important point is this; countries around the world including Arab nations asked us for help in this matter. If the UN took a similar stance in Bahrain or elsewhere, I would hope that we would respond in the same way. But it isn't our job to decide unilaterally where something is right or wrong. The international response is what should and did make Libya a place in which we could intervene.

Third, some have questioned what our long term goals are. The goal of the world powers in the UN was to stop the atrocity before innocent lives were lost. The solution was a no-fly zone, something which is designed to contain the current regime and limit its ability to do harm to its citizens, whilst still not taking on the direct and difficult task of regime change. The US's particular goal was to help establish this zone so that NATO could maintain it. We did exactly what we set out to do, which was to limit the ability of Gaddafi to kill innocent civilians. Regime change may result from these actions as well, and that may be a positive or a negative thing, but it need not be and was not the direct and immediate goal.

Lastly, there remains the most complicated question about the matter of Congress and their role. The Constitution is clear that the Congress has the power to declare war. Unfortunately for us, it does not define war, which makes the situation more complicated. The Constitution simultaneously places the President in the role of Commander-in-Chief, making him responsible for the army in all military actions short of war. As I said above, we are not at war with Libya by any conventional standard. A limited military action of this kind simply does not require Congressional approval. In a bi-partisan or non-partisan Congress, this matter need not have ever been an issue. But lives were at stake in Libya, as Gaddafi's troops marched towards Benghazi, and our notoriously slow Congress filled with Republicans who oppose the President simply because of his party affiliation, could not and would not have acted in time to prevent a bloodbath. And the UN had to wait on us because we have chosen to make ourselves the dominant military power in the world, and that entails responsibilities.

The military is never to be used lightly. War should be avoided at all costs. But when in this global world we have the ability to save so many innocent lives from tyranny with so little cost, to do anything less is to turn our backs on the ideas of liberty and freedom in which we believe.

Supreme Court takes on Sata-I mean, Wal-Mart discrimination case

2011-03-29T11:18:00.003-04:00

The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in the largest discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history today. The plaintiffs hope to represent over a million women that have been passed over for promotion, pay raise and other benefits in favor of their male colleagues by your favorite evil corporation and mine: Walmart.

Christine Kwapnowski, one of the plaintiffs told the BBC in an interview that when she asked what she should do to get promoted, she was told to "doll up and blow the cobwebs off [her] make-up." Source

...Seriously?

The case began in 2001 after Kwapnowski became fed up with being passed over for promotions and pay raises. According to Kwapnowski, Wal-Mart was "hiring men off the street...men who never even had a day's worth of Sam's Club experience were coming in and I was the one training them." These men would then become her team leader. Two weeks after she filed the first suit, Kwapnowski was finally and magically recognized by the company and promoted Source. She found women who shared her story and extended the suit to include all women who have worked in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. assets since December, 1998.

The good news for the women is they've won the lawsuit at both the district and appellate levels. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has appealed on the grounds that the class certification does not meet requirements. To translate that legalese, Walmart is arguing the case doesn't apply all its female employees, not that it doesn't discriminate at all. Source

In the effort of full disclosure, I have never worked for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., nor have I actually been inside of a Wal-Mart store of any sort, but I am a woman. And as a woman and a reasonable human being, I support Kwapnowski and the other plaintiffs in their efforts. Maybe they will take the megacorporation down a notch, but I doubt it. This is not the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth time Wal-Mart was awful, and I guarantee it won't be the last. This is just another one of company's attempts to kick people down, hoping they won't fight back.

Here's to pushing back and not taking no for an answer! I wish the plaintiffs and everyone involved (except, you know, Walmart) good luck. The decision should be returned in late June.

American Lung Association Agrees: EPA Budget Cuts Are Bad News

2011-03-28T20:03:00.001-04:00

Editor's Note: This article was written by a guest contributor, Nick Scott, a recent graduate of the University of Florida who is a health and political advocate. Frequent readers of our blog are encouraged to send ideas to my e-mail crhodenbaugh@gmail.com for posts. Lefty's retains the right to select only high quality posts with appropriate content from submissions, but welcomes the opportunity to have our readers do guest columns!!

As of now, the Environmental Protection Agency in under fire. If the House Republicans see their way, the EPA will undergo a 30% budget cut. To make matters worse, the GOP is pushing to repeal The Clean Air Act in addition to several other environmental initiatives, including:

· Protecting the public from destruction caused by mountaintop mining.
· Allowing the public to review offshore drilling permits.
· Prohibiting oil companies from being exempt to the Clean Air Act while drilling in the Arctic.
· The restoration and protection of Chesapeake Bay

If the proposed legislation becomes law, we will see the EPA practically abolished. The consequences of such an event will prove to be devastating for the quality of our air, water, and public land reserves. Without the regulations set forth by the EPA, environmental toxins will have free reign over the environment where they will slowly and silently ravage the ecosystem.

As of March 8th 2010, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton has reported that 21 additional co-sponsors have signed onto his legislation proposing to block the EPA’s authority over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Upton commented on the matter during a briefing of the bill, stating:

“It shows that we have pretty solid support.”

Such news is quite disheartening to environmental and health advocates. The health risks involved with this legislation are staggering. Without regulation, pollution and environmental toxin levels will undoubtedly rise. There will be a marked spike in the number of annual children diagnosed with asthma, brain cancer, mesothelioma, and other serious health problems. The American Lung Association agrees that the health risks presented by this legislation are just not worth it:

“We all have to make do with less during these difficult economic times, but these radical cuts to necessary federal agencies and programs would do much more harm than good,” said Charles D. Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. “Health will be harmed and lives may be lost as a result of these proposed cuts.

Asthma, even for adults, is one of the largest contributors to work and school absenteeism. The illness results in almost 15 million lost workdays each year. Furthermore, mesothelioma symptoms (a rare cancer that forms on the lining of the lungs) are often mistaken for symptoms of asthma. When left undiagnosed, the mesothelioma life expectancy does not generally exceed 14 months.

Carbon emission regulation saves money on the collateral costs of things such as health insurance and hospital bills. Slashing the funds of climate control programs is not the answer we need!

Here's to Freedom?

2011-03-25T17:00:00.000-04:00

In my mind, the most shameful legacy of the Bush administration's run is Bush's acceptance of torture as viable method of interrogation. I distinctly remember feeling nauseous as I read leaked memos among top staff about appropriate torture techniques and various ways to avoid legal complications. I knew America doesn't get everything right, it's not a paragon of perfection, but that was a low-point I thought we'd never reach again. Then I read this editorial about the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is being imprisoned for allegedly handing over government files to Wikileaks.

I don't want to pass any judgement on Pfc. Manning's culpability because I don't know enough about the case. The way he is being treated though, as a citizen of the United States, a member of the armed forces, and a human being, has me seriously concerned, though. Pfc. Manning is not being openly abused or tortured, but he has languished in prison for 9 months without being tried. In the meantime, he is held in solitary confinement, an experience that John McCain described in his memoir as one of the toughest and most terrifying mental experiences of his own confinement and torture in Vietnam.

Manning is granted one hour of exercise a day, and is forced to strip every evening, and given back his clothes in the morning only after passing inspection, an uncanny echo of the Bush era, when one forced nudity was a common interrogation tactic and one CIA report stated that nudity was one way to weaken the mindset of the prisoner. Even a member of the State Department stated confidentially that the government treatment of Manning was "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid."

So what is President Obama, the man who promised to close Guantanamo and eliminate prisoner abuse doing about the situation? Nothing. Obama has stated that Manning's treatment is "appropriate, and meeting out basic standards."

Manning may be guilty of a serious breach of security, I don't know.* I will stand by every citizen's right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. More importantly, I stand by every human being's right to basic dignity and physical and mental safety. Guilt and punishment are determined in the court of law, this preemptive punishment is just wrong, and further serves to chip away at the Obama administration's credibility as a government of progress and change.

*One of the documents allegedly leaked by Pfc. Manning is a video that was posted on Lefty's last April by Henry Vasquez. Check out the video, but be warned: it is graphic and extremely upsetting. I haven't seen the other documents allegedly leaked by Manning, but with this particular video I believe Manning is exposing a cover-up, not jeopardizing the safety of American troops.

Notre Dame Silences Workers

2011-03-21T19:25:00.003-04:00

Three HEI workers from two different hotels in California were visiting Notre Dame Wednesday and Thursday, March 9-10. For the sixth time, workers were refused a meeting with Notre Dame’s administration, which has never met with HEI workers, and complacently relies solely on Scott Malpass for accurate information about HEI’s working conditions. Chief of Staff Francis Shavers, responding for President Jenkins, Chief Investment Officer Scott Malpass and Executive Vice President John Affleck-Graves said, “we have nothing additional to share beyond the information and explanations Scott Malpass has provided in the past through multiple discussions.” There is no mention of what the workers themselves are saying. Six times Notre Dame was invited to hear personal stories about work at an HEI hotel, and six times Notre Dame has silenced the workers by refusing to meet with them.

On Thursday, March 10, Notre Dame held its bi-annual town hall meeting, which was led by Affleck-Graves. He discussed Notre Dame’s financial situation as well as all of the reasons why ND is an outstanding place with Catholic values and a mission in which we can believe. “This is our time to be great,” he said. The presentation was followed by an open question and answer session. After being refused a meeting, the three workers chose to publicly ask Affleck-Graves about Notre Dame’s investment.

The HEI workers walked up to the microphone, led by a hotel housekeeper. She introduced herself and said, “I work for HEI..." Immediately, John Affleck-Graves cut her off, speaking over her, declaring that she could not ask her question, she's not a Notre Dame employee, she had to stop talking, the HEI workers had to leave, the meeting was not a space for them to speak, etc… The worker persisted with her question while Affleck-Graves continued to speak over her increasingly more agitated and raising his voice. When the HEI worker refused to be silent, her microphone was cut so that the crowd could no longer hear what she was saying. After she finished, the three workers returned to their seats. A member of security came over and asked them to leave, which they did peacefully. Affleck-Graves refused to answer Flores’s question.

Ironically, Affleck-Grave's speech right before this incident was almost entirely about Notre Dame making the world a better place, listening to suggestions, and continuing to improve. But apparently at our oligarchic institution, only certain people deserve to be heard. Notre Dame makes money off of each low-wage hour of work completed by HEI workers; they deserve a voice at our university. Yet, just like at their hotels, the workers were silenced on Notre Dame’s campus. One of the HEI workers present noted, “I thought only my managers were like this, but now I see that they’re like that everywhere.”

Scott Malpass maintains that HEI is a “good” investment, meeting Notre Dame’s ethical standards. If this is true, what was John Affleck-Graves so afraid to hear? Why did he silence Ana Flores? Was he scared about listening to how “good” her job is? How “good” her pay and benefits are? How “good” her workload is? How “good” her treatment is? How “good” it feels to be ignored? Notre Dame, in silencing the voice of the worker, has disowned many of the basic tenets of Catholic Social Teaching and is complicit in the exploitation and mistreatment of human lives.

For more information about this issue, visit http://www.heiworkersrising.org/
Props to my sister, Sarah Furman, who helped in editing this article.

Keep Tsunami Victims in Your Prayers

2011-03-11T16:25:00.004-05:00

I'm sure everyone has by now has heard about this horrible tragedy in Japan. The video below is shocking beyond words.

As we go on break, we should keep all these victims in our prayers, and I suggest keeping an eye out for charities which will likely soon be calling for donations.

And now if that image depressed you too much, and you want a little pick me up before break (I know I needed one after that), I offer this absolutely hysterical segment from Colbert. this piece is funny regardless what side of the political spectrum you stand on.

beware weapons of mass introduction

"The best defense against extreme ideologies is social inclusion and civic engagement"

2011-03-10T14:45:00.000-05:00

The title is a quote from Rep. Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, at today's Congressional Committee on Homeland Security's hearing on the "radicalization of Muslim-Americans"

I apologize for the informality of this preface, but this video is one of the most meaningful displays of reason and emotion I have ever witnessed in a Congressional testimony. Please take the 15 minutes to watch it.

Most, if not all readers of this blog are close with someone who over the last 10 years has developed an increasing prejudice against people who practice Islam. With Representative Peter King holding hearings on the radicalization of the "Muslim Community" in the United States, it is the perfect time to put forth our feelings on the topic and exchange in a dialogue.

Rep. Ellison's comments are not a condemnation for the concern about Muslim extremists in the US and abroad. Instead, he frames reaching out to the Muslim community and being careful to separate extremists from the Muslim community as essential to our national security. Far too often emotions get the best of Americans in the heat of political debates such as this for both liberals and conservatives. This is an important time not to lash out, but to put forth a thoughtful plan to keeping our country safe while upholding the values that make us proud to be Americans.

The State of Our Democracy

2011-03-10T00:17:00.007-05:00

Tonight in Wisconsin the state of our democracy has broken. 19 Republican State Senators used sneaky back door maneuvers to ram through a bill stripping away the collective bargaining rights of public unions. They did this by stripping the bill of all things fiscal, meaning that this new bill does NOTHING to balance to the budget. They have finally made it perfectly clear, that the budget has always been secondary to their foremost goal of destroying unions. While I could rant endlessly about the specifics of the bill, there are already plenty of articles by myself and fellow Lefties on that matter. Instead I want to focus on this absurd process by which the Republicans have completely circumvented the rights of the minority party and rammed through their activist agenda.

In this country, we have chosen as one of the basic tenants of our government, for good or ill, that things should happen at a slow pace. We have established a system based around the right of the minority to prevent any type of drastic change. This is what caused so many Obama supporters to to stay home this past November, having seen so little of the change they had been promised. When Democrats, including myself, grew angry about the filibuster, Republicans would say it was their protection against an activist agenda being pushed through. The minority is supposed to have this fall back. I'll admit I hated it as much as anybody when they blocked everything Democrats tried to do, but as frustrating as it was, I have never imagined a system without the filibuster. The fact is, that compromise can be incredibly constructive when the two sides decide to listen to each other and worry less about the next election, and there should be protections to prevent extremes of either party from pushing forward over strong objections of a sizable minority.

But now in Wisconsin, an activist governor has decided against the expressed will of the people in every poll that he wants to strip collective bargaining rights. The Democrats, having no chance to fairly debate this bill and being completely ignored, exercised the state level version of the filibuster. They protected their rights as a minority by fleeing the state. We often forget what filibustering really means, because both sides have accepted that the very threat of a filibuster necessitates compromise, but a true filibuster means that the party will stand and talk preventing ANYTHING ELSE from happening until either their opponents back down or they tire of talking. Republicans for the past two years just like every minority party in recent history have threatened time and again to shut down the government if the majority party tries to push its agenda without compromise. Fleeing the state was designed to hold up government in the exact same way. And the Republican response, "The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can’t act on our agenda." Apparently, they missed, the lessons of government 101, namely the majority does not have the right to push an agenda simply because they are the majority. Discussion, debate, and compromise are basic tenants of our political system.

Both sides have admittedly, loved the filibuster as a minority and hated it as a majority, but that's the reason it has withstood the test of time. No majority should be able to completely override the will of the minority without debate or discussion. Compromise can and should lead to good things. The Democrats in Wisconsin didn't ask to prevent the cuts to benefits or wages of union employees. Instead, they sought a middle road, in which all cuts were still enacted, thus balancing the budget, and the collective bargaining rights remained protected. But instead this activist Republican majority has circumvented the minority party as well as the popular opinion and in doing so have significantly weakened the state of our American-style deliberative democracy.

Say it ain't so St. Jo!

2011-03-09T22:51:00.008-05:00

This Tuesday, St. Joseph County Council voted 7-2 against a proposed smoking ban. The ban would have expanded upon the 2006 county ban, which still allowed smoking in designated, enclosed areas in bars and restaurants and allowed private clubs to set there own policy, to make all such establishments smoke-free.

I come from Minnesota, so I am sometimes surprised when I travel because it has been a while since I have had to request non-smoking seating.

In Minnesota smoking has been completely banned from restaurants, bars, and the like since 2007 (under the Freedom to Breathe Act). In Minnesota, it was decided that the public and employees of bars and restaurants deserved to be free from the effects of second hand smoke. All indoor, public places in Minnesota are refreshingly smoke-free.

I know that I personally will not patronize any establishments where I risk exposure to second-hand smoke.

I remember the debate in 2007, essentially the same debate occuring now in St.Joseph County and other parts of Indiana. I remember bar owners like those quoted by WNDU saying that the ban would "murder" their business. I don't remember Veterans groups expressing opposition, but it is quite possible they did.

I can understand, somewhat, St. Joseph County officials not taking the IUPU survey into full account because it is a survey of hypothetical public opinion. Though I would argue that hypothetical public opinion transitions pretty well into public opinion once you make the changes.

But look at Minnesota and other places accross the US where such bans have already been enacted. The vast majority of the public approves it, bars and restaurants still make money, American Legion and VFW organizations are still there.

The fact is, smoking bans don't "murder" anyone's business. In fact, smoking bans have been shown both to NOT negatively affect profits and to sometimes result in an increase in revenue.

I was in Minnesota from 2007 to 2010; the bar and restaurant owners stop complaining pretty quickly when they see how much people enjoy eating out without risking lung cancer.

Smokers do have the right to smoke, though they should probably quit for the sake of their health and their families, and smoking is legal. However, because second-hand smoke presents such a great health risk, smoking should be reasonably restricted.

It is legal to consume alcohol, but not to do so while driving. This just makes sense and saves lives.

It is legal to smoke, but it should not be legal to do so in places where the lives of others are put at risk.

I'm looking forward to clearing my head and clearing my lungs over spring break, and I hope the residents of South Bend have the opportunity to do the same soon.

Unions Are a Right of All Workers

2011-03-08T19:04:00.004-05:00

This column was published in the Observer on March 8th 2011.

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his [or her] interests." In the U.S., we seem to have forgotten that the ability to bargain collectively is an internationally recognized right of all people, rich or poor, in the public or private sector. While workers depend on employers for wages, employers depend on workers for the labor that produces the goods and services that create profit. The two parties are co-dependent. Therefore, the working class is an indispensible part of our economic system and should have the ability to voice its needs and concerns in the only legal form available: unionization. Collective bargaining allows both workers and employers to have a voice, pursue their interests, and come to a compromise. Sounds like democracy to me.

Unions do not simply seek higher wages and benefits; they give workers a voice in the workplace and a sense of dignity. Having a voice changes the relationship between workers and employers from exploitative to mutually beneficial, where both parties respect each other and are properly represented. Without the ability to bargain collectively, the power to make decisions lies exclusively with the employer. We have allowed the corporate world to dominate the discourse about labor for so long that it now sounds absurd to claim that workers should have a voice, which, fifty years ago, was a basic element of society.

One of the central arguments in the current labor battle is that public sector union workers make excessive salaries in comparison to private sector workers. The private sector is currently suffering from stagnating wages, decreasing benefits and increasing insurance costs, while the public sector seems to avoid much of this struggle. Private sector taxpayers blame the public sector employees for this discrepancy. They are angry because they are relatively worse off, an understandable emotion.

However, the blame is misplaced. Public sector workers are not the cause of lower wages, fewer benefits, and poor working conditions in the private sector. Taking away public sector benefits and collective bargaining is not going to create better jobs for those in the private sector and is not going to grow the middle class. It will only divide the working class. It will also potentially decrease wage standards for all Americans as a higher percentage of unionization in a city often leads to upward pressure on wages and working conditions for all workers, including non-union. Creating a conflict between workers convinces the working class to vote directly against its economic interests and takes the blame away from the decision makers that create and maintain low-wage jobs.

Both union and non-union workers must come together and send the message that collective bargaining is not only a human right, but is necessary to grow the middle class and create good jobs. Workers have to stop blaming each other for their economic hardships. Weakening collective bargaining rights of the public sector is not the answer; strengthening private sector rights is. Unions are the only legal representation for workers to bargain for their fair share of the wealth, which comes from the profits of the goods and services that they produce. As the percentage of the workforce that is unionized continues to fall, real wages are decreasing, the middle class is shrinking, and the wealth gap continues to expand. Unions are the last group of organized people consistently backing the average person. They are fighting for the rights of the working class, recognizing that workers are not commodities; they are people with voices that should be heard, and they have the right to bargain collectively. As Pope John Paul II wrote in "Laboren Exercens," unions "[A]re indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people in accordance with their individual professions."

Budgets, Deficits, and Bull@^&%

2011-03-08T13:38:00.004-05:00

"The Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility."

"American families balance their household budget, why can't we in Congress?"

"Democrats are the party of big government."

"Earmark spending is out of control"

I don't know about anyone else, but I am sick of hearing false statements. I'm sick of the unified and totally made up message of the Republican party. I'm also sick of the Democrats who don't know how to unify any real response. So now I'm just going to respond to these four Republican mantras that drive me insane.

Let's start by talking about fiscal responsibility:

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Do you know who said this? Dick Cheney. That's right the figureheads of the party of "fiscal responsibility" said "deficits don't matter". And does anyone remember the only president in recent history who balanced a budget and left office with a surplus? That would be Bill Clinton. Then along came George W. Bush. Need we say more about Republicans' "fiscal responsibility"? Well okay, I'll let this image say one more thing.

Now let's talk about balancing budgets:

I will admit I have never actually balanced a family budget before, so I could be wrong, but don't most families consider problems by trying to decrease expenditures AS WELL AS increase income? If you can fit in a couple of extra hours overtime, and make some more money, don't most families consider that option? Yet Republicans insist we have to ONLY cut spending, and we can't raise taxes at all. And no Democrats have ever suggested we can only tax our way out of the problem. There are definitely places to make spending cuts. But this rhetoric went out of control in Wisconsin, where the governor passed MASSIVE tax cuts to various special interests, then said I have a budget problem, and we need to cut union pay, only to further suggest that he couldn't just cut union pay, he also had to take their collective bargaining rights away, which had nothing to do with the budget. There is such a thing as PRACTICAL budget solving, but Republicans instead use the budget as an IDEALOGICAL tool. Have any Democrats really ever used a budget deficit to suggest the ONLY solution was more taxes? Most Democrats admit to needing to cut some wasteful spending as well as increase taxes. But why be rational when you can be an ideologue right?

Furthermore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to balance the budget through cuts without touching military spending, medicare, and social security. People on both sides of the aisle know touching any of these is general electoral suicide, but its the source of the budget problem. You can't be the party who wants to solve the budget without a plan to deal with these three problems, and frankly neither party can solve these problems alone. The only way to face the electoral suicide is with true compromise aimed at solving a real problem, and accepting mutual responsibility, credit, and blame. (please see West Wing episode: "Slow News Day". It may be a fictional show, but it makes a valid point.) But I guess that just wouldn't be as electorally useful as prolonging the problem and using it to accomplish idealogical goals under budget auspices.

Anyways now onto the big government debate:

Capitalism is not perfect. Capitalism has the goal of producing the maximum possible wealth in the system overall. It makes no promises that the wealth will be distributed in a logical or fair way, and it does not take into consideration costs to health and general well-being (which some could argue is far more important than wealth). That is why we have government. They clean our water, and protect us from poison in the food. Are some regulations unnecessary and wasteful? Undoubtedly. Should government just let capitalism completely off the leash? No way in hell. Government is designed to protect the people. That's it's job. It needs to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People without the ability to get health care are without life. When income inequality skyrockets, and social mobility nosedives, the pursuit of happiness is no longer being protected for most Americans. This is not big government, this is what government is DESIGNED to do. Big government IS bloated military spending so that we can try and wage two wars at once for little gain to safety, but incredible cost to human life. It's the government in our phone lines via the PATRIOT Act. It's the government inside a woman's body telling her what she can and can't do. It's the government giving me the option between doses of radiation and an incredible intrusive pat down every time I want to get on a plane. That's big government doing things, it WASN'T designed to do.

And lastly my personal qualm, the earmark:

Earmarks are good. Yes, every so often, one earmark funds a small bridge to nowhere (which the 200,000 some odd passengers a year who flew through the airport in "nowhere" a.k.a. Gravina Island, Alaska, probably appreciated). But for every earmark that does there are 99 really good ones. My stepdad started a non-profit organization called SouthCoast Connected designed to deal with the high drop out rate in high schools in the area of our home, New Bedford, MA. It was a program that would help fund middle school sports teams specifically basketball to help keep kids away from the gangs and in schools, which is a major problem in New Bedford. Senator Kennedy had gotten the funds via an earmark. This past year, the program nearly folded because they had to find a new source of funding, now that earmarks had become a pariah, and there was no Ted Kennedy to fight for it. This is what most earmarks do. It is small amounts money that simply go towards helping people in very specifically defined ways. And you could get thousands upon thousands of earmarks, at the cost of building one less obsolete jet that is still being built for the military because it's produced in five different states, whose representatives, don't want to see those jobs lost. Earmarks can't solve the deficit. Opposition to earmarks is simply not about practical budget control given the tiny percentage of the budget they take up. It's about painting an idealogical picture of fiscal responsibility that distorts the reality of the situation.

If Republicans decide they want to be fiscally responsible and solve the budget, good for them, but if that's the case, they better be ready to man up, and actually do something PRACTICAL and difficult, rather than waste all this time doing something IDEALOGICAL that leaves us tired of arguing and still in the same exact place with our budget that we have been since Clinton left office.

A Weekly Round-Up for the Stressed Student

2011-03-06T22:53:00.001-05:00

It's midterm season! That magical time of the semester when everyone gives up on sleep, develops a healthy addiction to coffee and retreats deep into their books and campus bubbles. For those of you way too busy to breathe, let alone check up on the news, here's a round-up of the highlights in national and world news.

The drama in Wisconsin continued this week as protesters were told to leave the capitol building and Governor Walker issued a series of lay-offs and threatened to arrest Democratic senators who fled the state. The article below offers a succinct and highly informative timeline of events as they unfolded this week.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46914

And of course, an analysis of the Wisconsin protests would be incomplete without a cameo by Jon Stewart. In this video he examines the hypocrisy of the conservative media and makes some startling comparisons between the current protests and Wall Street executives.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

This week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket military funerals. While I think the Church's message is unbelievably foul and misguided, I do believe the court ruled correctly in defending freedom of speech (see Christian's post below). The Christian Science Monitor covered the case and ruling here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1006/Supreme-Court-Can-Westboro-Baptist-Church-protest-military-funerals

Fighting increased in Libya as protesters gained ground against leader Muammar Qaddafi and he in turn intensified attacks on rebel forces. Obama criticized Qaddafi for his use of air raids and politicians from both parties have universally condemned the actions of the leader. Here, opinion writer Michael O'Hanlon examines the U.S. options for intervention.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50720.html

Women in the house went into fight mode this week in response to proposed cuts to Planned Parenthood funding. Rep. Gwen Moore offered a strident defense of Planned Parenthood, offering her own story as evidence of the necessity of family planning and aid.

Republicans continued their battle against the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday when they introduced a bill to permanently stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama has promised a veto, but you can read up on it here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-epa-emissions-bill-idUSTRE7226UJ20110304

Oh, and Sarah Palin tries to sound intelligent on TV and ignores the rights of human beings while definitely not angling for a presidential bid in any way.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4568570/sarah-palin-on-obamas-role-in-unions

Happy studies!

If you don't have anything nice to say...

2011-03-03T02:12:00.007-05:00

Apparently the saying most of us heard as children, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all," didn't get through to Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist church.

Phelps and his family have made a habit of protesting the funerals of US soldiers from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They believe that the deaths of these soldeirs are God's way of punishing the US for condoning homosexuality.

The big news this Wednesday was that the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Church's right to protest under the first ammendment's protection of free speech. If you missed the story watch this video.

It is difficult to accept that the horrible things said by these ignorant, disturbed people are protected speech, but they are.

The Supreme Court was right to defend the protestors, because free speech is something that needs to be protected. When we restrict this right only because we dislike the speech, we run the grave risk of losing this right in important matters. That is why the court ruled as it did and why newspapers and other organizations supported the Westboro's case.

I am glad that the Supreme Court ruled as they did. However, I believe that deceased and active members of the armed forces deserve our respect. Homosexuals also deserve our respect. So, I'd like to make the following suggestion:

Don't sue this church, don't say they should be thrown in jail, don't (negatively) counter-protest,
don't simply complain and condemn there actions. Instead, do three simple things.

1. Ignore the Westboro church protestors. It is difficult, but these people are after their fifteen minutes of fame and if we stop paying attention to them and feeding their egos they'll go home.

2. Let active members of the military and the families of deceased service members know they have people who support them and want them safe. Channel the energy you would otherwise spend denouncing the protests into supporting the military personnel in your life.

3. Also let the homosexual individuals in your life know there are people who support and love them.

We won't be able to, and really shouldn't, force these irrational protestors to stop spreading their hateful message, but we can drown it in an outpouring of goodwill.

Because if you do have something nice to say, you should say it.

Teach me how to budget

2011-03-01T17:55:00.009-05:00

The recent state movements to incapacitate public sector unions are ridiculous. First of all, union workers are not making enough money that these cuts will actually solve budget deficits. Second, there are plenty of other ways to address the budget problems that have yet to be tried. Finally,taking away the right to collective bargaining does nothing to fix the budget but is simply a way to allow more to be taken from public workers in the future.

The worst aspect of this whole debacle, in my mind, is the affect it will have on public education.

Teachers are some of the most important workers in America. Education is vital to the US; after Sputnik we recognized education as an issue of national security. I would argue that it still is, in the sense of economic security and maintaining America's position as a global power. The United States would not be what it is today if we had not established a system of free public education.

Also, the problems in our current education system that politicians so often reference are not going to be solved by cutting pay to the employees of those schools. Impoverishing teachers does not help them teach.

The following episode of the Daily Show highlights just how ridiculous and hypocritical Republicans are being when it comes to this issue:

I sincerely hope that no one out there thinks teachers are overpaid or greedy.

I know what it takes to be a teacher about as well as one can without actually being a teacher: I am related to many teachers, my mom is a former teacher, my girlfriend's parents are teachers, I tutor grade school children, and I have coached youth lacrosse for several years.

The fact is on top of being vitally important the job of a teacher is also very difficult.

The worst part, however, is that the pay is inadequate. Public school teachers on average do not make much money, regardless of what statistics pundits claim to have. Public school teachers get by, but they do not have the lives Fox News seems to want us to think they do.

Even if Fox were right that teachers are rich with tons of benefits, that would be fine by me. Teachers have a difficult and incredibly important job, which is not reflected in their pay. But that is a discussion for another time; right now the issue is teachers retaining what little they have now.

It is true that many states are in a bad budgetary situation and that cuts and sacrifices are necessary. The problem arises when public union employees are being asked to shoulder more than their share of the sacrificing.

Teachers can and are likely willling to sacrifice somewhat; in my senior year of high school the teachers union at our school agreed to tough cuts so that the school could rectify its budget situation. Union bargaining is a two way street; unions will accept reasonable cuts. The attempts to force cuts and take away union rights to collective bargaining shows that the Republican governors and legislatures know that they are asking for unreasonable sacrifices.

Let's look at the people who are attacking teachers. The governor of Wisconsin recieves a salary much greater than Fox's inflated numbers for rich teachers, and recieves health and other benefits from the state. Members of the legislature recieve a salary and a per diem stipend for expenses during legislative work (If they are working that day or have work related expenses the state pays, $88 max per day in the 2005-2007 session). This is a lot different than public school teachers who often buy materials out of their own pockets. The salary for State Officials in Wisconsin can't be changed during their term, but in July the Wisconsin legislature will have a chance to live up to its ideals of budget cuts.

If the governors and members of the state legislatures (who are all paid by taxpayers) attacking public sector unions all agreed to take the same kind of pay and benefit cuts and lose their right to further reduce public union worker pay and benefits, then maybe they could justifiably impose this legislation on the unions. I'll let you judge for yourself the chances of that happening.

Ending the R-word

2011-02-24T19:24:00.012-05:00

This column ran in the Observer on Tuesday February 22, 2011.

"Spread the Word to End the Word." At Notre Dame and across the world people are uniting to end the hurtful use of the word "retard." Here is why I am joining them:

In middle school it felt like I was given the keys to the word. "Swear words" were off limits at school or in front of my parents, but somehow retard toed the line as appropriate. Some pushed back, including my mom emphatically, but once the word became the cool way of calling someone or something stupid there was no stopping it. I never used the word hatefully at people with disabilities, so I cleared myself of responsibility that I could be hurting someone's feelings.

In high school I started volunteering with Special Olympics. The judgments and preconceptions I had about people with disabilities were quickly replaced by enormous respect for the athletes and gratefulness for the energy they brought to my life. Working with the Special Olympics is my first memory of enjoying volunteer work. I left every practice or event inspired by being around so many people that seek friendships without reserve and that possess a full appreciation for all they receive.

Despite making friends with people who have intellectual disabilities and becoming increasingly involved in Special Olympics, I still used the r-word occasionally in high school. Hearing the word so often, my brain's subconscious had disassociated it from the cruel word people use to slander or mock those with disabilities. It was a challenge to eradicate it from my vocabulary. That was until one day when I was on a bus full of Special Olympics athletes heading down to a basketball tournament. I laughed at a story told to me by another volunteer from a couple rows up and responded without thought, "That's so retarded!"

All that heard me immediately got quiet and then a couple athletes looked at me and said with utmost seriousness, "Chris, we don't use that word." Most people never have that moment. After apologizing profusely, I committed to myself to never say the word again. I made the commitment because it became simple to me; why should we use words that offend an entire community of people just by hearing them? None of my friends, athletes or volunteers on that bus thought I was using it hatefully. The athletes stopped me because they were well aware of their medical classification as "mentally retarded" and that society found it acceptable to make retarded synonymous with stupid or ridiculous.

To all those concerned with censorship and the removal of a word out of regular discourse, no one is trying to police you from saying the word. Instead we ask you make a decision for yourself knowing that simply overhearing the word is offensive and often damaging to at least the 5 percent of people in the US with an intellectual disability and their friends and families. The number of people who disapprove of the word is growing, especially at Notre Dame where more than 2,500 students signed a pledge last year to end their use of the r-word. Special Olympians and people across the world who believe in the value of every member of our human family are asking you to be a fan of respect. On End the R Word Day, March 2, we hope you will enthusiastically pledge to end the hurtful use of the word retard.

If you want more information "like" Special Olympics Notre Dame on Facebook and visit r-word.org!

Is It Me Or Is The World Exploding?

2011-02-23T23:25:00.003-05:00

It seems like everyday some new bombshell rocks the political world, both in the United States and throughout the world at large. There's so much I want to write about that I'm having trouble choosing a topic. Reproductive rights under attack? Labor unions threatened with a complete revocation of rights? The middle east exploding with revolution? Not to mention the continued GOP resistance to EPA proposed reforms and funding cuts to everything from NPR to school funding, and the very real threat of a complete government shutdown. Regretfully, my time is finite, so I'll limit myself to the first of these travesties.

I'm always hesitant to write about issues touching on abortion because it's such a violently divisive and morally ambiguous issue. The Planned Parenthood cuts, though, aren't solely about abortion. Planned Parenthood offers services such as birth control, STD testing, pre and post-natal care, treatment for serious reproductive diseases and, most importantly, information. Information about how women can protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies, how they can take care of themselves throughout pregnancies and how to deal with a host of problems completely unrelated to pregnancy and childcare, problems such as cervical and breast cancer. Check out this video from The Daily Show, where Jon Stewart examines the hyperbolic rhetoric that masks an attack on women's health.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I find it really appalling that female politicians can support measures that completely degrade them to the level of second class citizens undeserving of basic reproductive health care. It's important that politicians avoid tunnel vision.

Planned Parenthood is not about abortion. It's about helping women make educated, healthy decisions about their reproductive rights and physical health. Limiting access to condoms, STD tests and institutional support will not eliminate abortions, it will increase the rate of accidental pregnancy and force women to pursue illegal and highly dangerous alternative options.

The thing is, government money funds an extremely small number of abortions, and only in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. In 2006, the last year for which statistics are available, only 191 women used the government program, and abortions represent only 3% of Planned Parenthood's overall business.

I know this is a highly dramatic statement, but cuts to Planned Parenthood are a direct attack to women's rights. Women such as Michelle Bachmann are degrading themselves by denying their sex access to crucial programs. There's so much going on in the world right now to distract us from issues such as these, but we cannot lose focus on the government actions that threaten to set us back decades in the fight for equal rights. This is more than an abortion issue, this is more than a feminist issue. This is an issue of human dignity and equality.

You Say You Want a Revolution

2011-02-23T00:54:00.002-05:00

The Muslim world (North Africa+ Middle East+Central Asia) has dominated the world politics of our generation. We have experienced, among other things, the gulf war, the war on terror (Iraq and Afghanistan), and now a period of widespread revolution. What we have seen is the worst the Muslim world has to offer, in the form of violent extremists, and the best it has to offer, in the form of people committed to improving their situation and assuring just governance--the middle part that we don't see is of course the everyday people trying to make a living just like everyone else in the world. The full effects of the recent revolutions are not yet known, but the only certainty is that the Muslim world our generation and future generations will interact with will be different from the one our parents knew.

What does it take to start a revolution?

This 60 minutes video gives a good idea of the Tunisian revolution, which sparked the ongoing "domino effect" of revolutions within the Arab world (North Africa+Middle East).

I found the part about the relative youth of the protest movement and the use of Facebook very interesting. It shows that not only is the Muslim world being redefined for our generation, it is essentially being redefined by our generation.

I know first-hand about the use of Facebook in fomenting this revolution. My girlfriend lived in Tunisia for three years, and she showed me the various pictures and messages related to the revolution from her friends who remained in Tunisia.

What happens now?

I am cautiously optimistic about the overall situation of these revolutions. I am glad that authoritarian dictators are being ousted and I am excited about the prospect of real democracy in these countries. I was quite pleased when I heard that the revolution in Egypt had successfully deposed Hosni Mubarak. Also, Turkey provides an example of a modernized, democratic nation with a predominately Muslim population; so it definitely can work.

However, revolutions tend to be unpredictable and there is always the possibility of things going too far one way or the other. For example, protests in Libya in the same vein as the Tunisian and Egyptian protests are being met with even more violent resistance from the authoritarian leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. We will see if Qaddafi concedes like Mubarak and Tunisia's Ben Ali; otherwise, the violence in the entire region might continue to escalate. Something like that might even set back the extensive progress made in the last couple of month.

I sincerely hope that these revolutions play out in the best way possible. Not necessarily the best way possible for the U.S., but the best way possible for the people of the Muslim world. Which, I think, is ultimately in America's best interest (just maybe not oil interest).

Regardless of how it all works out, we ought to be following these events. As our generation comes into its own we will be dealing with the aftermath of these revolutions, one way or another, and it would be best to do so in an informed manner. That way we'll show our peers in Egypt and Tunisia that the youth of America are just as capable of bettering our world.

Wisconsin Unions Remind Us When Americans Used to Protest For Real

2011-02-16T18:02:00.005-05:00

Remember when everyone covered Tea Party rallies? When they showed the classic spirit of America rising up to stand for something? Except, what did they stand for again? Originally they seemed to say "we stand for really, really low taxes," but they then also stood for solving the deficit. Because apparently it's possible to solve the deficit problem ENTIRELY by cutting spending. Most people with a brain know, that short of flat out ending Medicare and Social Security, that's impossible. I could go on and on about the lack of logic here. Or I could just say, hey that's the Tea Party. We want it and have no idea how to actually do it, except to say Barrack Obama, bad.

What I love even more is how the Tea Party protests became more conservative over time. Eventually they got angry about abortions and gay marriage, until they were simply having a protest that said, "we're conservative, and we lost the last election and we're angry." Great stand guys. Way to honor this country's history of protest. We only have the tradition of ending the Vietnam War and restoring Civil Rights via protest. No biggie.

And certain media, *cough* Fox news *cough* noticed these rather lame events and said the people are speaking, it should be the top story, And yet today, when 15,000 unionized workers of Wisconsin (unions were basically the originators of the US protest, they tend to do it well) gathered to fight against laws designed to "fix the budget" by taking away union rights to collective bargaining. I went to the Fox News website. They were more interested in governors "snubbing" Obama, and Scott Brown's upcoming biography.

Now of course I must admit my own bias in this matter. My sister has recently begun working for the ATU, the Amalgamated Transit Union, and she was in Wisconsin for this protest. (She's the only she in the picture) But the fact remains this is a huge deal. In this country Republicans have been allowed to demonize unions and blame them for budget problems. Are we really supposed to think that public employees are making too much money? That the city bus drivers or the garbage men, are living lives of luxury? These are people taking unwanted and necessary jobs. Without unions, today they wouldn't have a minimum wage to give them chance of a decent life. Government employees who unionize aren't corrupt bureaucrats. They are people who do real jobs just like anyone else and deserve real pay.

If this plan to eliminate collective bargaining passes in Wisconsin, other governors may follow suit. If so our country will truly have fallen backwards. Income inequality in this country has been rising. The gap between the top 1% and everyone else is as high as its been since just before the Great depression. The first time America faced this problem and closed this gap, it was through the growing union movement. Without the proliferation of unions, our country wouldn't have formed the American dream. It was through unions that someone could pick himself up by his bootstraps and make it. Unions are an important staple of our history. We can't afford to go back to a time when workers had no say in how things were done. We've simply come too far to allow some overzealous governor to set our country back 100 years. So let's support those 15,000 workers in Wisconsin who are standing strong for all of us.

Lefty's Last Cry Endorses Patrick McCormick and Brett Rocheleau for Student Body President and Vice President

2011-02-14T12:24:00.005-05:00

Editors and active writers from Lefty’s have surveyed this year’s contenders for Student Body President and VP and are proud to enthusiastically endorse Pat McCormick and Brett Rocheleau in today's Student Government elections.

McCormick and Rocheleau have put forth an authentically progressive vision for the future of student government at Notre Dame. The Scholastic writes:

"The Scholastic staff is endorsing the McCormick-Rocheleau ticket...Their platform offers a vision for a student government that can do more than address the everyday problems and gripes of students. While hot dog prices and Fro-Yo flavors are important, McCormick and Rocheleau realize that given the power of student government, they have a responsibility to affect change both on and off campus in the spirit of Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, C.C.C.'s vision for the university...the hopeful spirit of McCormick and Rocheleau...is infectious."

Members of the Observer Editorial Board expressed their support as well:

"The ticket of Pat McCormick, chair of the Social Concerns Committee in Student Senate, and Brett Rocheleau, sophomore class president, presents a compelling platform of uniting student government with larger social justice causes."

To find out for yourself why McCormick is the right choice for ND visit his website, NDunited.com. Here are a couple of McCormick’s priorities that Lefty’s finds particularly impressive:

(1) Set a university goal of reducing our carbon footprint from 2005 levels by 70% by 2050.

We hope to partner with the Office of Sustainability, the Office of the University Architect, Procurement, the Utilities Department, Transportation, Landscape Services, the Office of Information Technology, and other campus units, as well as student groups including GreeND, SEA, and other leaders on campus to pursue a comprehensive strategy to realize Notre Dame’s hope to secure ecological justice for all. This is an especially urgent priority given Notre Dame’s national leadership at the Renewing the Campus Conference hosted by the University of Notre Dame and keynoted by representatives from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We continue now to identify areas in which the University might lead by example in its aspiration to affirm Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration that, “Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions…In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response.”

There are several major areas where the University can work to achieve the reductions necessary to accomplish this goal. They include increasing University investments in energy conservation initiatives and the Green Loan fund, utilizing less carbon-intensive fuels, conversion to LED light standard, consolidating campus data centers, achieving the installation of real-time metering, mandating purchases of Energy Star appliances, and expanding education and outreach efforts on campus. Students at Notre Dame have long advocated for this commitment, and its time has come.

(2) Expand inclusion in the Notre Dame family.

In his address to students at the opening Mass of the 2010-2011 academic year, Provost Burish spoke of the uniqueness of the Notre Dame family. He is right, and we must do everything we can to continue to expand the circle of our Notre Dame family to extend ever further in order to answer the cry from Scripture: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4: 9). There are many groups on campus leading a campus-wide response to this call, and several opportunities worthy of Notre Dame’s consideration include providing greater resources for GLBTQ students by granting club status to a gay-straight student support group on campus, expanding opportunities for workers to share their concerns regarding conditions, living wages, and placing the dignity of work at the center of university employment policy, working to improve access to quality education in the community, affirming the centrality of Catholic social teaching to the mission of the University, and partnering with external organizations to preserve and protect human dignity both at home and abroad, especially given the existence of a Memorandum of Understanding between the University of Notre Dame and Catholic Relief Services.

(3) Make Notre Dame the premier forum for nationally-recognized events uniting athletes, entertainers, and policy-makers on behalf of social justice.

The guiding vision for our campaign is the role that students can play in leading Notre Dame to become an ever more powerful “lighthouse and crossroads” for the world. Fr. Hesburgh first offered this image as a vision for the university, and we have chosen it as the symbol of the hope a new generation of students has to write a new chapter in our school’s history.

The University of Notre Dame -- our campus, the Joyce Center, Notre Dame Stadium – should be the premiere venues for nationally-recognized events that unite our country’s leaders – in athletics, the arts, and government – behind important social justice goals. Recently, Hope for Haiti Now united actors like George Clooney and Julia Roberts, entertainers like Shakira, Alicia Keys, and Taylor Swift, and the people of America in a concert aimed at bringing aid to earthquake victims. In past years, LiveAid, FarmAid, and We Are The World brought Hollywood, professional sports, and our nation’s political leaders together behind great social justice needs. Each of these events had to find a forum: why not Notre Dame?

We are off to a good start. Playing for Peace is a model of the type of change we want to bring to student government. Already Playing for Peace has attracted national attention – attention that has gone all the way to the White House, and includes Kalpen Modi – who formerly played Dr. Kutner on House and Kumar in Harold and Kumar, and now advises President Obama on matters involving social justice and public engagement.

We believe expanding the Playing for Peace idea into an ongoing program – a series of events – would distinguish Notre Dame as unique among national universities in the United States. This vision for Notre Dame can be realized, in part, by harnessing the power of the university—and particularly the ND athletic brand—for social justice. (And did we mention maybe give students the chance to have a few pretty cool experiences in the process: like get a personal message from Luol Deng of the Chicago Bulls, advocate for peace by playing basketball, and bring actors, athletes, musicians, and policymakers to campus who want to work with us in the future?)

2nd Annual Kennedy Obama Dinner Coming to South Bend

2011-02-13T21:37:00.003-05:00

Hello, fellow Dems. I haven't been around Lefty's in awhile, but that doesn't mean I'm any less committed to progressive causes. In fact, I've been pretty busy planning the Kennedy Obama Dinner, hosted by the College Democrats of Indiana.

This year, the dinner is coming to the College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend, Indiana on March 5, 2011. We are currently organizing our speaker list, which will definitely include short statements from Democratic South Bend mayoral candidates and a keynote address from Sam Locke, an Indiana native and one of the most prominent young Democrats in the state. I think it is also worth mentioning that the Hall of Fame will be fully accessible, so you can explore and socialize before the sit-down dinner while reading up on some college football legends. We have a wonderful menu planned, and if last year's dinner is any indication, the evening will be a ton of fun. We are charging $15 for students (sorry its not free, but come on, its a fundraiser), and $50 per plate for non-students.

I cannot wait to see all of you there, and I know you will do your best to spread the word so College Democrats of Indiana can function better than ever in the next year. Please contact me at alyssa.j.sullivan@gmail.com to register or if you have questions.

Challenging President Obama on Education

2011-02-12T15:11:00.001-05:00

This column ran in the Observer on Tuesday, February 8th. Let me know what you think of my argument!

The State of the Union address on Jan. 25 was a continuance of the President's anti-ideological rhetoric since the midterms and the tragic shooting in Tucson; a refreshing escape from the entrenched arguments of the last two years. The speech signaled that the President is fiercely open minded heading into the new legislative session, and excited to work with whomever has an innovative idea supported by documented evidence. Empowering children to compete in the next generation economy through equal opportunity in education was a rallying cry and reoccurring theme in the speech. Appropriately, seated in the audience of the speech thanks to Speaker John Boehner was a group of outstanding students that embody the hope of the United States to overcome educational shortfalls from four different inner-city Catholic schools in D.C. Many of the students present were beneficiaries of a successful program called D.C. Opportunity Scholarships that was terminated for all future underprivileged D.C. students by Congressional Democrats and President Obama in 2009.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program fits seamlessly into President Obama's post-partisan call for education reform, but to date it has been left off the table by the President. The program was established in 2003 under the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act and is "the first federally funded private school voucher program in the United States, providing scholarships of up to $7,500 for low-income residents (avg. family income of $17,300) of the District of Columbia to send their children to local participating private schools." In the year 2007, 1,930 students were receiving a scholarship to attend a school of their family's choice.

Despite the fact that it is extremely rare for educational intervention to show indisputable achievement gains after a few years, D.C. Opportunity Scholarships have proven their value according to the Institute for Education Sciences of the U.S. Government. Of the students offered a scholarship those who accepted had an 82 percent graduation rate while those that declined had a 70 percent graduation rate. The D.C. public school system graduates only 48.8 percent of its students. Sub groups of scholarship recipients, including females and high achievement students, showed statistically significant gains in reading scores, while all students showed small improvements in reading and math using the most rigorous methodology for testing achievement. In addition to remarkable improvements in graduation rates and advancements in student achievement, four consecutive reports from Georgetown University and the University of Arkansas showed parents are "very satisfied and more involved in their children's education," and "children have an improved attitude toward learning, increased self-esteem and enthusiasm towards school."

Strictly in terms of political calculus, supporting the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships would garner significant positive attention at little cost for the President. Boehner has made the scholarship program a top priority in his new role as speaker by unconventionally sponsoring legislation to reinstate the program himself. He hosted a press conference the day after the State of the Union along with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman who is introducing the bill in the Senate, calling on the President to live up to his words from the night before on education. Obama and Boehner shaking hands on a deal to empower poor children and their families in D.C. to choose their schools is exactly the type of story the White House should be pursuing.

The cost to Obama would come from the teachers' unions and the left-wing Democrats who do not want to go on the record opposing them. However, the political tides are working in Obama's favor if he reverses his position on the Opportunity Scholarships. With the help of the recent documentary "Waiting for Superman" and well published success of alternative models to the traditional public school, the activist base of the Democratic Party is quickly turning on teachers' unions that put their job security above the interests of children. Additionally, multiple former Democratic mayors of the city and a majority of the D.C. City Council endorsed the Opportunity Scholarship Program in 2009.

Obama needs to establish himself as an unequivocal supporter of educational opportunity for children. A good public education should be the first step towards the American dream. For many Americans it is, but for minorities and the poor, particularly in D.C., the numbers overwhelmingly display a system that is thoroughly failing. Wealthy D.C. area families have had a school choice plan for decades because they have the ability to choose where they live according to the quality of the schools, or to pay for private school tuition.

School choice advocates do not expect the President to fully endorse vouchers as a solution to the crisis in U.S. education at this point in time. However, they demand the President stop turning his back to the success of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program while he speaks to the American people about his bipartisan credentials and the need for a new generation of innovative policies. Much like the Administration's flagship Race to the Top Initiative, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship is a targeted investment, albeit more than $4 billion less at a total of $13.1 million, designed to help students in the short-term while building a longer term body of evidence for an education reform strategy. The evidence collected from the Opportunity Scholarship Program will help legislators evaluate the effectiveness of vouchers. Reinstating the D.C. voucher program on the condition that it continues to meet realistic academic achievement and parental satisfaction goals is a bipartisan idea that prioritizes students and discovering what works in education.

Hope in Chaos

2011-02-11T13:09:00.006-05:00

One of my friends showed me this amazing picture of Christian protesters linking together to protect Muslim protesters at their prayers during violent protests on Friday. Little glimpses of unity and beauty like this completely restore my faith in humanity and help me to believe in the concept of peace. This photo is proof that religious violence is not insurmountable. Divisive ideologies can be put aside in the face of respect and cooperation around a common good. There's better things to fight about than the bible, as these protesters have clearly discovered.

I love the smile on the face of the protester on the right. It's as if he realizes he is part of something historical, something that transcends factionalism and goes beyond even the fight in Egypt. The following photo offers a glimpse into what Muslim protesters have endured while praying over the course of the last several weeks. These two photos were not taken at the same time, but the sentiments behind both are truly inspiring.

Credit where credit is due: I got these images from the following sites:

http://www.good.is/post/protesters-are-awesome-look-at-this-beautiful-photo-of-christians-protecting-praying-muslims-in-egypt/

http://www.good.is/post/egypt-protests-the-prayer-picture/

Thanks to Lillie Catlin for bringing my attention to these images.

Future Jobs in Clean Energy

2011-02-09T15:01:00.003-05:00

The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing new regulations on air pollution, much to the chagrin of several Right Wingers who claim that global warming is a hoax, or that dirty, non-renewable energy and strict regulation of the EPA is a priority (interestingly, strict regulation of Wall Street is not). I've written about the proposed regulations before, which basically limit the number of pollutants that power utilities can release into the air.

Recently, a report was commissioned by Ceres to investigate how many jobs could be created by the new EPA regulations. The results were astounding. The report estimates that over the next five years, the regulations would create 1.5 million jobs in fields as varied as engineering, construction, consulting and pipe-fitting. The report was conducted by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Political Economy and Research Institute, which found that, since 1970, every dollar invested to comply with the Clean Air Act has brought about between 4 and 8 dollars in economic benefit.

Not all the new jobs would be permanent, the report concludes, but new plants complying with the higher standards will create at least a few thousand permanent jobs, and new job opportunities in exports and clean energy technology were not included in the report. Senator Tom Carper points out that the new rules will save thousands of lives and billions in healthcare costs, "but will also create almost 300,000 jobs every year." Basically, the new pollutant regulations are a really good thing.

The "Party of No" begs to differ. In fact, GOP lawmakers are so against the EPA regulations that they are targeting the EPA (as well as high speed rail and other renewable energy programs) in proposed budget cuts. I understand that coal is an important part of America's history and economy, and I certainly don't want coal and other industrial plants to go out of business because of the regulations, but the GOP needs to come to terms with the reality of Global Warming and accept that the present solutions aren't all that bad. It seems almost like petty showmanship to target the EPA. I, for one, am crossing my fingers that rational thinkers on both sides of party lines band together to defend all the environmental issues threatened by budget cuts.

I'll leave you with this disturbing video of Rep. Fred Upton, new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in which he panders skillfully and questions the causes of Global Warming. Here's to hoping his opinions are a distinct minority.

An Inspiring Speech You Must Watch

2011-02-03T20:00:00.002-05:00

Chaos in Egypt

2011-01-30T20:38:00.007-05:00

Unless you live under a rock you've heard about the revolution in progress in Egypt. I really wanted to do an in-detail analysis of the turmoil and write a really well-informed piece, but I had guests this weekend, and piles of homework, and The Huffington Post already did such a good job of boiling everything down. If you're still wrapping your head around what's going on, or you need a quick study guide to stay informed, check out this compilation of facts, and take a look at this article by Cara Parks which summarizes the main players pretty well. You can also see what President Obama says; he treads a fine line by defending the inherent freedoms of the Egyptian people while cautioning against violence and repeating the promises made by President Mubarak to the Egyptian nation.

It's always difficult to get the real story until the after the dust settles. Only time will tell whether Mubarak will deliver on his promises for reform, or whether the Egyptian people will even give him a chance to try. I do sincerely hope the violence ends soon, and the Notre Dame students studying abroad in Egypt are able to leave the country safely. For now we can only hope the government loosens its stranglehold on communication outlets, and that no more lives are lost.

A Message from the College Democrats of Indiana

2011-01-25T18:55:00.016-05:00

2010 was a rough election cycle for Democrats. Yet, this will not stop our commitment to our beliefs or the change we all sought in 2008. So, this semester we will be planning some fun events to get geared up for the coming year and the next election.

February 25th - 26th: College Democrats of America Winter Conference
The College Democrats of Indiana will travel to the College Democrats of America’s Winter Conference is in Washington D.C. in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting. It's a great opportunity to meet College Democrats from across the nation as well as party leaders. Students will attend trainings and will be granted access to the DNC General Sessions. Previous years’ speakers have included President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Chairman Tim Kaine. Please check the CDA Facebook page for further updates http://www.facebook.com/collegedems

March 5th: Obama Kennedy Dinner
The College Democrats of Notre Dame will be hosting our annual fundraiser in South Bend. This is a great trip to bond as a chapter, as well as meet some incredible people within the state party. These group meetings are an excellent way for new members and executive boards to meet and make new friends. It seems like just yesterday that many of us met in South Bend during the 2009 national conference.

April 8th & 9th: CDIN Convention
The Indiana University College Democrats will be hosting our state wide convention in Bloomington. The convention is a wonderful opportunity to meet young democrats from across the state, have beneficial training sessions and hear from our statewide leadership. Our state wide elections also take place during this time, where we will elect a new executive board to guide the federation over the coming year.

For more information or questions please email watts.andrea@gmail.com

University deserves 'LGBT-unfriendly campus' trophy

2011-01-25T02:56:00.001-05:00

Check out my column in Tuesday's Observer. We are kicking off the Progressive Student Alliance's 2011 petition this Thursday!! Sign up on Facebook to attend: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=17643197905901 9.

Let me begin by stating clearly, I am a heterosexual male who loves Notre Dame as much as anyone on campus and believes ardently in the purpose of the school to promote Catholic values and educate at the highest level. It is precisely due to my love of this University that I am so disturbed that while we pride ourselves in topping lists across academia and athletics, we continue to be public champions for homophobia. The Princeton Review consistently ranks Notre Dame among the worst in accepting the homosexual community. In 2010 we were fourth on their list of "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Unfriendly" campuses. Easy and painless reforms can be made this year to move in a more tolerant direction that do not challenge the Catholic DNA of Our Lady's University.

This article is not an attempt to debate the morality of homosexuality, but a request that we treat the homosexual students, faculty and staff on campus with the basic respect Catholic teachings demand every human being deserves. After all, the University's mission statement reads that students shall develop a "disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice and oppression that burden the lives of so many." Today, university officials can fire an employee on the charges that he or she is gay. Also, AllianceND — a student organization that would be an authentic voice for both gay and straight students to support the LGBT community on campus — has been denied club status 14 years consecutively after support has been demonstrated each year. It is incomprehensible why the University is willing to portray itself as homophobic for not making two basic changes. No one is asking for Notre Dame to be the most accepting school in the nation, but is it too much to ask to not place last?

A coalition of students and faculty are proposing that sexual orientation be added to the non-discrimination clause that currently reads, "The University of Notre Dame does not discriminate on the basis of race/ethnicity, color, national origin, sex, disability, veteran status or age in the administration of any of its employment, educational programs, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, athletics, recreational and other school-administered programs." It is unclear to me the fear the University has in changing this policy. The Catholic teaching on the subject according to Notre Dame is, "the Church does not say that the homosexual orientation is wrong; rather, it is sexual activity between same sex persons that is ‘objectively disordered' and therefore sinful. Consequently, the Church says that homosexuals are called to life-long celibacy." If the Church does not believe homosexual orientation is wrong, what stands in the way of adding sexual orientation to the non-discrimination clause? Any violation of University code of conduct on sexual behavior can continue to be cause for firing or punishment whether it is hetero- or homosexual. Leaving sexual orientation out of the non-discrimination clause is not consistent with the Church's stance or the mission of the University.

Notre Dame requires approval for all student group activities, including protests or demonstrations. If a club holds an event without approval, club status can be revoked. Even with that level of administrative control over student club activity the University continues to deny its students the right to form AllianceND. AllianceND is "a forum in which gay and straight students can meet and form friendships, discuss and present important issues related to tolerance and solidarity within the broader University community, and find common ground in a supportive, respectful, comfortable atmosphere." I am at a loss to understand the controversy behind that mission, particularly after reading the U.S. Catholic Bishops letter Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers that promotes a loving dialogue and attitude of acceptance between heterosexual and homosexual members of the Catholic faith community. The bishops write, "It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity." Often, University officials cite the existence of the Core Council as a reason to exclude the AllianceND club. While Core Council is an important part of the University community, it is directly administrated by Notre Dame staff and members must be accepted through an application process. Notre Dame needs to entrust its LGBT students and straight allies with same rights of forming an organization within Catholic values that thousands of students enjoy in the more than 300 student clubs.

So join us Thursday from 6 to 8 p.m. in the Sorin Room of LaFortune for the kick-off informational event for the petition, or simply sign the petition when you get the opportunity to support changes in ND's non-discrimination clause and the inclusion of AllianceND. As a proud member of the Notre Dame family, I ask the administration to be respectful to all its students, faculty and staff by acknowledging the petition and ending two discriminatory policies that do not reflect the strength of the Catholic character of the University.

The Second Amendment... What Does It Mean?

2011-01-23T15:55:00.007-05:00

Lefty's is back and running after a long break, so I feel it's time to weigh in one of the issues that has sprung up since the incident in Tuscon, Arizona. I thought about writing shortly after the event, but I felt it was disrespectful to jump into the politics immediately afterwards. But enough time has passed, that it's reasonable to have a serious discussion about gun control. It's not "exploiting a crisis" for us as a nation to reconsider what is important when a tragedy happens. So I think it's worth talking about guns and their role in our country.

One thing I've heard many times is that "Guns don't kill, people do." This is not entirely untrue. People have many different ways to kill someone, and we can't prevent that by keeping every potentially dangerous item out of people's hands. So my response to "Guns don't kill, people do" would be "Guns don't kill, but they transform murder into massacre." No other common method of murder is able to kill so many so easily. This is what makes the gun more controversial than a knife, a wrench, or lead pipe. (Clue anybody?)

And this brings us back to the Second Amendment, so often quoted by the NRA and their supporters. I present it here, in its full text.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That first phrase seems to be dropped by gun supporters a lot, because frankly they find it inconvenient. The people have the right to guns because of the necessity for a "well regulated militia". Does that mean only the military should be allowed to own guns? Or are they referring to something different when they talk of a militia? If they are speaking of an old style civilian militia, is that really still necessary when there is no longer a threat of Indian attacks in a time when we were merely thirteen states in a relatively new and unknown land? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I have never seen a gun rights supporter try to explain these to me. And frankly the militia is not even the most important part of that phrase.

"Well regulated". The second amendment includes the words "well regulated" in it. I agree with everyone's right to keep and bear arms. I do not think we should outlaw guns entirely. I have absolutely no problem with people who want to buy hunting rifles., and I have no desire to stop them from doing what they enjoy. I do believe, as the founders carefully put it, that the civilian militia, which has become just civilians in the modern day, should be WELL REGULATED. To anyone who believes that right to bear arms should not be regulated at all, I ask, should I be allowed to bear nuclear arms? Bombs and explosives such as C4 are another form of arms or weaponry, so should we allow those to be sold at Wal-Mart? If those regulations are necessary, why should we not also keep assault weapons out of stores. The fact is an AK-47 is a weapon of mass destruction. In the course of human history, the AK-47 has killed far more people than the atomic bomb.

When the founders were writing the constitution, the only weapon that could be easily obtained by the common person was a musket. After firing one shot with a musket, a soldier had to get a cartridge, tear it open with his teeth, put a little bit of powder in the firing mechanism, put the rest of the powder and a gun ball down the barrel, ram the ball and powder home, cock the musket and fire. It took a hell of a lot of work to kill more than one person with that thing. We have to accept that the founders had no comprehension of the kind of weapons that can be legally bought today. And despite that they still had the word "well regulated" included in the infamous Second Amendment. Assault weapons aren't needed for hunting, they aren't needed for defense, and they aren't needed for entertainment. They are needed for murder on a scale we should never be willing to accept. We had a Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 and think about all the lives that have been needlessly lost since. It's time for us to step up and decide whether this "essential right" is worth the lives which they have taken and that can never be given back.

Ethics and the Environment

2011-01-21T12:56:00.007-05:00

Welcome back from break everyone! Syllabus week is all about settling into new routines, occasionally walking into the wrong classroom and remembering how to think again after a month-long Grey's Anatomy bender. Or at least, that's how I transition out of winter break. For a few eager Republicans, though, the month of January is all about attempting to erase progress.

The House of Representatives voted to repeal last year's health care overhaul on Wednesday. The legislation has virtually no chance in the Senate and President Obama is threatening a veto if it somehow makes it through, but the Republicans are determined to deliver on their campaign pledge of a repeal, and promise months of political maneuvering and delays. With this ambiguous victory under their belts, Republicans say they plan to move on to the next battle: the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of drawing up new performance standards to help cut emissions produced by coal plants and refineries. In other words, the EPA is working to cut greenhouse gas emissions, fighting pollution to preserve the planet.

Republicans are horrified.

"Standing up for American workers and addressing EPA's rampant regulations is a top priority," says Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan. The new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee adds, "we will be active and aggressive...to protect American jobs and our economy by rolling back the job destroying (greenhouse gas) regulations." I have to commend Rep. Upton for his use of carefully worded rhetoric, but ultimately these words are empty. Just like the health care repeal, an attack on the Clean Air Act is a largely symbolic gesture, without a chance of getting through a Senate vote or avoiding a veto. More importantly, Republicans are completely missing the point of energy reform.

Energy debates inevitably center around the economy. Questions about costs, job loss and efficiency need to be asked and addressed, but America, as a progressive, humanitarian nation, also needs to address the moral aspects of climate control. Our world runs on a global marketplace and on a global energy system. While American politicians dally over numbers and cents, farmers in Africa are facing worsening droughts exacerbated by the emissions of a coal plant in Virginia and a car factory in Detroit. Donald Brown, a professor of Environmental Ethics at Penn University, points out that "the economic argument has been used to scare people, without reflecting on rights and responsibilities."

America is a superpower, and as such we must take the lead in accepting blame for our actions and affecting change and progress. Energy reform is an incredibly complex issue, but it boils down to this: America and other world leaders are dumping enormous amounts of pollution into the atmosphere and the water supply, "we're dumping on others and harming them because of acting in our own interest," says NYU Environmental Studies professor Dale Jamieson.

Republicans aren't afraid to bring up questions of morality in debates about abortion and LGBT rights, so progressive politicians shouldn't shy away from the hard questions and moral quandaries that surround energy reform. I don't want to minimize the importance of 'numbers and cents,' but I truly believe that minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in clean energy will create a healthier, more progressive economy that will be a viable competitor in the markets of today and tomorrow. I also believe that the United States has a moral obligation to face the consequences of decades of environmental abuse, and that moral obligation starts with simply accepting responsibility, and agreeing to begin the path to recovery.

The Republicans have virtually no chance at rewriting the Clean Air Act, but they can delay it. I hope, for the sake of our national integrity, that they stop fighting a losing battle and take a look at the world we've all created. It's time to step up, stop angling for electoral talking points, and face the music.

For a more in-depth analysis of the morality of energy reform, check out this link:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/20/107168/ethics-of-climate-change-rise.html

Comforter in Chief

2011-01-18T19:28:00.007-05:00

A president is the face of a nation, regardless of his or her approval rating, and that means a president is expected to speak and to inspire the nation in good times and bad times. This is especially true in times of unexpected and sudden tragedy.

President Obama recently gave a speech in Arizona, which I thought was very well done, and seems to have helped Americans recover from this latest tragedy. I listened to both the speech and an NPR story about the speech. I recommend listening or reading to both. I hope some good things emerge in the wake of this tragedy, I hope that the talk about partisan rhetoric isn't just noise, and I hope that the American people's faith in President Obama is restored somewhat.

The NPR report talked about how this tragedy might be a turning point in Obama's presidency. The New York Times agrees and compiled a few examples of presidential adresses in the wake of tragedies, which I enjoyed looking through and thought I should share with the Lefty's community.

In the same vein, I'd like to call attention to Robert Kenned y's s p eec h in
response to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Robert Kennedy was never President, because he was also assassinated, but he was a presidential candidate at the time of this speech and I consider this speech as powerful and as influential as those on the New York Times list.

It hasn't passed my notice that Martin Luther King Jr. day was celebrated just yesterday, nor the coincidence that this speech was delivered in Indiana.

It is a shame that our nation, and many other nations who often undergo worse, has to endure tragedies such as these. It is great, however, when a leader emerges to speak to our hearts when such tragedies do arise.

Required Reading

2011-01-06T19:29:00.004-05:00

The new Republican majority in the House decided to begin today’s session with a reading of the constitution. It is something that has never been done before, and something that has sparked much controversy and debate.

I, for one, am ecstatic. The Republicans have finally gotten around to reading the constitution, although it is interesting that they are choosing to all do it at once. I’d say it’s either part of those new austerity measures, in this case saving time (and time is money, brilliant!), or it is meant to save certain illiterate republican politicians from the embarrassment of admitting they can’t read it on their own, which is quite possibly why this idea originated with the new Tea Party endorsed candidates.

Alright, in all seriousness I do believe that reading the constitution on the floor of the house is a good idea. I’m probably a hopeless idealist, but I’m a big fan of the constitution and part of me thinks that maybe our politicians hearing it and even thinking about it might do some good.

Why?

First of all, it can’t hurt. It might waste time but it’s a better waste of time than many other things the House of Representatives wastes time with, such as trying to repeal the new health care reforms or allowing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to open her mouth. It is true that it is a political ploy by the Republicans to appeal to their new friends in the tri-corner hats, but nothing gets done in Washington without a modicum of political incentive. It is a given that it is done for political reasons, so the real question is will it do more harm than good, and the answer is probably not.

Second, the Constitution is a very important document that serves as the foundation for the rule of law in our nation. It is a document that ought to be read in government chambers and that every U.S. citizen, and especially our political leaders, ought to be familiar with. I am also glad that the “amended” version was read. This version was read rather than the original because politicians were uncomfortable reading the passages related to slavery, but the real reason that the “amended” version should be read is because it is the CONSTITUTION. The Constitution of the United States of America is what’s known as a living document; it can be amended, in fact the document itself contains provisions that prescribe the procedure for amending it. So the “amended” version, the current embodiment of this founding document, is the supreme law of the land and the version that should be read. The original version penned in Pennsylvania was brilliant and has survived for the most part, but the improvements that have been made and the modern interpretations are what we have to go by. It is a great idea to read the constitution, but Republicans should realize that when they say they want to follow the Constitution doing so includes following the sixteenth amendment as well as the entire second amendment, rather than just the second half of it.

Third, this means that when politicians incorrectly, whether intentionally or not, invoke the constitution in debating legislation they can be held more accountable. As bad as it is that our politicians frequently misquote or misrepresent the Constitution, it will be worse when they do so after we all know for certain that they had it read to them at least once. I’m not naïve enough to think the truth of the constitution will sink into all of the thick skulls on each side of the isle, but I think we can expect some improvement, however slight it may turn out to be.

That’s why I think it was a good idea. I believe that whatever their reasons the new Republican majority has at least done one thing right. We’ll see how long it takes for a second good thing to emerge from the House under its new management.

Public Schools: Jobs Factory or Something More

2010-12-28T16:21:00.004-05:00

Many people believe, rightly so I think, that the recent tax compromise signed by President Obama will give the deficit hawks something to rally around. However, I hope that we can be certain that of all things, education funding is safe. After all, only the most callous among us would dare to compromise the future of our youth by stealing away the funds teachers need to shape young minds, right. Maintaining current funding levels for education is good, but I truly believe that our education system needs a fundamental overhaul in order to make the American Dream a reality for millions of children and safeguard the nation's economic future. This is an obvious political and social win-win. Education policy seem like it should be a last bastion of bipartisanship, and there are so many people who have great ideas about how to make our education system more like better-performing ones abroad. So why has there been so little progress in the past 50 years. We are stuck with a broken system which is propped up by people who use the rhetoric of unions, the holy grail of workers' rights, to argue that vast changes to the status quo would jeopardize the job security of teachers. This is nonsense. We are always going to need teachers. We just need to find a way to attract talented ones and help them do a better job.

Education policy has been in the news recently because of Mark Zuckerburg's 100 million dollar philanthropic donation to the Newark, New Jersey school system. Despite Governor Chris Christie's record education cuts in New Jersey, Zuckerburg says that he believes in the leadership of Christie and Corey Booker, the mayor of Newark and possibly a future presidential candidate. Hopefully this money will make a real difference in Newark, which is saddled with one of the most notoriously under-performing school systems in the United States. Of the 15 elementary schools, according to 2008 statistics, 11 were categorized as having 80% of students reading at least one year below grade level. Of the comprehensive high schools (not magnet schools), an average of 70% of 9^th grade students test below the sixth grade level. Clearly this is an abominable record and views about how to turn around under performing school systems vary widely.

Much has been written about the success of charter schools in cities like Newark and especially New York. Essentially, advocates of charter schools are selling school choice. Charter schools are unhindered by what many argue are clunky and onerous policies mandated by teacher union contracts, allowing them to set more rigorous standards for teachers in terms of hours and student performance. Many charter schools in New York have extended hours and robust after-school programs. Charter schools are undeniably in demand, as evidenced by the waiting lists of over 6000 for Newark's successful charter schools. The lotteries used to admit students to New York's charter schools result in thousands of disappointed parents each time they are held. Critics of Charter schools contend that they benefit from parents who are passionate about education, fewer special education students and smaller class sizes. The point about class sizes is simply false. Most of New York's charter schools have class sizes equally as bloated as traditional public schools. Many factors may contribute to the success of charter schools, but the statistics paint a fairly obvious picture. A 2008 study by a EducationNext, a respected education journal, found clear gains in both reading and math scores for students enrolled in New York's charter schools as compared to students from traditional public schools.

As much as I wonder how critics of charter schools justify their vehement opposition to programs that have proven successful, I think that the debate about our nations public schools is a huge positive. Put simply, the United States does not have a good public school system. According to 2006 statistics, published by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, the graduation rate for U.S students is lower and is rising more slowly than the majority of developed countries. Rates of current participation suggest that even more countries are likely to catch up and surpass the United States graduation rates. Out of the 30 OECD countries taking part in PISA 2003 (Program for International Student assessment)2003, the average performance for the United States was statistically significantly higher only than that of five countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Mexico and Turkey) and statistically lower than that of 20 countries. I know these statistics are a bit outdated, but one could go on and on finding statistics that prove the same point.

The way public schools are organized has essentially stayed the same since World War II. Curriculum has been overhauled many times, but the system has generally remained stagnant. Teacher unions and school administrations essentially operate the same now as they did 50 years ago. This model was adopted from manufacturing; teacher unions and automotive worker unions share many common roots. The durability of the education system can't possibly arise from its success, but because the public is comfortable with it since it is what we grew up with. I think that one of the biggest problems is that we need to stop treating our teacher-development and pay-scale systems like the auto industry, or any industrial manufacturing industry does. Education is fundamentally different than manufacturing, so why do teacher union contracts contain details about how many minutes teachers are required to spend on each topic. I am very pro-union. Heck, my dad is the president of one, and I know how important it is for unions to fight for a favorable deal from out-of-touch administrations seem as though they'd like to run the organization into the ground if given the chance. But we need a system which protects the freedom of teachers within the classroom, but does not protect the jobs of teachers who put forth minimum effort. Teachers should be given incentives to be exceptional. I think that recent initiatives in Washington D.C which provides higher pay ceilings for teachers who opt out of the tenure track sound promising and should be studied carefully.

I went to an awesome public school, but even at my suburban, middle class Spackenkill High School which sends students to the Ivy League every year I saw the dead weight among the faculty. Some teachers were amazing and probably deserved more generous salaries than they received, but some were frankly awful. My brother has not written a full-length essay in his A.P English class this year. This is a class that is supposed to gain you college credit, but the class is just a joke. My friends and I used to joke that we were taught AP U.S History by Peter Jennings, the TV personality, because my teacher literally just put on documentaries narrated by him for the entire second semester of the year. The guy taught us nothing himself. Tenure exists on college campuses to give professors academic freedom, the assurance that no official is going to censure class material. But it seems to me that tenure is way to easy to achieve in public schools and creates dead weight among faculty.

If a politician, especially an urban one, so much as suggests tampering with the tenure system for teachers, he/she will face fierce, united opposition from the teachers unions. But I think we need to have an informed debate about the role that tenure plays for public school teachers. We need a real personnel-development system which seeks to do more than protect the jobs of teaching professionals but to motivate them to do their jobs better and to adopt proven methods.

In a place like Finland, which has a far superior public education system, money is invested in supporting teachers so that they can develop innovative teaching strategies and evaluating their methods, telling them what they are doing right and what needs to change. I know how evaluations worked in my school. An administrator would come in for about 20 minutes for only once a year because that was what was mandated by the union contract, and the teacher would soup up an invigorating lesson for those 20 minutes, pass his/her inspection, and then exclaim to the students how relieved the were that it was over. I understand that evaluations might be stressful, but I see nothing wrong with a system employed in many charter schools, where administrators are free to observe teachers on any day without notice, and use that privilege liberally. In a recent Newsweek interview, Bill Gates, who has invested millions in education said “They [Finland] actually run a personnel system, which is kind of an amazing thing. You have a review, and you’re told what you’re good at and what you’re not good at. If over a period of time you’re not improving, then you move to another profession. So, Finland, Korea, Singapore—they run teacher personnel systems. In the U.S. we have one of the most predictive personnel systems mankind ever invented—try to remember how many years you’ve worked, and you will know your salary.”

At this point, any changes to the teaching industry will stagnate as long as we don't have proven, widely accepted methods for evaluating teachers. This is the only way to avoid unfairness. An article in this morning's New York Times spoke about how the data used to evaluate New York teachers based upon their test scores has an extremely high margin of error and is full of errors. For example, many teachers are ranked for teaching subjects that they have never even taught. This is not efficient, and if we are ever going to make an honest effort to make teaching into a more merit-based profession, and offer incentives to bright, talented and motivated teachers, we need a better way to evaluate teachers and their methods. Its not enough to simply grade teachers according to how well they can teach students to pass watered-down standardized exams. After No Child Left Behind, teacher accountability is a dirty word. The truth is that it is not fair to judge teachers on how well they can teach students to pass a watered-down standardized exam. We need an evaluation system that incorporates holistic as well as statistical measures, and gives teachers a real idea of what they are doing right and wrong. Along with the refining of statistical models based upon test scores, I think that in-person evaluations conducted not by career administrators but by career teachers should be the centerpiece of this effort. Say that I'm a sheltered suburban kid who doesn't know a thing about the issues facing real struggling schools, and I might agree with you. But I know the huge disparity among my own public school teachers, and I truly believe that if some of my poorer teachers had been given advice by some of my exceptional ones, and had worked under a system that rewarded good teaching as opposed to passing tests, I would have had a more stimulating education.

All I Want For Christmas

2010-12-15T22:24:00.005-05:00

This has been a great day. I finally finished all my papers, there was pesto sauce in the dining hall at dinner, oh, and THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED TO REPEAL THE BAN ON OPENLY GAY MEN AND WOMEN SERVING IN THE MILITARY! The final vote was 250-175. I have been incredibly pessimistic about Washington's ability to achieve anything lately, and the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts didn't help the situation. Just in time for Christmas, though, the end of an incredibly backwards and archaic practice is in sight.

We're not out of the woods yet, the bill still has to go through the Senate before getting to President Obama for final sign-off, but it seems completely inconceivable to me that anyone could still support the ban, even after the results of the survey were released. Representative Jared Polis of Colorado summed it up nicely, saying DADT is the only law "in the country that requires people to be dishonest or be fired if they choose to be honest."

In a development that surprised no one, the DADT survey that polled soldiers on the effects of serving with closeted and open gays, revealed that 70% of the troops have worked with gay soldiers in the past, and 92% said it would not impact the way they do their job or interact with their fellow soldiers. Essentially, soldiers in a gunfight just don't care whether the soldier covering their back is attracted to men or women or both.

Despite the survey, Republicans in the Senate are sure to put up a fight. John McCain, for one, has voiced concern about the survey results, and made it clear that he does not support a repeal of of DADT. Nevertheless, Democrats are "very confident" they will get the 60 votes necessary. Hopefully, lame duck senators who have nothing to do will quit playing the politics game and throw their vote behind the bill. In addition, Obama should make a direct appeal to the Senate to put aside petty politics and listen to reason this holiday season. The people who defend our country should not be punished for exercising their right to freedom and loving whomever they choose.

So I know what my Christmas wish will be, that America lives up to its historic identity as a progressive country that celebrates freedom, and that we repeal DADT once and for all. To see where we stand on LGBT rights compared to other countries, check out this site or for more information on the repeal, follow the links below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12005773

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/john-mccain-and-dadt/

*Update*

The U.S. Senate passed the DADT repeal 65-31 on Saturday, ending the 17 year ban with the help of moderate republicans including Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Scott Brown. A great way to kick off Christmas break!

Watching China Win

2010-12-14T21:19:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/business/global/15chinawind.html?_r=1

Wind turbine in Chinese 風力發電機組. Time to start learning green tech in Chinese!! Every month the US waits to implement policy we fall behind the future largest economic power in the world. Pushing business to internalize the costs of its environmental externalities, in tandem with research and development incentives in green tech will position the US economy for long-term success.

Did you know that, according to the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car, Toyota developed the Prius out of panic that they had to compete in the electric market in the United States after California passed the Zero-Emissions Vehicle mandate in 1990? Because GM made a lower margin on electric vehicles and didn't think they were profitable yet across the country they fought hard against the mandate, along with other automakers, and were successful. The power of policy is inexplicable in developing the green economy.

While climate change is a threat to our well-being it is not a limit on our economy! Clean energy technology might be the only industry capable of driving a new decade of economic growth. Much like the internet, before that computers, and before that bioengineering, we now have an opportunity to lead the world in technology. Unfortunately, this country cannot look past five years in making decisions. Coal states and global warming skeptics will cripple our potential to take the lead in the economy of the future. The debate needs to move from whether or not global warming is happening, to how can public policy enhance the competitiveness of US businesses in green technology.

Why is the promotion of a carbon tax or a gasoline tax limited to the world's best thinkers and economists? If the trajectory of discussion does not change, and policy remains stagnant, we should all be prepared to take a seat and watch China dominate the green revolution.

A Glimmer of Hope

2010-12-09T02:26:00.005-05:00

In the dismal time that is the lead up to finals week, I turned on the TV to watch tonight's Daily Show, expecting what has become the norm, laughter that covers up tears. And that was just what I got in the beginning of the first segment, as we examined the misery that is the Obama tax cuts for the wealthy. (P.S. We need to cal them that from now on, so that Republicans have no choice but to oppose them next time)

But then precisely 4 minutes into the show, something magical happened. John Oliver stumbled upon something truly phenomenal. Bi-partisanship. I'm not talking "we'll co-sponsor one bill together and then resume hating each other". No, this was far bigger; THESE TWO MEN CAMPAIGNED TOGETHER. How could they do this? What campaign slogan did they use if it wasn't, "Hey I'm not as bad as that other guy"?

It turns out they remembered the most classic American slogan, that everyone seems to have forgotten, "Don't be an asshole." Shocking, I know.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

CT Phone Home

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Also, give those guys credit for really understanding how to handle a comedy news interview. A lot of people seem to miss the point and try to play it too straight, but these guys rolled with it and did some stuff that must have seemed a little ridiculous at the time. Well done, good sirs. Thank you for restoring in me some hope that someday our political system can actual work for the benefit of the people.

A Christmas Miracle... Sort Of

2010-12-08T15:15:00.023-05:00

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and apparently he reads Lefty’s.

You probably don't remember my November post bemoaning the impending recount in this year’s Minnesota gubernatorial race, but it appears that my appeal to Santa did not go unheeded. That’s right, ol’ Chris Kringle took matters into his own hands and brought the good people of Minnesota a special gift earlier today; a Governor!

It was almost the year without a Governor, until that jolly old elf (and I don’t mean Dennis Kucinich) intervened.

This morning Republican candidate Tom Emmer conceded the election and waived his right to request a recount. I applaud Emmer for recognizing the reality of the situation and taking the honorable course of action.

The results of Emmer’s announcement are the discontinuation of the automatic recount, which had already begun, and the canvassing board’s certification of Mark Dayton as the winner of the gubernatorial race. Mark Dayton technically has to wait one week before he is the Governor-elect of Minnesota and can thus assume the office on January 3rd. The week allows for any Minnesotan voter to file a lawsuit contesting the decision, but since Emmer waived this right it is unlikely anyone will do so. Nobody wants an unnecessary recount.

Now Minnesotans can begin the new year with a governor and an opportunity to work together for the improvement of our state. Santa can only do so much; at some point it falls on the elected officials and the people to make sure the needs of the state trump politics.

This concept also applies on the national level. President Obama needs to work with the new Republican majority in the House to pass legislation that will help the American people. It should be something of a new year’s resolution, but ideally one that is kept. The responsibility for compromise also falls on the shoulders of Republican leadership. They may have managed to win votes by being a wet blanket party and opposing the Obama administration at every turn, but now that the people have given them more political power they will be expected to actually accomplish something and actually propose legislation that helps the American people.

Peace on earth, good will toward men, and thank you for a governor!

Reflecting on the Tax Cuts

2010-12-06T20:11:00.000-05:00

As President Obama prepares to walk back on one of his signature campaign promises, I want to bring your attention to a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville; a chilling forecast of the political reality we inhabit.

"When the taste for physical gratification among a democratic people has grown more rapidly than their education and their experience of free institutions, the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint at the sight of the new possessions they are about to obtain. In their intense and exclusive anxiety to make a fortune they lose sight of the close connection that exists between the private fortune of each and the prosperity of all."
-Alexis de Tocqueville

Paul Krugman's thoughts
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&hp

A retiring Republican Senator taking a stand against keeping the tax cuts
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/12/retiring-sen-george-voinovich.html?wprss=44

A Good Dose of Common Sense

2010-12-05T14:43:00.002-05:00

GM Says Thank You America

2010-11-30T21:15:00.007-05:00

So as a New England Patriots fan, I naturally spent part of my Thanksgiving watching the football game against the Detroit Lions. It was a pretty good game, especially because the Patriots won. But one advertisement that I saw was more memorable than any play in the game. Given that Detroit is the city of the automobile, it's not too surprising that GM ran a big ad during the Thanksgiving Day game. But this ad truly surprised me and grabbed my attention. Take a look:

This ad really stuck with me all weekend. If the banks had tried to run it, well, it would have been obnoxious. But GM was a casualty and not an instigator of our financial collapse. And the truth is, they're right. Everyone falls, and most of the time we need help getting back up. Regardless of your feelings on the TARP program, whether you think it was Bush's failure, Obama's failure, Bush's success, or Obama's success (I've heard at least one person say every single one of these), the logic of this ad still holds true. But our government seems to have forgotten what it knew two years ago.

At midnight tonight, our government is poised to turn its back on the million of unemployed Americans who still need help getting back up. They want jobs, but none are available. They aren't waiting for something better. They are struggling to survive. And when unemployment benefits aren't extended, a motion which will add a mere $5 billion dollars to the deficit, these people will have nothing to live on. For the record, extending the Bush tax cuts for people making MORE THAN $250,000, which the Republicans hope to do, will add $700 billion to the deficit over the next ten years. That means it costs $10 billion dollars more a year to provide extra cash to people making a quarter of a million dollars, than it does to help millions of unemployed Americans survive while looking for jobs. And yet Republicans are concerned solely about the deficit when it comes to the unemployed and solely about the economy when it comes the top 2%. The hypocrisy is glaring.

Everyone falls, and everyone needs help getting back up. If you're making over $250,000 a year, you aren't falling. If you have no job and no source of income, then you are. GM and the banks got the bailout they needed to prevent a complete collapse of our economy. And they are paying the money back. And now the American people are asking for the same kind of help. They'll pay that the money back, by spending it and stimulating the economy during an important Christmas season. Should they be turned down, so that the wealthiest 2% can lavish themselves and add more to their bank accounts?

Governments are designed to do two essential things: Protect their citizens from "falling" in many different ways, and to help them get back up when they do. Ours failed at protecting us from an economic collapse, but if they fail to help us recover from that collapse, then truly America is lost.

Food For Thought...

2010-11-26T16:22:00.002-05:00

...Because I'm sure we all didn't eat enough yesterday. I had to read this poem for one of my courses, and it got me thinking about Michelle Obama's infamous campaign quote ("for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country"), about the very conflicting ways I love America and about the reality that America will never be exactly what we want it to be. All the more reason to keep fighting.

A patriot is not a weapon. A patriot is one who wrestles for the
soul of her country
as she wrestles for her own being, for the soul of his country
(gazing through the great circle at Window Rock into the sheen
of the Viet Nam Wall)
as he wrestles for his own being. A patriot is a citizen trying to
wake
from the burnt-out dream of innocence, the nightmare
of the white general and the Black general posed in their
camouflage,
to remember her true country, remember his suffering land:
remember
that blessing and cursing are born as twins and separated at birth
to meet again in mourning
that the internal emigrant is the most homesick of all women and
of all men
that every flag that flies today is a cry of pain.
Where are we moored?
What are the bindings?
What behooves us?

from 'An Atlas of the Difficult World' by Adrienne Rich

Sarah Palin's patriotism is not the only patriotism. We may be a country in turmoil, but I'm confident we can work it out, we can find our bearings and rebuild the American Dream. We can recover from the last decade and the last wars. Midterm elections were less than ideal, but the only way to go is forward. Let's wake America up to the reality and hope inherent in our messy country. So a day late: I'm thankful to all Lefty's writers and readers for giving me hope that we can emerge from the bipartisanship, the fighting, the recessions, the inequalities. You make me believe that America is still a land of achievable dreams.

Holiday Travels or Intimate Moments?

2010-11-23T17:34:00.011-05:00

I don't know about anybody else, but I am so ready for Thanksgiving. I can't wait to meet up with the family and such. And while some people complain about air travel, as a fairly frequent flier, I've never had too many problems with the system. Wait a second though, what's this I hear about new TSA procedures...

Somehow Lefty's is the only blog in the country that hasn't started talking about the body scanners and pat downs yet, so I figure while we're all preparing to travel, we should know exactly what we're walking into.

Now, seriously, I am a frequent flier, and I really have found that on the whole the system has been fine. The TSA and I are chill. I love the expression on their face, when they see my license with that awkward picture from when I shaved my head... I can remember when we first had to put liquids in the checked bag. And next shoes had to come off. But always it felt like they just wanted make things a little more challenging and annoying. I always love being fully ready and standing behind people who forget about the change in their pockets until the last second. Minor inconveniences from the TSA, I can live with that. They've crossed the line, between so much security that we've lost freedom. Or they hadn't until recently...

For those who have been under a rock, the TSA has implemented new full body scanners at major airports to make sure you can't hide ANYTHING. Some find it a little embarrassing to have a random TSA agent look at a naked picture of them. Honestly, I'm just flattered. Or I would be, if I wasn't somewhat worried about radiation. They say the radiation levels are perfectly safe, but when it comes to radiation, the mother of all cancer, I'd rather avoid unnecessary risks. Fortunately the TSA is prepared, and allows me to avoid the look-at-me-naked machine. I can opt out, and let them grope me up and down, paying special attention to the private parts. I know we've encountered each other a lot in the airport over the years, but TSA, you rascal, I think this could be a little inappropriate before we at least do dinner and a movie.

Okay, kidding aside now, I'm very disturbed by this whole process. I'm glad I'm going through security at South Bend airport because we know they won't have one of these scanners. But what about on the trip back? I have no desire to go through a radiation machine and be seen naked, nor do I want another guy feeling all around my junk. But because this is America, I have no choice. Wait, what? When did America become the scared, cowardly, b**** of the world? It's not a cliche, when you let the terrorists make you do things that are unconstitutional, and against your principles, they've won. Their goal is to use TERROR to make you do things you wouldn't normally do. Like cause endless humiliation to people just trying to get home on the holidays.

I hate to sound insensitive, but it's time we looked past the emotional baggage of 9/11 and examined the statistics. On one day approximately 3,000 people were killed by terrorists. In the entire history of air travel, that is the number of passengers who have been killed by terrorists. It was a tragic day. So is every day in America, because over 30,000 people die in car crashes EVERY SINGLE YEAR. That would be 10 times the number of people who died on 9/11. Now we could decide to place stricter limits on people who can drive. We could require that every car get an inspection every week. Or we could do what we've done, accept some level of risk and educate ourselves and continue on with life.

And that's the crux of it, we decided long ago in this country, that we can't stop every car accident, just like we can't stop every homicide. Not without taking extreme measures that limit freedoms. Curfews and a police state could bring the murder rate down, but we know that the loss of freedom is unacceptable. Yet, when it comes to airline travel, suddenly our common sense goes out the window. For an incredibly marginal perceived semblance of added security in an airport, we'll sell our dignity. I have a better chance of being hit by a lightening than my plane has of being attacked by terrorists. And that will be true regardless of whether the TSA feels me up or not.

I hope I don't have to be placed in this awkward situation this weekend. I wish I could just boycott the whole process, but I have no desire to get fined big time, and I have no other viable means of travel. But I can guarantee this, if after all my experiences flying into and out of Washington DC, if the TSA decides I need a special random screening, I plan to make the process as laborious and painful for them as is humanly possible.

A New START

2010-11-22T20:28:00.009-05:00

On 9/11 I was an eighth-grade student whose ISTEP testing was interrupted by a national tragedy. Little did I know, it would be the classmates by my side who would go on to fight in the wars yet to come. I believe keeping my classmates, our community and nation secure should remain a top national priority.

The U.S. Senate should take a strong, principled stand for America’s security by voting “yes” to move forward on ratifying the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

I have been especially pleased with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar’s leadership on this important measure. Now is the time for the entire Senate to move forward on New START, putting aside party politics to confront nuclear weapons dangers. This treaty takes an essential step forward in reducing Russia’s still enormous nuclear stockpile. It also enables us to “trust, but verify” with inspections and a state of the art verification system providing transparency and stability with Russia. A chorus of bipartisan experts and our nation’s military leaders support ratification.

We need 67 senators to vote for New START when it reaches the Senate floor. I want Senator Lugar and Evan Bayh to prove they recognize the safety and security of the people of Indiana and the United States is a top priority by working to ensure that this vital treaty is promptly ratified.

Originally Printed in the South Bend Tribune Voice of the People, Nov. 22, 2010: http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20101122/Opinion/101129850/1063/Opinion

Being a Democrat Stands for Something

2010-11-18T23:48:00.007-05:00

Clearly, today was a big day. G.M is now a publicly traded company on Wall Street again, and I think this proves, unequivocally, that the G.M bailout was a success. It may have been a struggle to streamline their business model, and many people did lose their jobs in the process, but the bottom line is that the bailout worked. I don't care whether Texas Governor Rick Perry was in front of cameras today proclaiming that the government should not have bailed out the company because companies are supposed to go bankrupt when they make bad decisions. Anyone who questions whether the Obama administration made the right decision is simply not looking at the facts. Also today, Democratic leaders announced that there would be a vote on keeping tax cuts for the MIDDLE class only, which should force Republicans to at least go on record that they support giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, even as they remained hyper-focused on trimming the deficit. I didn't think I would say this two weeks ago, but I'm cautiously optimistic, because I believe that the Democrats are standing up for legitimately good ideas. Clearly, it's going to be a lot tougher to get things done in these next two years, but Democrats should not shy away from the ideas that define them.

We've all heard so much about how the Obama administration has not done a good enough job of publicizing and advertising the legislation that has been passed. There's been real progress in the last two years, and even though it may take a few years for the majority of Americans to start seeing the effects of healthcare reform and other legislation, that doesn't mean that Democrats should hunker down and expect to have to submit to Republicans on every issue. We still have the President and one house of Congress. I'm not so naive to think that compromise won't be necessary, but from a purely political perspective it is much better for the Democrats to go on the record supporting good policies so that they can point to what could have been accomplished if it weren't for Republican obstructionism.

I'm ranting here, but its not the President's fault that the Republicans have supported hardly any policies in the past year that would be good for ordinary middle class people in the name of political obstructionism. The Democrats offered up plenty. A good example is the Consumer Financial Protection, designed to protect consumers from being swindled by greedy credit card companies or being pushed into signing for higher mortgages. Can you imagine Republicans ever tying the hands of big business like that so that you don't get cheated out of your life savings?

Politics are politics, so compromise is the name of the game, but when John Boehner goes on the TV and tells me that he is going to bring a new way of doing business to Washington by borrowing money from China to give tax cuts to billionaires, I want to spit in his face. It is so frustrating as an observer to see that there is this sort of expectation in Washington that liberals will capitulate to movement conservatives who stand firmly on their principles. Why can't Democrats be the ones framing the debates on things like job-creation, the environment, and taxation. There are numerous issues that cut to the core of the Democratic agenda like controlling carbon emissions, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and trying to bridge the out of control income gap between the wealthy and the poor, that are popular with much of the country.

Take immigration reform. Some of what I would consider the uglier aspects of our society are against it, but many polls show that a majority of the country supports comprehensive immigration reform. The Democrats have a responsibility to the Latino base to try to do something on this issue, and they can at least mount an aggressive campaign to inform the American public that it makes zero economic sense and is un-American to not allow a path to citizenship for illegals already living here. The bill might not pass but I'd like to see the issue be raised by the Party that is actually looking to move America forward instead of by the one that wants to discriminate against Latinos.

Look at Green Energy. Ask anyone who knows anything about the global economy, and they will tell you that in order for America to lead the world in the 21^st century it has to become a technological leader in green energy. For a party that professes to care so much about not placing a burden on future generations, how can the Republican party want to block this from happening. They won't tell you that they want to block it, but a look into campaign contributions from oil companies might tell another story. This is a huge issue that the Democrats can take ownership of, and your heart has to tell you that they can win the public battle on this issue, because it makes so much sense to invest in this country's green energy future.

This past election taught us that the Republican party is exceptionally good at mucking up the system long enough to mount campaigns against good legislation (Death panels anyone???) However, it can still be politically savvy for Democrats to support good legislation that will provide real change. Its defeatist to admit that standing up on principle for bills actually based in reason and designed to protect the average American, like the Financial Regulatory Reform legislation, has to cost you in the next election cycle. Do that and you're basically admitting that the system is completely broken. If Democrats have to learn anything from Republicans its how to win the battle in the court of public opinion.

I think what many of us have felt over the past two years is maybe a sense of disappointment, or frustration about the beating the administration has been taking over the airwaves. I know my heart sunk a little bit every time I read that the President's approval rating dipped another such and such percentage points. The enthusiasm was gone. Obama was governing in prose after campaigning in poetry, and it was rocky. A lot got done but it didn't feel like that all the time. With a little more perspective, maybe we can see these next two years as a series of small successes. This vote on the Bush tax cuts would be a nice place to start. But it wold be remiss to be overly concerned with pragmatism and fear communicating the big issues that the party stands for. In the end, the merits of our party's stance stand on their own. Be proud of it.

Justice FTW

2010-11-16T01:37:00.006-05:00

The California Supreme Court made a landmark decision yesterday by unanimously upholding AB 540, a law which allows undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public universities and colleges in California. A lower court ruled against AB 540, swayed by the argument by the plaintiff that out-of-state students should not have to pay more than illegal immigrants to attend California Universities. The Supreme Court ruled that AB 540 does not offer in-state tuition based on legal residency, rather it is based on the number of years a student has attended high school in California. Therefore the legal status of the student should have no bearing on their eligibility for tuition benefits.

So what does this mean for the rest of us? First, the case sets a precedent for the 10 other states that have similar laws. It is unlikely that similar challenges will be successful, and that's a great thing for motivated students across the country who are looking to escape the cycle of poverty and ignorance that trapped their parents. (Excuse the sweeping generality. Not all undocumented workers are ignorant, poor or trapped. And by ignorant I simply mean uneducated. But as a general rule, people don't sneak into other countries just for a change of scene. Most "illegal aliens" leave behind desperate circumstances and come to America as a means of survival and to give their children and families better opportunities, something they're not likely to find anymore, sadly. But that's another story.) The California ruling is a rejuvenation of the American Dream.

Just as importantly, the ruling brings some positive publicity to the DREAM act, currently languishing in Washingotn. Pundits can argue semantics and technicalities till they're blue in the face, but what it comes down to is every child's right to an education. Students who were brought to this country by their parents when they were children should not be punished by society for a choice they did not make. If a student has the mental capacity and drive to get into college, something a lot of legal citizens can't do, then the country should allow them, should encourage them, to grow as people and become productive members of society.

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the DREAM act will pass this congressional session. But I commend California for taking a step in the right direction by extending the right to education to the thousands of students trapped by their parents choices. If change won't happen at a federal level, this is a nice reminder that it can happen at a state level. The battle's not over, but progress has been made. Happy studies!

The Meaning of Freedom

2010-11-14T22:25:00.001-05:00

*Article was published in the Observer on Friday November 12, 2010

Freedom is "the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action" (legal definition). The word freedom dominates the U.S. political discourse. While the nature of the word is expansive, its use in U.S. politics has been deduced to a concrete and tightly bound definition of personal choice without the interference of government. This interpretation of the word and its portrayal as the founder's sole intention defined the rhetoric of the wave of conservative victories in 2010.

What was left out of 2010 debate is that there is a spectrum of freedom that spans from government intruding on individual freedom by requiring certain behavior from its citizens, to an economic structure that chains people to economic necessity in their decision making. The debate of what it means to be free is not as simplistic as conservatives like to believe. A person who must choose to turn down treatment for a disease because her family cannot afford it, is equally relevant to the discussion of freedom as someone who is forced to buy health insurance to prevent free-riding and bring costs down for everyone. Let the citizens choose whether they want to prevent government from protecting citizens from medical tragedies due to economic constraints, but it is unjust to claim that more government involvement in health care unequivocally means less freedom.

Before further argument, it must be exposed how far the lines have been moved on the definition of freedom. The 4.6 percent tax increase President Obama is seeking on the wealthiest two percent to a rate of 39.6 percent, the highest tax rate under Clinton when the budget was balanced and more than 22 million jobs were created, has been compared to socialism and a government takeover of the economy. These claims become increasingly hyperbolic the more history is examined. The new tax rate under President Obama on the highest earners would be considerably lower for that tax bracket than the rates of three Republican presidents in their third year in office, prior to being reelected. Under the Eisenhower administration the U.S. had a top marginal income tax rate of 91 percent, under Nixon it was 71.75 percent and finally under Reagan it was 50 percent.

While it is always a temptation to create growth as fast as possible by dismantling what appear to be irrational limitations, the temptations must occasionally be refused. A new political class has been elected that believe the U.S. needs to drastically reduce restraints on business designed to protect society. The core belief is that taking away the freedom of business to act in its best interest is what is preventing our economy from a full recovery. Democrats do not want to stop business, President Obama and the vast majority of Democrats are ardent capitalists who believe a system of competition and markets drives ingenuity and efficiency, but they also believe speed limits must be set that ensure the long term health of society.

It is a natural impulse to want to get somewhere as fast as possible or to have it as cheap as possible, but without constraint that urge has likely created problems for every American. The same will occur across society when regulations are removed, and programs designed to keep the financially vulnerable above water while they recover their health, work to find employment or get an education will be cut in order to reduce taxes on businesses and the wealthiest two percent.

The United States will never represent anything but the strength and opportunity of capitalism despite the worst fears of the right. Setting limits to ensure the health of civil society is not an infringement on the founding values of this country or the freedoms of individual citizens. It is not anti-business to disagree with business some of the time. In reality, business functions better in the long term if there is some basis of equality to drive aggregate demand. The United States is at risk to succumbing to a systemic risk of democratic governance, that short term need or pleasure, will replace sound and balanced long term economic growth and societal health.

It is important to have a social infrastructure in society designed to promote freedom from making choices based on economic need. Are seniors more free when cost cutting results in the retirement age on social security being pushed to 70? Should the poor have the freedom to know they can temporarily feed their families with food stamps in order to buy other necessities for their family? Or should their success in the free market determine the family's survival? Should Americans have the freedom to pollute the environment or the freedom to live with clean air, clean water, and a stable climate? Should companies have the freedom to mislead people into debt they cannot afford, or should people be protected against exploitative contracts written by the nation's wealthiest lawyers? Do people have the freedom of using their voice in democracy? Or is it more important that the government not regulate campaign donations letting corporate money take over elections? These are debates on freedom that should not have clear partisan lines. Unfortunately, these issues are robbed of a fair hearing when one party monopolizes the definition of freedom.

A real discussion of freedom in America does not leave out the millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules only to remain in poverty. No one is less free in the United States than the 43.6 million people that live in poverty according to the Census Bureau. In 2010, one in five U.S. families admit to struggling to put food on the table and 20 percent of children are growing up in poverty. Should we put freedom from government influence ahead of the success of the next generation? It is fair to debate the level of which government should be involved to ensure opportunity and a safe and just society, but it is dishonest to claim that the only domestic force threatening the freedom of U.S. citizens is the U.S. government.