The Pullman Progressive

I miss this

2009-08-05T11:50:00.000-07:00

I know we haven't been diligent to post and have grown a bit lethargic with the Presidential victory and the slow but assured closing of Guantanamo and withdrawal from Iraq, but that should mean we completely face plant into obscurity and forget what progressives do: push forth ideals that are forward thinking.

What better way to do so than to talk about socialized health care or as they call it in every other industrialized nation, human dignity. With all the blue dogs yapping that we need to find a middle ground, I find it sad to think that as we sit with the first democratic stronghold in the both chambers and the oval office since 92, we don't pursue something that would include all Americans and not dissuade them from trusting our government. For all the backlash we at times give them, they still provide a decent public education system, a great roadway system, and pension to our older citizens. They are not the antagonists that are out to suck the last living breath out of us which is what the GOP wants us to believe. Ironically, vampires are all the rage in pop culture except when it comes to paying into a health-care system that could give us new legs to walk on. Maybe I just don't get it but having every citizen healthy means I'm less likely to get sick, and the H1N1 flu, along with similar diseases, are less likely to create a pandemonium. Either way, opposition to the health care reform that would lead us towards "socializing" health care doesn't seem so bad.

I know I left it with the simplest of approaches but shouldn't health insurance for all be so? Thoughts?

Supporting Palin...kinda

2008-10-24T08:11:00.000-07:00

I know it's been a while since I contributed, and I will eventually get back to that telling bit on the Zapatistas but I feel that there's an issue that's really irked me about this campaign. It is rare that I bring gossip blogs but while at work, a fellow employee were on our break and she brought me to her computer to show me something bizarre that was going on in her pop-centric life: Perez Hilton was writing on Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. At that point, I'd heard that story enough.
Sexism in the campaign is rarely that blatant, especially on a target that can be attacked on a myriad of issues (education, ties to corporatism in the oil industry, a bridge to nowhere and worst of all her stance on women's rights) but instead, a simple approach of attacking fashion was taken. I understand that Senator Obama has and hopefully doesn't address that, but why are we straying from the issues at hand. In what may be the election that defines our generation, we are going to address an issue of materialism? That is sickening. What may be worst, of course, is that in this discourse is that not once where the male candidates questioned on their expenses on clothes. To be fair, Obama's good looks have to translate to some expense, but does anyone take issue to that? I think not.

David Letterman Reacts to John McCain Suspending Campaign

2008-09-25T13:06:00.000-07:00

What is Sarah Palin Hiding?

2008-09-24T09:55:00.000-07:00

So as I was reading the news this morning I came across a sentence which I think accurately describes Sarah Palin. It said “Sarah Palin was at the U.N. for a couple of photo ops but she refused to talk to reporters about foreign policy or anything else. She has not had a single press conference since being picked for the VP slot and keeps the press at a great distance, except for photos while she makes an ice cream run for her family.”

This of course is in stark contrast to every other candidate running who are taking every possible interview they are offered, realizing that its free press time where they can get their message out. Yet for some reason Palin, and Palin alone, is still holding out against the press. Now its one thing if you think the media is a bunch of left-wing nuts and don’t want to do an interview on MSNBC with Keith Olberman, but to say that you aren’t willing to do an interview on CNN, NBC, or even PBS you’ve got to have a good reason why not.

It seems to me that, given the number of scandals she’s involved in (“troopergate”, charging victims for rape kits, trying to ban books), it can’t be she’s afraid of people finding out anything about her. Thus it almost has to be the one thing people can’t find out unless they hear her; she’s afraid people will realize how stupid she really is.

I mean, she’s got bachelors in communication from the University of Idaho, which we all know does not come anywhere close to providing her with the kind of intelligence she needs to run the country, much less apparently the ability to give a coherent interview. When people tell me that I’m a sexist for criticizing Palin by saying she’s only on the ticket because she’s a woman and not because she brings anything to the ticket I can only think that if she really has the brains to be VP she’d be on every news show wanting to interview her. But instead she hides away and hoping that nobody ever hears her talk, and perhaps hoping the VP debate is cancelled.

Unfortunately for her, because she refuses to let the American people know anything about her, everybody will be tuned into the VP debate, and we’ll all be watching when we find out that what's she’s hiding is her incompetence as Biden tears into her. I can’t wait.

How much worse can it get?

2008-09-12T10:24:00.000-07:00

Every day it seems there is new information about Sarah Palin that makes me stop, think, and get even more terrified that she is possibly going to be a single heartbeat away from the presidency. I didn't think I could be any more shocked at her extremely conservative stances, and that I was going to be able to tell when we knew everything there was to know about her.

The news that she made rape victims pay for their own rape kits while mayor Wasilla has proved me wrong.

The race can't possibly be this close, can it? Is my county, the country that I love so very much, this easy to manipulate? When is it that we're going to say "enough is enough" and refuse to put up with it again?

Vice President Sarah Palin? @#!$% That!

2008-08-30T15:15:00.000-07:00

As an Alaskan, I was intrigued when I heard about the possibility of Sarah Palin being picked as John McCain's running mate. Then I dismissed it, because of it's utter ridiculousness.

I think this means I was never meant to work in politics.

Here is a link to an Alaskan blog that tells more about Saracuda. I have to say I don't know much about her myself; she's been governor of my state since after I left for college, so I've been pretty out of the loop. An interesting statistic: Sarah Palin has been governor for as long as Barack Obama has been running for President.

I think "wtf" pretty much sums up my thoughts about that one.

If I needed anything to get me more jazzed about the election, this was it. I will work myself to exhaustion this year to keep this woman out of office. Not only because I don't like what she's done to my state, however. I am genuinely terrified about what she would do to this nation as Vice President or President. Running Alaska for two years does IN NO WAY mean she has adequate executive experience to run one of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) nations in the world. Anybody who says otherwise has either never been to Alaska or is smoking something pretty intense.

Which I may need if McCain/Palin actually wins.

Here's some thoughts from my Dad on the choice...

"Saracuda was an interesting choice by McCain but it also shows his desperation and stupidity.

OK, she's a woman....A lifetime NRA member and Pro-Pro-Pro Lifer; So, how will this bring Hillary democratic voters to the Republican ticket? If she's so pro-family, why is she stepping up to do this when she has a 4 month old special needs child at home?

Brought together a bipartisan legislature; you bet. In her first year in office, she vetoed $250 million in projects. However, her pen didn't touch projects for her district. Because of that, the next year the legislature put together a bill of all those things that she vetoed and pretty much told her they had a veto proof majority and that it was going to be passed. Saracuda could only negotiate away projects that were completed by other funds or delay them for a year to be sure they were ready for funding.G

Get on adn.com to read up on trooper gate. Her family seemed to take a lot of liberties trying to get a trooper fired (Sara's sister was divorcing him). Hey, he seems like a turd but that's not how you work through the channels. (Some now refer to the Palinistas as our "Alaska Hillbillies".)

After promising to live in Juneau, she only gave it four months before she moved back to Wasilla. She's allowing Directors of departments to migrate to Anchorage and really turning her back on the capitol city. I doubt she'll get as much support from southeast Alaska if she runs again.

Two years ago she was a mayor for a town of less than 9,000 people. How does this prepare you to be a vice-President? The number of people she represents in the state are probably fewer than what Obama represented when he was in the State House. Despite the concurrence from the State biologist regarding the Federal finding that polar bears are in danger, she says there isn't enough information (Sounds a lot like Bush here.....if I PRAY hard enough, good things will happen....)

Anyway, I'm sure you'll find other good information on the net about her. Have fun the next couple of months. Never get nasty, just stick to the facts. Cornered animals normally lash out as their last line of defense when they're backed into a corner, so be careful.

Yep...McCain's a desperate man....

Love....Dad (Cindi says hi too)"

Progressive Film Series Line Up Poster

2008-08-26T14:27:00.001-07:00

Georgia Retreats, Pleads for Truce; U.S. Condemns Russian Onslaught

2008-08-11T01:47:00.000-07:00

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service

OUTSIDE TSKHINVALI, Georgia, Aug. 10 -- The Georgian army, suffering massive casualties in the face of overwhelming Russian firepower, retreated from the breakaway region of South Ossetia on Sunday. Georgian leaders' recent expressions of defiance turned increasingly into pleas for a cease-fire and Western support in the face of a military debacle.

Russia ignored calls for a truce and continued to bomb targets deep in Georgia, with little apparent opposition, drawing new condemnation from the United States and other Western countries. President Bush spoke of his "grave concern about the disproportionate response," and the White House warned of serious setbacks in relations with Russia if the onslaught against a close U.S. ally did not end.

Russian airstrikes Sunday evening hit the international airport and a military factory in the capital, Tbilisi, as well as Georgian-held positions in Abkhazia, another breakaway region on the Black Sea. Russian warships were reported to be blockading a Georgian Black Sea port and to have sunk a Georgian gunboat.

It remained unclear Sunday how far Russian troops intended to advance. Georgian villages just outside South Ossetia were shelled Sunday, clouds of smoke and burning fields visible on the horizon as artillery barrages echoed loudly. Georgians fled the villages, bedding loaded into the backs of their cars. Residents of one village outside South Ossetia, Kekhvi, said advancing Russian troops had entered their homes.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told CNN in an interview that the people of his country "are not crazy" and "have no interest whatsoever in pursuing hostilities."Western reporters entering South Ossetia with Russian troops, meanwhile, saw Georgian soldiers' bodies lying uncollected in the streets of Tskhinvali, the region's capital, and heavy damage to the city. Georgian troops launched an offensive to take control of the breakaway region early Friday. Civilians told the reporters that Georgian tanks had fired indiscriminately during the two-day seizure of the city, killing and wounding many city residents.

Georgia's retreat is translating into popular anger among Georgians against the United States and the European Union, and a widespread sentiment that this small, pro-Western country has been abandoned to face Russia alone. Georgian officials said that the West's credibility is on the line and that failure to stop the continuing attacks could embolden Russia to threaten other countries in the region.

"Russia has applied unprecedented military power . . . and it is of such amplitude that it would have scared much bigger states," Alexander Lomaia, secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, said in an interview. "This war has changed the whole system of values of pro-Western, liberal-minded people. I don't want to be a bad prophet, but why would Russia stop here? There are other countries where Russia thinks it has a claim to territory."

According to Lomaia, at least 7,000 Russian troops, backed by combat aircraft and heavy weaponry, attacked Tskhinvali, bloodying Georgia's forces in and around the city. Georgian officials acknowledged that their troops were routed and quickly retreated early Sunday.

"Very many military servicemen were killed, probably in the hundreds," Lomaia said, speaking of Georgian casualties in Sunday night's offensive. Hundreds of wounded were taken to hospitals in Tbilisi, according to doctors at one hospital.

Two journalists working for the Russian edition of Newsweek were killed near Tskhinvali after approaching the city from the Georgian side.

"There were more and more of them," said one retreating Georgian soldier near Tskhinvali, speaking of the attacking Russians. Another soldier said his unit received orders to retreat about 1:30 a.m. Sunday. Villagers in the area said they could hear the rumble of the fleeing Georgian forces through the night.

Read page 2 of the Washington Post's full report!

US Flying Georgian Troops Home from Iraq to Fight Russia!!

2008-08-11T01:20:00.000-07:00

Don't get it? Read on...

KIM GAMEL

BAGHDAD (AP)

— A senior U.S. military official says the Americans have begun flying Georgian troops home from Iraq after they requested help with transportation.

Georgia has called its 2,000 troops home from Iraq to help in the fighting against Russia in the breakaway province of South Ossetia and asked the U.S. military to help transport them.
The official says that the U.S. military has agreed to their request and "some flights have already begun."
The official spoke on condition of anonymity Sunday because he was releasing the information ahead of a formal announcement.

Don't you think this a pretty aggressive move from Bush towards RUSSIA! WTF?

Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens Gets Slapped with Seven Felony Charges

2008-07-29T19:13:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been quite upset over the general lack of punishment (or, rather, rewards) for the members of the Bush administration who have so obviously been involved in scandal and crime. The Daily Show, as usual, has done an excellent job of editing together only a portion of the insanity (oh, and more from John Oliver. Love!). Though this isn't Karl Rove caliber, I got to feel just a little bit better today when Ted Stevens was caught concealing more than $250,000 worth of gifts that he received from an Alaska oil services company. Some of those "gifts" included a new first floor, a finished full basement, a wraparound deck, plumbing, electrical and heating work for his Alaska home. Of course, he says he is innocent. Whatever, dude- I'm sure VECO Corp just accidentally gave him a quarter of a million dollars, and reporting it just slipped his mind! It happens to the best of us!

"According to the indictment, the total amount of gifts that Sen. Stevens is alleged to have received over the duration of the offense is greater than $250,000. Also according to the indictment, these items were not disclosed on Sen. Stevens' financial disclosure forms, which he filed under penalties of perjury, either as gifts or as liabilities, and further, that Sen. Stevens did not reimburse or repay VECO or its chief executive officer for these items." — Matthew Friedrich, chief of the Justice Department's criminal division. (Associated Press)

So long 4th amendment!

2008-07-10T10:56:00.000-07:00

So the FISA amendments bill went through yesterday, and not only did the Dems hunker under their desks to avoid lawsuits, but even Barack Obama voted for the "compromise," even after showing vivid opposition to any sort of telecom immunity. But, for those who don't know, this bill just isn't about retroactive immunity for the telecoms. It also widely expands surveillance capabilities of the government, and removes a vast amount of oversight from the process. This allows the system to be easily fitted for massive domestic surveillance, especially in the online world. Illegal online gambling, p2p sharing, you name it. Americans have been screaming and protesting this issue for three years now, and all for what? Nothing. This is one issue the dems could have fought easily, brought more support into the party, and finally show that they really aren't spineless like everyone always says. Way to fit their stereotype! Whoever believes the spin that this is some sort of compromise is completely wrong, there is no such thing as compromise on an issue like domestic spying...you can't "compromise" the 4th amendment!

What a pathetic failure of our government.

Giving it the respect it deserves, I'll quote the 4th amendment...and bid it farewell...at least until our representatives have the courage to stand for this country's founding ideals.

"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."

Fox News: In Need of New Graphic Artist

2008-07-02T21:41:00.000-07:00

Disgusting. Media Matters is reporting that Fox News Channel digitally altered photos of New York Times reporters. I'm sure Media Matters is considered to be just another liberal hate machine or some other nonsense, but they are just reporting what is so obviously a lack of journalistic integrity on behalf of FNC.
Though the changes were so blatant and poorly done I enjoyed a good laugh, it was absolutely inappropriate and frankly, immature. How bad, you ask?

Reporters Jacques Steinberg and Steven Reddicliffe, before and after:

Personally, I find the blur tool to be quite obvious.

Video of the absurd content can be found here.

Covert action in Iran

2008-07-01T14:45:00.000-07:00

If ignorance is bliss, Seymour Hersch wants to make sure we're miserable. Read his stunning article about the covert actions being taken in Iran (and how the Democratic leaders approved them) here. (Thanks for the right link!)

Really, Ralph? Really?

2008-06-25T23:26:00.000-07:00

So I think it's been established that while I like Ralph Nader and respect what he has done in the past, I believe his time has passed. That has only been emphasized through his recent comments about Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President.
Here's the gem he gave in an interview with Rocky Mountain News.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate: He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know.

I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"

I have a serious problem with what he says. Even putting behind me my other problems with the man, what makes him think that is an appropriate thing to say? Do I think Obama should be talking about those issues? Yes. Do I think he should feel obligated to because he is African American? No. No candidate should feel obligated to talk about any specific issue just because of something about themselves they cannot change.

But let's assume they are. McCain would be talking about incontinence, the decision of whether or not to go into rest homes and where the best places to retire might be.

Obama would be telling us about the student loans he had to use to go through school, the troubles of keeping a marriage together with two young children and a presidential campaign to win, and what it's like to finally start to feel your age.

And what would Nader have to tell us? Honestly, I just don't give a damn.

He called his wife what??

2008-06-19T21:59:00.000-07:00

(NSFW version can be found here.)

Also, though we live in the era of "pics or it didn't happen," McCain has a well documented temper. I was shocked to read a Top Ten of McCain's hissy fits, documented here. Settle down, princess! If you can't hold your temper, how do you handle high-pressure situations?

"I'm Voting Republican"

2008-06-13T14:47:00.000-07:00

McCain's YouTube Problem

2008-06-13T11:16:00.000-07:00

Why we should never believe a word McCain says.

Thoughts on the Nomination

2008-06-04T16:54:00.000-07:00

At this point, I am overjoyed that Barack Obama won the nomination. I'm starting to shift into general election mode, though, most notably how Obama can kick McCain's wrinkly ass in November.

I think choosing Clinton as his running mate would be the worst idea ever. Hear that, Obama? Bad. Don't. Do it. Personally I like Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, though I don't think it really matters at this point. Obama's a rock star, he has to either choose somebody as charismatic and awe-inspiring as he is or somebody who won't look like they're trying to compete. Richardson is low-key enough that he would not give off the competition vibe, but still competent to get stuff done.

In a perfect world, Obama would announce his full Cabinet. Secretary of State, Energy, Education, everything. Then he would say, "This is the team, as us our plan."

Then again, what do I know.

I'm terrified the Republicans are going to scare Americans into voting for them... again. My optimistic side is showing here and I'm loving it, but that makes me fear defeat even more. I am in love with the idea of a Barack Obama White House, and nothing is going to change that.

Anyways. I'm still thinking stuff out...anybody else have an opinion?

Obama Wins Democratic Nomination

2008-06-03T18:41:00.000-07:00

"Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said - because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States."

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Final Primary Night
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008
St. Paul, Minnesota

As Prepared for Delivery

Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said - because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign - through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning - even in the face of tough odds - is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency - an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say - let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college - policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians - a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

So I'll say this - there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.

Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years - especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century - terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy - tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy - cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota - he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need.

Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future - an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for President.

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon - that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Pullman's Eileen Macoll is Casting her vote for Clinton

2008-05-30T13:04:00.000-07:00

FROM THE OLYMPIAN -Eileen Macoll, the Washington Democratic Party’s vice chairwoman, said this morning she is pledging her super-delegate vote to Hillary Clinton. This reverses a trend that saw several state super-delegates including the party chairman Dwight Pelz go with Barack Obama.

Macoll had intended to wait until after Montana and South Dakota Democrats vote Tuesday. But she had a change of heart during Memorial Day, which she said hits hard in small towns like Pullman, where she lives. She also has a military veteran father in hospice.

“I’m convinced that Sen. Clinton is the one that will end this war for us. It was an emotional decision. I think she’s the right one to have as our commander in chief for the next four years,’’ Macoll said in a telephone interview from Seattle, where she was readying to attend an event for U.S. Sen. Patty Murray tonight. “We need a Democrat in the White House and I think she is the electable candidate. We have to end this war.’’

Clinton’s campaign announced Macoll’s decision, quoting her in part as saying: “On the issues that matter most — from establishing universal health care to improving our schools to ending the war in Iraq — she has never backed down and never wavered. Hillary has what it takes to beat John McCain this Fall and win back the White House.”

Washington Democrats meeting in caucuses in February gave Obama 52 pledged delegates to 26 for Clinton. The super-delegate count now adds seven more for Obama, six for Clinton and leaves four unpledged.

The unpledged super-delegates are former U.S. House Speaker Thomas Foley and party officials Ed Cote, Sharon Mast, and David T. McDonald, according to a New York Times’ tracker. Macoll has said in the past that site’s list appeared accurate.

McDonald serves on a national Democratic committee that meets Saturday in Washington, D.C., May 31 to decide what to do about the Michigan and Florida delegations; McDonald has said he won’t take a side publicly until after that committee’s decision.

And here is the rest of it.

Obama, Castro and Imperialism

2008-05-27T12:21:00.000-07:00

I know I'm no good at this whole patriotism bit. That is why I always get filled with excitement when I see a new perspective on the United States (specifically on its treatment of Latin America). That's why I found this speech (translated to English, fyi) particularly exciting. Though I still support Sen. Obama, Castro presents a solid point that no candidate will ever be perfect. Though there are flaws, he also acknowledges how he's the best candidate. Here is Castro's statement:

The empire’s hypocritical politics

IT would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.

What were Obama’s statements?

"Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. (…) This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair (…) I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba," he told annexationists, adding: "It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. (…) I will maintain the embargo."

The content of these declarations by this strong candidate to the U.S. presidency spares me the work of having to explain the reason for this reflection.

José Hernandez, one of the Cuban American National Foundation directors whom Obama praises in his speech, was none other than the owner of the Caliber-50 automatic rifle, equipped with telescopic and infrared sights, which was confiscated, by chance, along with other deadly weapons while being transported by sea to Venezuela, where the Foundation had planned to assassinate the writer of these lines at an international meeting on Margarita, in the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta.

Pepe Hernández’ group wanted to return to the pact with Clinton, betrayed by Mas Canosa’s clan, who secured Bush’s electoral victory in 2000 through fraud, because the latter had promised to assassinate Castro, something they all happily embraced. These are the kinds of political tricks inherent to the United States’ decadent and contradictory system.

Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.

How does he plan to address the extremely serious problem of the food crisis? The world’s grains must be distributed among human beings, pets and fish, the latter of which are getting smaller every year and more scarce in the seas that have been over-exploited by large trawlers which no international organization has been able to halt. Producing meat from gas and oil is no easy feat. Even Obama overestimates technology’s potential in the fight against climate change, though he is more conscious of the risks and the limited margin of time than Bush. He could seek the advice of Gore, who is also a democrat and is no longer a candidate, as he is aware of the accelerated pace at which global warming is advancing. His close political rival Bill Clinton, who is not running for the presidency, an expert on extra-territorial laws like the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, can advise him on an issue like the blockade, which he promised to lift and never did.

What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency? "For two hundred years," he said, "the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and

despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in

Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We

must do better. (…) We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach." A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it. But, 200 years ago, Bolivar fought for Latin American unity and, more than 100 years ago, Martí gave his life in the struggle against the annexation of Cuba by the United States. What is the difference between what Monroe proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later?

"I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people," he said near the end, adding: "Together, we can choose the future over the past." A beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the fear, that history makes figures what they are and not all the way around.

Today, the United States has nothing of the spirit behind the Philadelphia declaration of principles formulated by the 13 colonies that rebelled against English colonialism. Today, they are a gigantic empire undreamed of by the country’s founders at the time. Nothing, however, was to change for the natives and the slaves. The former were exterminated as the nation expanded; the latter continued to be auctioned at the marketplace —men, women and children—for nearly a century, despite the fact that "all men are born free and equal", as the Declaration of Independence affirms. The world’s objective conditions favored the development of that system.

In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban Revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don’t want to see U.S. children inculcated with those shameful values.

An armed revolution in our country might not have been needed without the military interventions, Platt Amendment and economic colonialism visited upon Cuba.

The Revolution was the result of imperial domination. We cannot be accused of having imposed it upon the country. The true changes could have and ought to have been brought about in the United States. Its own workers, more than a century ago, voiced the demand for an eight-hour work shift, which stemmed from the development of productive forces.

The first thing the leaders of the Cuban Revolution learned from Martí was to believe in and act on behalf of an organization founded for the purposes of bringing about a revolution. We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than 90% of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of 50% of voters. No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbor has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.

I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.

Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?

Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?

Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn’t the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific?

Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?

Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States?

Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?

You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?

Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it honorable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?

Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and the blood that has been shed in acts of solidarity towards other peoples, in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of your powerful country, is proof that much can be done with very little. Not even our closest ally, the Soviet Union, was able to achieve what we have.

The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consist in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent U.S. doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale.

We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when Hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba’s sovereignty in our first war of independence.

Our Revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people’s rights or take possession of raw materials.

The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.

Fidel Castro Ruz
May 25, 2008
10:35 p.m.
Translated by ESTI

Fox News Classic

2008-05-26T11:13:00.000-07:00

I can't believe she really said that.

What am I talking about? Of course I believe it.

And here is the rest of it.

Clinton Offers YDA a Million Dollars for Superdelegates

2008-05-21T18:56:00.000-07:00

ARTICLE FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST:
One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. "Not true," he said, "it's simply not true." He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? "I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don't even remember their names." Did he propose any financial transaction? "I have never offered them or anybody any money" in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.

Members of the Young Democrats agonized about the potential fallout of Saban's call; his financial offer represented one-third of the group's 2008 budget. Democratic officials and fundraisers were consulted about how to respond, and at times the discussions were "emotional," one participant said. "It is scary for them, Haim is very powerful, he has great influence over donors who give to them."

Another source said that Hardt and others were acutely aware of Saban's status within Democratic circles and were concerned that their organization would suffer long-term harm if they declined his offer or if news of the proposal became public.

"I said I thought that the appropriate response was to call Haim back and say thank you but we are not interested," said the source. "I also said that it was surely the case that this story would get out because it is too interesting not to and they should think about how to deal with it. It was a day or two [before they responded]. They felt afraid. They were like, 'Holy shit, this is Haim Saban.'"

Nevertheless, the group declined the overture. A YDA official cited moral reservations as well as the overwhelming consensus of its members to back Sen. Barack Obama.

The group had not directly solicited Saban's financial support prior to the call, the official said, and records show no money from Saban has been given since. He did donate $15,000 to the group's 2005 convention, a separate political entity, and is a natural benefactor for groups such as YDA, a 527 which describes itself as the "largest youth-led, national, partisan political organization."

Saban is the nation's largest political campaign contributor over the last decade, FEC records show, giving nearly $13 million since 1999 to dozens of candidates, PACs, and Democratic campaign committees.

This past week, Crystal Strait, a YDA superdelegate, publicly announced she was supporting Obama. Another YDA superdelegate from Puerto Rico, Francisco J. Domenech, endorsed Clinton several months ago. Hardt, the third superdelegate, remains uncommitted.

"Crystal made an independent decision for all the reasons that she stated and David has consistently stated his position of choosing who to support after the primary is done," Alexandra Acker, the executive director of YDA, said when asked about why the two individuals made their respective decisions.

Hardt also released a statement explaining his current neutrality: "With just five contests left, I will wait to declare my superdelegate vote until every young voter has made their voice heard. The Young Democrats of America will proudly unite behind our nominee." Strait did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Saban's offer, which was hinted at last week by John Aravosis, publisher of AmericaBlog, underscores the heightened pitch of the Democratic primary.

Those familiar with campaign finance rules say that monetary promises for superdelegates are "problematic," but may not, in the end, be legally out of bounds.

"This is not an FEC issue," said Jan Baran, a Republican campaign finance attorney. "There are federal and state laws that bar 'vote buying' but I'm not sure they apply in this situation since this involves a convention delegate and not a voter in an election. In short, I don't know whether this is illegal or just hardnosed political horse-trading."

While no other accounts of direct financial offers have surfaced, both Democratic campaigns have attempted to use the power of the check to recruit the support of influential party insiders.

In March, high-ranking donors for Sen. Clinton, including Saban, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chastising her for suggesting that superdelegates had a responsibility to support the candidate who finished the primary process leading in the pledged delegate count.

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC," they wrote. "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August."

And in February, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that Sen. Obama's political action committee had given $694,000 to superdelegates in the previous three years. Of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama at the time, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Live for the Present

2008-05-15T16:25:00.000-07:00

Being home is always a mixed bag for me. High school was miserable, and college has always been my escape. But recent events in my home town have taught me to think about the future while concentrating on the present. A junior boy from my high school was killed on Mother's Day when he slipped getting out of a truck, accidentally shooting himself in the head with the gun he held in his hand. Because the truck was stuck in the snow, the person he was with (a senior from my high school, and a pretty good friend of mine) had to run for over a mile to look for help. The poor boy died 10 minutes into the drive to the hospital.

My whole town is in shock over this. In a town of 3,000, young people are the center of the community. To lose somebody so horribly and suddenly has made everybody reevaluate their priorities in life as well as appreciate what they have.

I'm writing this because I think that we all have a tendency to take ourselves out of our present situations, focusing instead on our lives after college, next month, or even next weekend. By not taking time out of our days to say hello to our old friends while making new ones, or putting off that phone call to an elderly family member, we forget about the small joys that make life so wonderful.

Don't procrastinate on spending time with the people you love. Eat what you want. Don't feel guilty for saying no to doing something you don't want to do. Forget about the trivial shit life likes to throw at you. I have a problem with this myself, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go through life miserable and missing every minute of it.

Learn More about GMO's

2008-05-07T10:33:00.000-07:00

I have been skeptical of the whole organic trend. I felt that government regulations and and scientific testing would protect me for anything harmful. I thought that those CoOp crazies were just jumping on a bandwagon, just like many do with fad diets, to create an upper class of food. After doing some research after watching the documentary called, "Future of Food" it turns out that the the rabbit hole is deep when it comes to food production. I realize that I one of the last to learn about all this but just in case there are other stubbern people like me out there I have complied this list of just a few reasons why you should pay attention to what you eat.

REASON #1: The Cooperate ownership of nature.

For centuries—millennia—farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.
An article in Vanity Fair sums up the history of how cooperations are able to own a seed.

Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. “It’s not like describing a widget,” says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto’s activities in rural America for years.

Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover “a live human-made microorganism.” In this case, the organism wasn’t even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

To date, Monsanto Corp. has filed 90 lawsuits in 25 states involving 147 American farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies.

Monsanto has set aside an annual budget of $10 million and 75 full-time staff devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers.

The largest recorded judgment favorable to Monsanto documented by the report was $3,052,800

Monsanto has received $15,253,602.82 in total recorded judgments to date.
According to the report, Monsanto's efforts to prosecute farmers fall into three categories: investigations of farmers; out-of-court settlements; and litigation against farmers accused of patent infringement or "breach of contract."

Companies that patent genetically engineered seeds own the right to the technology contained in each seed. Farmers who purchase genetically engineered seeds must sign Technology Use Agreements that specifically shield the patent company from liability for accidental contamination or other adverse impacts. The effect of these agreements is to pit farmer against farmer when conflicts arise.

The Farmer Protection Act (SB 218) aims to shield Montana wheat farmers from undue liability for genetically engineered wheat damages. The bill would also prevent patent-holding companies from suing farmers for patent infringement if genetically engineered wheat drifts across property lines and is found on the land of farmers who did not intentionally grow it. [January 13, 2005]

REASON #2: Cooperate Greed and Monopolies

Monsanto genetically engineered seeds called Roundup ready seeds. This allows those seeds to survive being spayed with the herbicide Roundup.

Farmers who buy Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto.

REASON #3: Small Farmers

This radical departure from age-old practice has created turmoil in farm country. Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product. Still others say that they don’t use Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or deposited by birds. It’s certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn’t buy G.M. seeds and doesn’t want them on his land, it’s a safe bet he’ll get a visit from Monsanto’s seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are discovered in his fields.

Examples:
Monsanto Sues Midwest Farmers for Saving Soybean Seeds
Monsanto Prevails in Patent Fight

REASON #4 Genes Designed to Protect Intellectual Property .

The terminator gene is a specific genetic sequence inserted into a seed's DNA. Once activated by a synthetic chemical catalyst of the manufacturer's choosing, the sequence renders the seed and crop it produces sterile. Patented by the USDA and Delta and Pine Land Co., now owned by Monsanto, this terminator technology has no agricultural or economic benefits for farmers or consumers. The only motivation is to protect intellectual property rights, according to owners of the technology. They claim that it allows them to be able to recover investments on research, and produce profits from their technology, as planters must re-purchase seeds every year. Opponents claim that corporations will only use this to squeeze more money out of dependent farmers, and begin a monopoly of chemically saturated suicide seeds.

Possibility of Transfer.

Transgenic plants have already been shown to transfer certain genes to wild relatives or bacteria. The possibility that the terminator gene could be transferred is not denied by anyone. In fact, the tendency of genetically manipulated plants to "leak" traits is greater than others. "They learned that the transgenic plants were 20 times more likely to outcross than the mutants-they were "promiscuous," as a headline in the journal Nature put it. "Nobody knows why," Bergelson says. "We're still trying to find the mechanism that drives the pattern we saw. There's a lot we don't understand, including how common it is." "It's inevitable that they will get out," says ecologist Joy Bergelson of the University of Chicago. "That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be negative repercussions. But there could be some. And right now we don't know enough about what they could be and when they could occur."' There is some speculation on the subject, however, despite the limited empirical evidence. Even if the terminator gene were to spread to wild weedy relatives, then it could help control the spread of genetic hybrids and accompanying artificial traits. "Moreover, if Terminator genes were packaged with other transgenic traits, they could help ensure that crop-weed hybrids would be sterile-potentially eliminating a difficult problem." In fact, some believe that an added attraction to use of the terminator gene is the possibility that it will prevent more genetic transfer from occurring.

While that maybe true. The sterile-seed technologies could spread to unsuspecting farmers’ lands through unwanted pollination. Communities that lose control over their seeds, adapted over centuries to their needs, risk losing control of their farming systems and becoming dependent on outside sources for seeds.

More than a billion people could be impacted by food shortages if poor farmers are not able to use their saved seeds. According to the international Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), poor farmers cultivate 15 to 20 percent of the world’s food. A recent FAO report estimated that farmers who save seeds feed at least 1.4 billion people in developing countries annually: 1 billion in China, 300 million in Africa and 100 million in Latin America.

The way a plant gene interacts with its environment cannot be completely controlled, according to many scientists. Every grain of pollen engineered with seed sterilization technology that gets picked up by the wind or an insect will carry with it the possibility of contaminating neighboring fields, said Rich Hayes, a spokesperson for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent nonprofit of more than 100,000 scientists and supporters.

REASON #5: Stand in Solidarity with those around the world

For the past six years, Indian farmers have experienced the stark realities of GM crop cultivation in the country in the form of Bt cotton. Reports continue to pour in from various districts of Andhra Pradesh including Adilabad, Warangal and Nalgonda on animal illnesses and deaths after grazing on Bt cotton fields. Farmers and shepherds have been reporting the toxic effects of Bt cotton on livestock since 2003 (see Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton, SiS 30). But the regulators continue to rubbish the reports. Farmers and workers experience allergic reactions during harvest of Bt cotton, with scores of victims in different states (see More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS 30). However, the governments have not even begun to acknowledge that.

To make matters worse, the ecology of cotton pests has altered drastically and Bt cotton farmers are dealing with newer pests and diseases. Last season’s infestation of mealy bug, a sucking pest, has resulted in pesticides sales shooting up steeply in several states including Punjab.

For farmers who wish to remain GM-free or organic, they find it almost impossible to get non-GM seed. Hundreds of organic farmers are placing special orders directly with seed companies for non-transgenic seed, as it is not readily available from retailers.

It is at this juncture that farmers’ unions, consumer organizations, environmental groups, development organizations and concerned scientists have stepped up their protests against Bt Brinjal, realizing that the experience with Bt cotton cannot be allowed to be repeated, especially with a vegetable crop that is directly consumed by people.

If you want to learn more:

Democrats, We Have Our Nominee. Hear that, CNN?

2008-05-07T08:44:00.000-07:00

After the primaries of North Carolina and Indiana, the debate is over. Sen. Barack Obama is our nominee for the 2008 presidential race. Now I think somebody just needs to tell that to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Obama took North Carolina by a huge margin, with Clinton barely scraping by with two percentage points in Indiana. Somebody could scream "There are more votes out there! Just look at all the states that have yet to vote!" But that number is getting smaller and smaller. If you go here, you can look at the delegate counter on CNN. I played around with it last night, giving every state to Clinton by 75%. She was STILL behind, needing the super-delegates to put her in the lead. That is the problem with the delegate counter, having no idea where all the super-delegates currently stand. But it is a powerful image to see, without a doubt. Obama is our nominee.

Of course, don't tell that to CNN.

It is a year of record primary voter turnout, with the American people seeming to finally pay attention to what is going on in D.C. It is also, however, a year of record ratings. CNN does not want to go back to stories about polar bears in German zoos, but as they refuse to grow a pair of journalistic cahones that would be their only alternative after this primary horse race is finished. They have no interest in paying attention to McCain as closely as they have Clinton and Obama; after the story of the lobbyist/McCain relationship was published in the NYT, the story everywhere else was if that story was accurate! (Go to DemocracyNow to learn more about that story, it's worth checking out).

CNN, like Sen. Clinton, is enjoying the time in the spotlight. But there comes a time when what is needed is a graceful exit, not a never-ending encore. The people have spoken.

Obama 08!

im in ur party, stealing ur votez

2008-05-02T16:29:00.000-07:00

I got in a pretty heated discussion about third party presidential candidates last night, mainly centered around whether voting for them is good, pointless, or hurting the respective party from which they are often accused of “stealing” votes. Is voting for them when you’re genuinely unimpressed with the two main candidates a viable alternative, or are you just throwing your vote away, doomed to help the opposition? What are all of your thoughts?

Personally, I'm a pretty big Nader supporter. Come this November…if Obama doesn’t take the primaries, I’m voting Nader (assuming he’ll run…which he will, if Hillary gets the nomination). I’d vote for him, even if I lived in FLORIDA! HOLD UP…don’t kill me yet, let me explain why.

First of all...I don’t like the argument that Nader steals votes from Democrats, even though that’s partially why third parties are good (I’ll get to that later). In Nader’s specific case, I feel like he’s been made a scapegoat.

Take Florida in 2000, many claim it to be Nader's true rise to fame, having thwarted the Democratic party’s chance to win. But I think this is bull. Here's why: exit polls show that in Florida, 25% of his voters came from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest would not have voted at all (37%). However, people claim that the amount of Democrats who voted for him could have still swayed the election, since Gore only lost by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421. Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only part of the story people see. What many forget to realize, is that there were seven other third party candidates on Florida’s ballot! For example, Pat Buchanan received 17,412 votes, 4th runner up, and "stole" more than enough to break the gap coming from the conservative side. To blame the Democratic loss in 2000 on Nader is to use him as a scapegoat, pure and simple, because there were seven other candidates on Florida's ballots who ALL RECEIVED more than enough to swing the vote either way. If Dems are going to blame Nader for screwing us with Bush, then they should also blame the other seven third party candidates who ran in Florida that year (Well...or just the ones that they claim to attract liberal voters). I read somewhere once that 500 something people voted for Mickey Mouse in Florida in 2000. I personally blame him…damn you Mickey, you AND your cryogenically frozen anti-Semitic creator! (shakes fist)

I voted for Nader in 2004
and I'm proud I did.

Why? There were a combination of factors, the big one being that I lived in Idaho at the time, where ALL of the electoral votes are going to the GOP regardless of how I vote anyways, effectively nullifying my civic duty. So I said, “hey, why not give my vote so somebody who I think needs more recognition.” But, I also voted for Nader for another reason, he had some arms to flex this time around. Having "thwarted" the election four years prior, the Democratic party now saw him as a REAL threat, which is why Kerry met with Nader nearly four years ago on May 19, 2004.

Kerry MET with Nader, THAT'S the power of the third party! THAT’S why I voted for him! Third parties help scare the big ones into adopting policy. Now...if only Kerry wasn't so much of a tool, he could have won Nader's support. At the meeting, Nader gave a list of OVER 20 PAGES of issues he thought were important, then told Kerry that if he selected JUST THREE OF THEM and adopted them into his campaign policy, he would refrain from running for the presidency. Knowing Nader, those 20 pages touched on environmental issues, health care, tax reform, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM,...etc.

But, obviously Kerry passed up the opportunity to take a stance on something different, which is unfortunate. In today’s Washington, where lobbyists and corporate interests wash out real problems, we’ve come to expect this. But it hasn’t always been this way, and prior to the corporate worlds big money dump in the 1970’s into PACS (Corporate Political Action Committees), third party’s actually got stuff done. Back then, it wasn’t so unreasonable for candidates to listen and adopt policy.

Third Party Accomplishments (taken from About.com):

-Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

-Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

-Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
-note* This one fits in with Geoff’s May Day article, which I enjoyed : )

-Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

-Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

-Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

-Tough on Crime
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)

So in terms of third parties, some may say they don't have merit, people don't listen to them, they don't hold any influence, the media doesn't pay them any attention, etc. But to me, it seems like they've historically held a lot of merit, drawn MORE ears into the political arena, have held "enough" influence to get us the 16th amendment...
and as for the media's attention, well I suppose it's always going to focus on how "disruptive" they are being, because that's going to be the story. But...there's no such thing as bad press right?

History shows that when Third Party candidates really TRULY start "stealing" big chunks of the vote, the GOP and Dems SHIFT their policy! Imagine that...helping the party by going against it. Third parties keep politics dynamic, and help deviate from the "us and them" attitude of contemporary politics (something Obama has spoken much about), and although I wish they did it more, they really DO bring topics to the table, but only if they are a “legitimate threat.” Imposing this threat is my new civic duty should Hillary take the primaries.

Sadly, corporations got their shoes on in the 1970’s, changed their policy, changed their budgets, walked to Capitol Hill, and put forth massive lobbying efforts. When Nixon finally withdrew from Vietnam, the activism and civic engagement of the public lost steam, and apathy ensued. During the 1980’s, true progressives were pushed out of Congress and replaced by corporate/conservative Democrats who called for what they called the “necessary move to the center.” We were left with the state of politics as they are today: corrupt, money driven, and out of touch with the people.

Much of the public tends to think in the short term though, and we see third parties as ruffians messing up the two-party system. But when you step back and look past the next 4 years, 8 years…20 years, is it more important to settle for a short term lesser evil, electing yet another president that has their pockets full of lobby money? Or should we hold our votes hostage, put greater value on them and say, “No, not this time. I’m tired of the status quo. This time, my support goes to somebody who can rattle a cage.” Democrats like HRC have taken steps to the center of politics, and I’m tired of telling myself that it’s the best option if I want something to change. Because the fact is…I’m not changing anything, I’m keeping politics the same as it’s been since the 1970’s, and gee look what progress we’ve made…we’re trying to put the same family in the White House that we had 15 years ago, one that’s policy still revolves around dirty lobby money, double talk, and a “necessary move to the center.”

Just for fun: adjusted for inflation, average American wages peaked in 1973. America’s GNP (real gross national product) has nearly doubled since then. So why are wages lower? I have an inkling that part of it might be because the dems lost the motivation to fight for viable initiatives to better worker’s compensation. That kind of reform is hard when all your campaign supporters are completely against it.

Another example: The rich are getting richer. Everybody knows this, but what’s scary is by how much they are spreading the gap. In 1980 the richest 10% of the world's population was 79 times higher than the poorest 10%. In 2004, it was 117 times higher. (source, introduction written by Robert Weissman for the Multinational Monitor, a magazine founded by Nader)

What do these statistics have to say about the global economy and spread of wealth? Why is Obama the only Democrat who seems to see the source of this problem? The party that is supposed to fight for reform in these areas has been hijacked by the richest businessmen in the world, who love those statistics, and hope to see their patterns continue.

Hate me for it I suppose, but Hillary is not my candidate, and I won’t vote for her should she get the nomination. I really don't feel like she's going to implement the policies she preaches. She was bought out of her universal health care plan in 2006 for $854,462. This link is an interesting read, and gives you an insight to how much of a stranglehold lobbyists have in Washington. WE NEED OBAMA...otherwise nothing has changed. Casting a vote for Hillary would be casting a vote for the puppet on the left. McCain...puppet on the right. Big business interests are throwing cash down Hilary and McCain’s pockets, and getting priority over US, the PEOPLE, the ones who will inevitably elect one of them.

I'm sick and tired of settling for the lesser evil, I don’t want a shift from Halliburton running the show to Pfizer. The former is a war profiteer, the latter a drug cartel. What a trade off…

I want a candidate that puts the people first.

Why settle for less? Why does my vote have to be strategic?

We have to get Obama…
nobody else will do...nobody else will come close to what is needed in American politics. If this doesn’t happen, my only hope is to vote for Nader, not because I think he can win (he can’t). Not because I feel hopeless (I don’t). But for the sake of rattling the cage. I want the Dems to adopt policies I care about, and I’m not going to do that by doing what they expect me to, and just “voting for her anyways.”

"'Freedom is participation in power,' said the Roman orator Cicero. By this deep definition, freedom is in short supply for tens of millions of Americans," - Ralph Nader

History Of May Day - Everyone Should Know.

2008-05-01T19:20:00.000-07:00

Most people living in the United States know little about the International Workers' Day of May Day. For many others there is an assumption that it is only a holiday celebrated in communist countries like Cuba or the former Soviet Union. Most Americans don't realize that May Day has its origins here in this country and is as "American" as baseball and apple pie.
In the late nineteenth century, the working class was in constant struggle to gain the 8-hour work day. Working conditions were severe and it was quite common to work 10 to 16 hour days in unsafe conditions. Death and injury were commonplace at many work places and inspired such books as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and Jack London's The Iron Heel. As early as the 1860's, working people agitated to shorten the workday without a cut in pay, but it wasn't until the late 1880's that organized labor was able to garner enough strength to declare the 8-hour workday. This proclamation was without consent of employers, yet demanded by many of the working class.

At this time, socialism was a new and attractive idea to working people, many of whom were drawn to its ideology of working class control over the production and distribution of all goods and services. Workers had seen first-hand that Capitalism benefited only their bosses, trading workers' lives for profit. Thousands of men, women and children were dying needlessly every year in the workplace, with life expectancy as low as their early twenties in some industries, and little hope of rising out of their destitution. Socialism offered another option.

A variety of socialist organizations sprung up throughout the later half of the 19th century, ranging from political parties to choir groups. In fact, many socialists were elected into governmental office by their constituency. But again, many of these socialists were ham-strung by the political process which was so evidently controlled by big business and the bi-partisan political machine. Tens of thousands of socialists broke ranks from their parties, rebuffed the entire political process, which was seen as nothing more than protection for the wealthy, and created anarchist groups throughout the country. Literally thousands of working people embraced the ideals of anarchism, which sought to put an end to all hierarchical structures (including government), emphasized worker controlled industry, and valued direct action over the bureaucratic political process. It is inaccurate to say that labor unions were "taken over" by anarchists and socialists, but rather anarchists and socialist made up the labor unions.

At its national convention in Chicago, held in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (which later became the American Federation of Labor), proclaimed that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labor from and after May 1, 1886." The following year, the FOTLU, backed by many Knights of Labor locals, reiterated their proclamation stating that it would be supported by strikes and demonstrations. At first, most radicals and anarchists regarded this demand as too reformist, failing to strike "at the root of the evil." A year before the Haymarket Massacre, Samuel Fielden pointed out in the anarchist newspaper, The Alarm, that "whether a man works eight hours a day or ten hours a day, he is still a slave."

Despite the misgivings of many of the anarchists, an estimated quarter million workers in the Chicago area became directly involved in the crusade to implement the eight hour work day, including the Trades and Labor Assembly, the Socialistic Labor Party and local Knights of Labor. As more and more of the workforce mobilized against the employers, these radicals conceded to fight for the 8-hour day, realizing that "the tide of opinion and determination of most wage-workers was set in this direction." With the involvement of the anarchists, there seemed to be an infusion of greater issues than the 8-hour day. There grew a sense of a greater social revolution beyond the more immediate gains of shortened hours, but a drastic change in the economic structure of capitalism.

In a proclamation printed just before May 1, 1886, one publisher appealed to working people with this plea:

Workingmen to Arms!

War to the Palace, Peace to the Cottage, and Death to LUXURIOUS IDLENESS.
The wage system is the only cause of the World's misery. It is supported by the rich classes, and to destroy it, they must be either made to work or DIE.

One pound of DYNAMITE is better than a bushel of BALLOTS!

MAKE YOUR DEMAND FOR EIGHT HOURS with weapons in your hands to meet the capitalistic bloodhounds, police, and militia in proper manner.

Not surprisingly the entire city was prepared for mass bloodshed, reminiscent of the railroad strike a decade earlier when police and soldiers gunned down hundreds of striking workers. On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the United States walked off their jobs in the first May Day celebration in history. In Chicago, the epicenter for the 8-hour day agitators, 40,000 went out on strike with the anarchists in the forefront of the public's eye. With their fiery speeches and revolutionary ideology of direct action, anarchists and anarchism became respected and embraced by the working people and despised by the capitalists.

The names of many - Albert Parsons, Johann Most, August Spies and Louis Lingg - became household words in Chicago and throughout the country. Parades, bands and tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets exemplified the workers' strength and unity, yet didn't become violent as the newspapers and authorities predicted.

More and more workers continued to walk off their jobs until the numbers swelled to nearly 100,000, yet peace prevailed. It was not until two days later, May 3, 1886, that violence broke out at the McCormick Reaper Works between police and strikers.

For six months, armed Pinkerton agents and the police harassed and beat locked-out steelworkers as they picketed. Most of these workers belonged to the "anarchist-dominated" Metal Workers' Union. During a speech near the McCormick plant, some two hundred demonstrators joined the steelworkers on the picket line. Beatings with police clubs escalated into rock throwing by the strikers which the police responded to with gunfire. At least two strikers were killed and an unknown number were wounded.

Full of rage, a public meeting was called by some of the anarchists for the following day in Haymarket Square to discuss the police brutality. Due to bad weather and short notice, only about 3000 of the tens of thousands of people showed up from the day before. This affair included families with children and the mayor of Chicago himself. Later, the mayor would testify that the crowd remained calm and orderly and that speaker August Spies made "no suggestion... for immediate use of force or violence toward any person..."

As the speech wound down, two detectives rushed to the main body of police, reporting that a speaker was using inflammatory language, inciting the police to march on the speakers' wagon. As the police began to disperse the already thinning crowd, a bomb was thrown into the police ranks. No one knows who threw the bomb, but speculations varied from blaming any one of the anarchists, to an agent provocateur working for the police.

Enraged, the police fired into the crowd. The exact number of civilians killed or wounded was never determined, but an estimated seven or eight civilians died, and up to forty were wounded. One officer died immediately and another seven died in the following weeks. Later evidence indicated that only one of the police deaths could be attributed to the bomb and that all the other police fatalities had or could have had been due to their own indiscriminate gun fire. Aside from the bomb thrower, who was never identified, it was the police, not the anarchists, who perpetrated the violence.

Eight anarchists - Albert Parsons, August Spies, Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe, Michael Schwab, George Engel, Adolph Fischer and Louis Lingg - were arrested and convicted of murder, though only three were even present at Haymarket and those three were in full view of all when the bombing occurred. The jury in their trial was comprised of business leaders in a gross mockery of justice similar to the Sacco-Vanzetti case thirty years later, or the trials of AIM and Black Panther members in the seventies. The entire world watched as these eight organizers were convicted, not for their actions, of which all of were innocent, but for their political and social beliefs. On November 11, 1887, after many failed appeals, Parsons, Spies, Engel and Fisher were hung to death. Louis Lingg, in his final protest of the state's claim of authority and punishment, took his own life the night before with an explosive device in his mouth.

The remaining organizers, Fielden, Neebe and Schwab, were pardoned six years later by Governor Altgeld, who publicly lambasted the judge on a travesty of justice. Immediately after the Haymarket Massacre, big business and government conducted what some say was the very first "Red Scare" in this country. Spun by mainstream media, anarchism became synonymous with bomb throwing and socialism became un-American. The common image of an anarchist became a bearded, eastern European immigrant with a bomb in one hand and a dagger in the other.

Today we see tens of thousands of activists embracing the ideals of the Haymarket Martyrs and those who established May Day as an International Workers' Day. Ironically, May Day is an official holiday in 66 countries and unofficially celebrated in many more, but rarely is it recognized in this country where it began.

Over one hundred years have passed since that first May Day. In the earlier part of the 20th century, the US government tried to curb the celebration and further wipe it from the public's memory by establishing "Law and Order Day" on May 1. We can draw many parallels between the events of 1886 and today. We still have locked out steelworkers struggling for justice. We still have voices of freedom behind bars as in the cases of Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier. We still had the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people in the streets of a major city to proclaim "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!" at the WTO and FTAA demonstrations.

Why is America Afraid of Witches?

2008-04-28T04:41:00.000-07:00

I’m sorry, did I say witches, I meant union leaders, did I say union leaders, I must have misspoken again, I clearly meant socialists, whoops, I didn’t mean socialists I meant the Japanese (the “fifth column”), wait, sorry again I didn’t mean Japanese I meant communists, remember them, oh wait, sorry my mistake again, what I really meant was Muslims.

America likes having a witch; it’s sadly as simple as that. Throughout our history we see, time and again, how certain groups are vilified in the public eye and often times persecuted for no legal reason. Take for example, the recent opening of a school in New York which was set up to teach the same curriculum as other schools with one difference, half of the curriculum would be taught in Arabic, with the idea being that by the time students graduated they would be fluent in both English and Arabic (a great idea considering how linguistically deficient Americans are). This isn’t anything new in New York, there are similar schools set up using Russian, Spanish, and other languages in the same way.

But what you may not know, and what our good friends Mr. Pipes and David Horowitz are more than willing to teach you, is that this school is not set up for education purposes. Nope, according to them this school is part of a “soft-jihad” which is designed to implement sharia law in the US. Sound familiar? How about phrased this way, replacing a few phrases. Instead of school use strikes, instead of soft-jihad use revolution, and instead of sharia law use socialism

Now you get, these strikes are part of a revolution which is designed to implement socialism in the US. Or how about this one: these women refusing to go to church is part of an attempt by Satan to corrupt the minds of the children in the US… and the list goes on.

The point I’m trying to make is this; since 9/11 there has been a general atmosphere or fear, intolerance, and even occasionally hatred towards Muslims for the simple reason that they are Muslim.

Sadly I’m not sure what exactly we can do to make people realize that his wave of anti-Islam is just as unfounded as the fear of witches so many years ago, but I know that every time I read an article like this I’m more than willing to do whatever is possible.

Just remember, the only people hurt when witches began their campaign against America were innocent people, and I don’t mean the so-called victims of witches.

Stop Whining

2008-04-25T15:03:00.000-07:00

The Daily Evergreen has been running a segment called "The 20 Most Influential Students at WSU" this past week, as a way to recognize outstanding work done by students on our campus. Included on the list were PSU members Andrew Goodin and Alex McDonald. Both are seniors, and our group is devastated to see them go. The list also contained ASWSU exec members, one of the Butch mascots and the Cougar Men's basketball team. While the article was complementary to those who were included, it was inevitable that some people would feel snubbed.

... like the College Republicans.

Below are the letters to the editor that were published on April 24, 2008 in the Daily Evergreen.

Editor:
Since I have not heard from any member of my organization that you contacted them, I can only assume you are not going to feature any of us in the “20 of the most influential students.” This truly saddens me, given that the College Republicans are the largest and most active Registered Student Organization on campus. Over the last two years, our organization has specifically engaged the student body in more events than any other group on campus. Our organization has been nationally recognized on more than one occasion in our pursuit for equal rights and intellectual diversity to be had by all college students, including conservatives. Your constant preference of liberal students, some of which – in reference to the articles – have not done half as much as some of my members is quite disgusting, and borders upon a ridiculous addiction of biased coverage and infantile nepotism. I implore you to take a look at the journalism code of ethics. You have an obligation to serve the entire student body.

Daniel F. Schanze
senior, marketing
president, College Republicans

Editor:
Being a former columnist, I can say your newspaper is a “little” biased based on all my experiences there, however, I feel it is unfair you have chosen to not name a single member of the largest and most active club on campus as one of top 20 most influential students. Our club has held more events than any organization and has tried to promote real intellectual diversity on campus while respecting others and spreading knowledge to students and the community. Our club has leaders who deserve recognition for everything they have accomplished here at WSU. The club I am speaking of is, of course, the College Republicans. Please consider this information the next time you decide to do a series such as the “20 most influential students.” You aren’t influential just because you’re a liberal.

Alex Williams
senior, marketing
vice president, College Republicans

I do understand the frustration that can come with being overlooked. However, read the response sent to Daniel Schanze, as posted on Palousitics.

From: Daily Evergreen Editor
Date: April 23, 2008 7:12:34 PM PDT
To: Daniel Schanze
Cc: News Editor Evergreen
Subject: Re: 20 most influential students?

Mr. Schanze,

The introduction to each day's series of "20 of the most influential students" states "Many WSU students are here doing more than earning their degrees. Many affect the lives of others on campus and we tried to pick 20 undergraduates whose influence shapes our campus community."

There was a long, heated discussion about the nature of this series. This is in no way supposed to be an empirical list of the 20 students doing the most on campus. We chose 20 who are shaping the campus experience in a certain way. In addition, a staff editorial ran the same day as the first chapter of the series which stated "We know there are countless others working to change the world ..." and including a box that stated "Should some students have been included or not included? Were any groups missed? – Write a letter to the editor."

I understand there is an image of the Evergreen, and of many media outlets, that there is, as you state, a "preference of liberal students" and ideals, and that is something we have tried to address. There was no political discussion regarding this series.

The series was originally planned to be a list of 25, and a member of that list was Christopher Del Beccaro, who we attempted to contact but was not able to get through to because the voicemail box on the number we have for him was full. As a newspaper, by nature, we have to conform to deadlines and so we had to drop down to 20, and that was why we made sure to include the phrasing 20 "of the most influential" instead of "the 20 most influential students."

In addition, you say the Evergreen is bordering upon "a ridiculous addiction of bias coverage and infantile nepotism." If you remember, both Lisa Waananen and I – both the editors-in-chief this year — attended your meetings and sat with members of the College Republicans on multiple occasions regarding your concerns of our coverage. Since then, we have covered College Republican events that we have been notified of, of which I received three to my personal e-mail address that I gave your members. One: The national language demonstration last year, Two: The screening of an Iraq war documentary around the same time and Three: A demonstration titled "Vote For Your Favorite Domestic Terrorist." We covered two of these three (and I personally wrote one) but not the last one because we were notified too late to assign it. Also, just weeks ago there was a front page story titled "College Republicans work to help Iraqi children." In the past three months, our news editor has received one press release from the College Republicans, which was for the Dinesh D'Souza speech, which we devoted considerable space to, not just for the speech but for the multitude of responses both as letters to the editor and guest commentaries.

I know I am biased toward how we cover things as the editor, but I fail to see a "constant preference of liberal students."

It is a constant complaint we face, that we are inadequate in our coverage. We knew that the "20 of the most influential students" would not please everyone and that is why we made outlets available for other input. We included one student who is active with the Progressive Student Union because this year their actions prompted President Floyd to take his own action – additionally, this student was involved with multiple other groups on campus including ASWSU. Had we done this series last year, I guarantee Kiley Smith or another member of the CRs would have been featured because of what the CRs were involved in and accomplished.

Thank you for addressing your concerns.

Brian Everstine

Editor-in-Chief
The Daily Evergreen
www.dailyevergreen.com

That completely logical response on behalf of the editor refuted every single argument made by the CR's (You weren't ignored, your group member just didn't answer his phone. We did cover your events, even when you didn't send us press releases). There were also two opinion columnists this year who are members of the CR's, with not a single Young Democrat holding that position in the Evergreen. We did have two members in the MiX section; maybe that explains the liberal slant in lifestyles.

Stop whining. It is not attractive after the age of 13. Maybe if the group was being ignored in any way, shape or form it might be justified. Might. But the "20 most influential" article stated, on the first day it ran, that if you wanted to nominate somebody for the award there was still time to do so. You lost your opportunity for more recognition for inflammatory and pointless events. Soccer balls for Iraqi children? What about electricity and the safety to return to their homes? I forgot. One of your fathers owns a sporting equipment store. I'm glad your charity drive was so convenient for you.

Grow up and take your soccer balls with you.

And see you next year.

41 Hours in an Elevator

2008-04-24T17:46:00.000-07:00

So i realize that this video has been circling around the internet for a while now but if you haven't seen it yet... watch it. He pried open the door more times than i could count only to find the same brick wall. He had to have come to same conclusion each time, that there was no way out! Where does the mind wander? Take a break from studying and watch this video again. I just can't get over it - very dramatic.

Progressive Student Union '07-'08 Wrap-up

2008-04-21T22:42:00.000-07:00

The Progressive Student Union had an astounding year filled with activism and, well . . . progress. We screened films at our weekly Progressive Film Series with favorites including the Media that Matters Film Festivals, Escape to Canada, American Blackout, and The Abortion Diaries; we collaborated with other progressive groups to form a “Coalition of Progressive Students” (C.O.P.S.) homecoming team that placed 10th out of 25 (including a 3rd place finish in Tug-of-War!); and we combated the intolerance of Islamo-Phobic Awareness Week by collaborating with campus groups to host a Week of Tolerance & Respect.

We had learning excursions to the University of Montana's Labor NOW Conference as well as attending a lecture in Seattle by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. We also brought artists and activists to the WSU campus for the 2008 Northwest Progressive Conference featuring presentations by activists including: Keya Lea Horiuchi, Pedro de la Torre from Campus Progress, Gabriel Brown, Eric Johnson (PSU founder), T.V. Reed, Noel Sturgeon, and a performance by David Rovics.

Admist it all, we won our sweatshop campaign in less than a year, starting with a demonstration on the mall, continuing with weekly letters to the administration, and concluding with a very cooperative President Floyd who signed the Worker Rights Consortium and an intention to the Designated Suppliers Program to help to ensure that Cougar apparel is made in factories where basic human rights are monitored. An excellent summary of our efforts by Nickolas Conrad can be found here.

We have been recognized by the university for our accomplishments, winning the 2008 Student Organization Award for Outstanding Campus Involvement due to our “proving that students have a voice and are vehicles for change.”

Though the spring semester will be ending shortly, our activities as a group will continue on into the summer. Please consider joining our “Winston Smith Book Group” featuring readings from Naomi Wolf, Howard Zinn, and Dalton Trumbo (leave a comment to this post if you'd like more information).

On a personal note, PSU has been everything I could have hoped to be involved with during my senior year at WSU. Thanks to everyone who made it happen and I know you all will continue to do great things next year.

"Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand "

2008-04-20T09:14:00.000-07:00

So I don’t know how many people have seen this, or how many will have time to read all 11 pages (for the online version at least), but if you haven’t you definitely should, it can be found here

It turns out that starting even before the war in Iraq the Pentagon was employing a strategy of “psyops” against…… us. For those who haven’t read the New York Times article here’s a basic summary:

The Pentagon has basically recruited former military generals to act as Pentagon spokesmen in the media (all those “military experts” networks have been using for the last 5 years or so). The way it works is that they give these “experts” briefing sessions in which paint an incredibly bright and happy picture of how things are going in Iraq, and then have them report that information to the public using their status as “experts” in the media. Of course all of these analysts know that the information they’ve being fed is incredibly optimistic but they still do it anyway. The reason that they do this is that many of these retired military personnel turned “experts” happen to own/have a large stake in companies that do contract work with the Pentagon (the good old military-industrial complex), and it turns out that in all of these fun informational meetings these retired generals and such have incredible access to the top brass in the Pentagon, which coincidently happens to be great for their business ventures.

So in sum, a very large portion of the military analysts used in the media are literally being fed bullet-points by the Pentagon, and then regurgitating those bullet-points (I believe it said in some cases word for word) to the general public, and most of them are doing it so that the companies which they have a large stake are able to get good contracts in Iraq from the Pentagon.

I don’t know about anyone else, but this is pretty disgusting to me. The fact that the military is willing to trade military contracts to generals so that they repeat Pentagon bullet points in the media just seems low, although I suppose coming from this administration I shouldn’t be surprised. However for me for the rest of the time Bush is in office (at least) I’m not going to be able to take any military “experts” seriously because I’ll be wondering 1) if they even have a real idea of what’s going on in Iraq and 2) how many government contracts their companies will get for their testimony.

One final note the article had, which I think sums up Iraq perfectly is this:

An analyst said at another point: “This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”

“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.

Controversial U-Dub Young Democrats Video

2008-04-19T09:07:00.000-07:00

The UW YD's posted this video on facebook FOR SOME REASON and of course it was picked up by a local Seattle Conservative Blog who sent it out to the news media. Since then anti-UW Young Democrats facebook groups have popped up. For kids that are interested in politics they sure have learned nothing! What do you think?

Seattle's Green Festival, April 12-13 '08

2008-04-18T13:51:00.000-07:00

As a precursor to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Geoff and I went to Seattle for their first annual Green Festival. They key draw for us was Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, who was speaking on Sunday afternoon. She has a new book, Standing up to the Madness: Ordinary People doing Extraordinary Things. She talked about the heroes of her book, librarians standing up to Homeland Security and Lt. Ehren Watada. I highly encourage you to buy it!

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK, was also inspirational. She talked about the need to bring the anti-war movement and the environmental movement to fight for their common good. The anti-war movment, she said, was tired after 5 years of hardly anybody paying attention to them. But the environmental movement is full of life and enthusiasm. Less than ten years ago the existence of global warming was being debated while today Al Gore has won a Nobel Peace Prize. It was fascinating to hear her talk about her work in D.C. and around the country; go to the CODEPINK website for more information on what they do.

Stacy Malkan, in her talk "The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry" talked about the lack of regulation in what created beauty products. Studies have been done on people who are filled with pesticides, lead, etc. simply from their environment. She also talked about studies on umbilical cords, when babies are just born, and how they found toxins in there as well. Lead in breast milk from lipstick was another thing she mentioned. I left that talk a little more than freaked out, but she gave us some hope in that legislation is going through to try to regulate what we are putting on (or in) our bodies. Go to Skin Deep to check out your products and see how they rate.

Overall, the Green Festival was a success. They had a huge turnout, it was a zero-waste event, and the purpose of the festival was met. Amy Goodman talked about the irony of the festival being held in the Washington State Convention center, the place of the failed WTO talks in 1999. We were reclaiming the convention center, and we were proud!

There was a problem, however, with the conference. In my own humble opinion. Talking about a movement and changing the world is all well and good, unless you're preaching to the choir of the elites of the liberal world. Let's look at the facts: the conference cost $10 for students, $15 for general admission. Food was minimally $8, though we were in downtown Seattle so going down to Pike place market was entirely possible. Organic pants were being sold for $80 in booths, organic dog food was available and toilet paper that did not harm the environment was being marketed.

But creating a social movement means more than catering to the needs of the few who can afford those luxuries. Talking about the the most toxic, harmful chemicals that were in hair straightener is very important, but so is the fact that those products are used by African-American women. The very group of people, in fact, who were most underrepresented at the conference. Instead of talking to us, Stacy Malkan should have been talking to the predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Seattle to warn people of the danger. Chemicals in baby bubble bath, make-up... that is not information that should be kept to the ones who could afford to spend two days and $15 at a conference, or endlessly more on specialty products that are chemical-free. Creating a movement means going from the bottom up: increasing demand for poison-free children toys and toxin-free hair product means the green economy would grow and the movement would truly begin. It is necessary to be a grass-roots movement in order to be successful.

My suggestions? Instead of holding the conference in downtown Seattle (where parking was $10 for a single day in addition to everything else) bring the conference to the people in places like Rainier Valley White Center to spread the word and gain momentum. Everybody cares for their children and want the best future for them. That means not leaving people out of the conversation so the privileged can have a fun weekend in the nice area of Seattle. Organic soy milk is well and good, but it won't build a movement when the majority of Americans can barely afford to buy their milk from Winco and the world is starving.

Let's have a discussion about Animal Rights.

2008-04-16T12:13:00.000-07:00

I got in an argument today about human rights vs. animal rights. I am just wondering about your thoughts? Was it right for PETA to rescue pets over people when the levees broke in New Orleans? Are animals more helpless than humans and therefor deserve more help from humans? Leave a comment! Because the more I thought about it the more unclear the problem became.

Peace!

The Dalai Lama: UW Misses the Point

2008-04-15T23:58:00.000-07:00

On Monday a delegation of Cougs piled into a bus to see the Dalai Lama and sadly the U-Dub missed the point.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama asked to meet with the students of the Pacific Northwest to talk about the future of peace. Yet this conversation and call to action between students and the

spiritual leader was overshadowed by the University of Washington’s own self-importance. I didn’t learn until I arrived that Dalai Lama’s original purpose, to speak to students, had been bastardized into a formal convocation ceremony where the Dalai Lama was awarded an honorary degree from the U-Dub. The stage where His holiness sat was not full with students but with faculty in full graduation dress robes symbolically representing the hijacking of the dialogue by the University’s administration.

The University of Washington had all the best intentions -- an honorary degree is the greatest honor that they can bestow -- but they missed the point. His wisdom doesn’t need to be validated by having a worthless honorary degree. The degree itself seems patronizing. “Here in the west all our wisdom and our validity is marked by this piece of paper (a degree) so you can have one too. Here you go.” He didn’t need or want an honorary degree; he wanted to have a conversation about changing our world philosophy with the future generation.

He doesn’t need another award or meaningless honor? click

Despite the University of Washington’s worthless ego masturbation the Dalai Lama was able to speak about peace and how it can only be achieved though inner peace. In other

words, we need to learn to love ourselves and reject negative feelings. This is because negative feelings only led to our own individual suffering, which can led to anger, and then more hate. He said that peace could only be achieved when individuals can break this cycle and learn to value compassion more than hate and violence. This is his dream for the world but he is also realistic. No generation can make that kind of change in merely one lifetime. The short-term solution, he said, is to educate and offer respect and opportunities for success.

According to the Dalai Lama we need to focus on three things:

1) We need the will power to face any conflict with dialogue. Because dialogue is the only way.

2) We need determination to refuse force because violence only begets more violence.
3) We need wisdom, which he explains as a holistic view of the world. We need to realize that everything is inter-connected and because of that no group of people can be an enemy. The destruction of your enemy is the destruction of yourself. And it is through this philosophy that we can get our conviction.

It is time for us to put away all of awards and honors and listen to what he is saying. If University of Washington really wants to honor the Dalai Lama try leading the way in reducing tuition costs and increasing the spread of knowledge throughout the world for free. Face it; we like being the elites with the degrees and part of the most educated one percent of the world. And we like giving honorary degrees to those that work for real change and then we kid ourselves into thinking that we’re not part of the problem. Once we get over our own superiority complex maybe we can truly understand what the Dalai Lama is saying and help to make real change.

Sweatshop Campaign: We got lucky

2008-04-13T19:11:00.000-07:00

I'm glad the PSU didn't have a sit-in that ended like this, but it would have made a great story.

BOONE, N.C. -- Six students were arrested at Appalachian State University, ending a sit-in protest about working conditions in factories where school-licensed clothing is made.

The Winston-Salem Journal reported that the students were charged Friday with disorderly conduct and trespassing. All posted their bail.

The sit-in began Wednesday morning in the school's administration building. It involved members of United Students Against Sweatshops, which wants Appalachian State to join the Designated Suppliers Program.

The students say that would ensure that university-licensed apparel isn't made in factories that have unfair labor conditions.

Administrators said the school is affiliated with the Fair Labor Association, but students say the manufacturers control that group.

Friends Don’t let Friends Support Sweatshops

2008-04-11T18:54:00.000-07:00

Nickolas Conrad
The Daily Evergreen
Published: 04/08/2008 00:00:00

In a global economy, we often purchase clothes and goods without any knowledge of how they were produced. In America, we are led by companies such as Wal-Mart, always expecting to pay bottom dollar. As long as what we want is cheap, we have no regard for the ethical implications.

We are all perpetrators of “fetishism,” a condition that overrides our sense of decency in lusting after a material object. In our desire for the new object, we fail to reflect how our purchases support unjust or harmful corporate practices. Fetishism symbolizes how we care only for ourselves.

As educated citizens, we should be concerned about our impact on the lives of others. In their race to out-compete and provide goods at the lowest dollar, corporations cross political borders. This causes a new form of underhanded exploitation. Devoid of the same labor laws and workers’ rights, employees across the world can be aggressively exploited in ways that would be illegal in the U.S. Whether we choose to recognize it or not, how we spend our money is an ethical and political act.

I doubt anyone on campus could name the corporation or country that produced their WSU jersey. The WSU Progressive Student Union has been crusading against this lack of awareness. Last semester, wearing cardboard boxes, PSU demonstrated for WSU to join the Worker Rights Consortium. The group said it would rather wear cardboard boxes than sweatshop clothing. President Elson S. Floyd signed onto the WRC two days later.

The WRC is one of the largest sports apparel monitoring groups in the U.S. and this was a significant win for social justice. The WRC investigates factory conditions in the U.S. and around the world to monitor labor practices. Universities that sign onto the WRC ensure that wherever their logo is used, basic human rights are respected. The WRC works to end sweatshop labor and stop workplace abuses. More than 100 colleges and universities have signed on.

But PSU did not stop with the WRC. The group took the issue one step further and asked Floyd to also sign onto the Designated Suppliers Program. Since WRC is only a supervisory force, the DSP guarantees the supplier will be in compliance with minimum standards, including the right to organize, bargain collectively and receive living wages.

“Sweatshop labor is a broader human rights issue,” PSU member Chelsea Tremblay said. “All people deserve to be treated as equal human beings, just the same as U.S. citizens?” Tremblay has helped lead the anti-sweatshop campaign.

Our economic system can be unethical and opportunistic, caring for profit before principles. American companies contract their factories to areas with the lowest bidders, where workers’ rights can be ignored. If we believe in human rights, we should strive to provide workers with the same benefits we enjoy. Anything else is exploitative. Foreign workers are not means to our selfish, materialistic ends.

Thanks to PSU, a couple weeks ago, Floyd agreed to sign onto the DSP. We should thank Floyd for his compliance, but we are still waiting to see him follow through.

We should be proud of what a small group of passionate students has done for WSU. We should strive to be ethical consumers and thank activists for making this process that much easier.

Boycotting the Olympics

2008-04-11T04:14:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks there has been a lot of talk about the upcoming Olympic Games and whether or not various national and supranational governments and entities should boycott the games to send a message to China that their constant and unabashed violation of human rights, especially in Tibet, will not be tolerated any longer. Let me be clear at the very start of this, China’s record on human rights is appalling. There is absolutely no excuse in my mind for their continued occupation of Tibet, their violent crackdown of peaceful Tibetan protests, or their continued sale of arms to the Sudanese government despite the genocide it is perpetuating in Darfur (to list a few things).

With that said however, I cannot say that I am fully in support of boycotting the 2008 Olympics, though I fully understand the reasons for doing so. There is something fitting that the world, unwilling to pressure China on its human rights, finally takes some action at the very moment China is attempting to promote itself as a modern and respectable country.

However at the same time, as it seems to me, the Olympics are not the venue which should be used to protest China’s record of human rights violations, in large part because of the spirit in which the Olympic Games are supposed to be held. The Olympics are about a time when the world comes together and finds a way to compete in a non-violent manner, and shows people across the globe that we are not as different as we are made out to be. The problem that I’ve had with some of the protests is that they seem more focused on forcing world leaders to boycott the Olympics than they are in forcing China to improve its human rights record. Thankfully there are many people who have been pushing this issue for a while, and others who have learned about it recently and will support their cause, but for others it seems to be a bandwagon to jump on rather for the time being rather than a cause they are willing to see through to the end; a situation which does not result in real change but rather one which leaves the Olympics and this rare moment of world unity as the real victims. One such example can be found in Congress, where the House passed a resolution saying that China needs to improve its human rights record or these will be the “genocide games”. A good statement but how many of those same members of Congress who voted for that resolution would vote for trade sanctions with China if it’s human rights record doesn’t improve, or even for a resolution calling on China to support human rights any other time of the year?

Protesting for human rights in China is one thing, using the 2008 Olympics to protest because you’re too afraid or just unwilling to do it otherwise is something else entirely. It’s up to us as a world population not to work towards boycotting the games but towards convincing members of Congress, the President, the United Nations, and other world leaders that they must take real action on this issue even when the Olympics aren’t an issue; because it seems to me that only then will real progress be made.

I have to admit that part of me does want the games to be boycotted, and that same part cheers a little whenever I hear that someone else isn’t going to the Opening Ceremony. But I think what finally moved me just over the edge to where I am now was the Dalai Lama who said that the protests should be allowed (so long as they’re peaceful obviously), but that at the same time China has the right to host the games. He knows the important thing is not what happens at the games but what happens to his people, and I think that’s what’s really important.

Progressive Student Union Wins Anti-Sweatshop Campaign!

2008-04-10T19:14:00.000-07:00

Press release, sent out April 10, 2008

Progressive Student Union Wins Anti-Sweatshop Campaign

PULLMAN, Wash – Members of the Progressive Student Union were ecstatic Thursday upon hearing that the WSU administration had signed a letter of intent to join the Designated Suppliers Program. Signing of the letter marks the final stage of PSU’s anti-sweatshop campaign. The Progressive Student Union has been collecting student signatures in addition to sending weekly letters to President Floyd as a way to encourage the administration to sign on to the program. PSU had set a deadline for April 16^th.

Chelsea Tremblay, organizer of PSU’s anti-sweatshop campaign said, “This is an important step not only for WSU, but for human rights everywhere.” Tremblay first heard about the anti-sweatshop campaign from students at Western Washington University, and decided to bring the movement to the Pullman campus. “I went home, looked in my closet, and began to realize how far reaching this problem is. I decided I wanted to change something.” Tremblay said all of her WSU apparel had come from developing countries where worker abuse is not uncommon.

Andrew Goodin, member of Progressive Student Union said, "Signing on to the DSP shows that this new administration under President Floyd listens to the student voice. Campus activism works. "

Full text of WSU’s letter of intent can be found online at http://workersrights.org/dsp. The Progressive Student Union meets Wednesday at 6pm in CUE 409. Meetings are open to the public.

WE DID IT!

Border Insecurities

2008-04-08T16:11:00.000-07:00

"A number of people who have supported me on the border fence in the U.S. have observed the fences in Israel and their effectiveness."-Duncan Hunter (House of Representative of San Diego)

In 2005, Congress handed Michael Chertoff was granted the power to suspend any laws that may impede on fence building across the U.S.-Mexico International Border. Last week, Chertoff acted on these granted powers and suspended 30 laws that vary from protection of endangered species (like the Bald Eagle, the very symbol of the States), the environment and even Native American burial grounds. Though people like Sec. Chertoff and Rep. Hunter would argue in favor of these measures, sighting domestic security would be compromised without the fence.

However, this is not the case. I feel like I have to repeat the fact that the terrorists responsible for the terrorist attack of 9/11 did not in fact come through the Mexican/American Border far too often. They crossed through the Canadian Border. There is also the issue of the rising death toll of illegal immigrant crossings, which is up a staggering 500% in the past four year (Cited). As the economic issue continues to worsten in Mexico, a result of the free-market that allows 1/5 of the nation to live in extreme poverty while a single individual, Carlos Slim Helú, is the second richest individual in the world. The 1994 NAFTA agreement still has yet to have the return anything to the actual Mexican citizens.

As for the crime claim, studies released by the FBI have shown that of all crimes commited, 19% are committed by foreign-born people, which is proportionate with the 19.6% of the population they represent. (Cited) And as for how often crime is committed by repeat offenders, "This recidivism (repeat offender) rate of 37 percent was well below the 66 percent figure for the U.S. criminal population for the comparable period. (Cited)"

Though this is just scratching the surface of the complexity of the issues with immigration and national security, I feel by talking about these issues, we can open dialog to actually resolve these issues. American citizens cannot allow this Administration to continue to go unchecked and further damage our image internationally. More to come on domestic terrorism, indigenous resistance and a favorite of mine, NAFTA and the Zapatista movement. If you want to find some more reading, I'd advise reading on here

NWPC: The Murrow Symposium

2008-04-06T18:48:00.000-07:00

Edward R Morrow Symposium: Don Hewitt

“The Thirty-fourth Edward R Morrow Symposium at Washington State University honored Don Hewitt, creator of 60 minutes and the CBS news executive producer, with the 2008 Edward R Morrow Award-Lifetime Achievement in Broadcast Journalism.”

Hewitt gave a speech about his life, his accomplishments and what he saw as the failings of the news media to expose the lies of the Bush administration. He cited the media’s close relationship with powerful elites as one of the major problems in the news industry today. Hewitt’s sharp wit and charm made him seem larger than life. But when he was asked more contemporary questions about the future of media his age and lack of understanding showed. When asked his opinion, he admitted not knowing what a blog was or media consolidation. But that really doesn’t matter. He was one of the original framers of a new television medium and his risks and triumphs laid the groundwork for how television is used today. It is up to the Communication students packed in Beasley Coliseum to find the answers to what lay ahead in media. We can only hope that there is a young ambitious student in the audience that can rescue the news industry and realize the full potential of a new evolving medium just as Hewitt did in the late 1940’s.

Although the symposium was not technically part of the NWPC its focus on the future of media is an important topic to discuss. The symposium was a fascinating look at the life of a man that had worked in television for over 60 years and has been in the background of so much history.

PSU's Response to Inflammatory Evergreen Editorial

2008-04-02T21:00:00.000-07:00

(This is a guest editorial, written by numerous members of the PSU, in response to an article written by sophomore Communications major and College Republican Chris Johnson. His original article can be seen here.)

It would be presumptuous for the Progressive Student Union to speak for all progressives, everywhere, at all times. So is the argument that all extreme liberals are communists hoping to turn the United States into the Soviet Union. No sane person would argue a gulag is “fun”, and one person should not attempt to speak for millions.

That is why democracy is the best possible government conceivable. One person can not speak for an entire nation, and it is ludicrous to insinuate otherwise. The very same “extreme liberals” who are supposed to be pushing for totalitarianism are the same ones screaming over voting disenfranchisement, suggesting more than a little hypocrisy. Why would we care about the disenfranchisement of the American citizen if we wanted to take away their right to vote?

It is our mission, as a student group on campus, to push for human equality and justice. An injustice inflicted on a single American is one inflicted upon us all. When a single citizen is jailed in solitary confinement for years without a trial, none of us are free. The idea that our views can be expounded into communism and totalitarianism is little more than ridiculous.

International human rights are an absolute necessity for members of our group. Taking away sweatshops does not take away an entire job market; it changes the market into one that does not take advantage of the workers. By creating jobs with living wages rather than perpetuate the exploitation of people around the world, PSU feels that the anti-sweatshop campaign is one of the best ways to increase living standards worldwide. All humans deserve to be able to provide for their families without having to give up their dignity and lives in substandard working conditions.

We are not destroying America. Senator Barack Obama is not destroying America. The New York Times is not destroying America. What destroys America is fear, suspicion of one’s fellow countrymen and lack of respect for one another. Waging wars, whether against other nations or our own people through deportation and intimidation, are wrong no matter who perpetrates them. An example is the War in Iraq, where more than 4,000 soldiers have died with countless Iraqi civilians and a national debt that is currently crippling our economy which will have an immeasurable effect on our nation’s future. This war has done more to destroy our country and its image than any one hippie or politician could ever hope to. We oppose unnecessary wars that result in nothing more than loss of life and devastation because of our strong beliefs that human life is sacred. We do not believe lives should be lost because of a politician’s incompetence.

Human life is sacred; yes, liberals say the word sacred. Whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or atheist, true progressives believe that all people are equal and should be treated as such. Members of our own group hold different spiritual beliefs, and are still able to realize that no life can be ignored. No religion or belief should promote hatred or superiority over another. That is the opposite of a true progressive.

Our America must continue to change and grow, which is a necessity for any true democratic society. That is what we believe as progressives.

We are students who are concerned about our planet. Caring for one another should not be seen as a weakness or a sign of evil to come. If we are ripping apart America’s moral foundations by showing compassion and promoting equality, what kind of America do you live in?

A Brilliant Response to Dinesh D'Souza

2008-03-29T21:03:00.000-07:00

D’Souza Speech Destroyed Opportunity for Dialogue
Elaine Wood
The Daily Evergreen
Published: 03/28/2008 00:00:00

Dinesh D’Souza delivered a speech titled “Racism is not the problem” to a packed CUE auditorium Tuesday night. He argued that racism does not contribute to the consistently different scores of ethnic and racial groups on standardized educational tests. He also spoke against affirmative action. While he claimed to be advancing intellectual diversity, he unfortunately packaged his message like propaganda.

To argue his point, D’Souza repeatedly used a bait-and-switch approach. He would refer to one school or situation, cite a fact or statistic, and then jump to a conclusion about society as a whole. Or he would start with a large group – such as 160 tests he had examined – then provide data related to group’s performance on one specific test without even providing its name. In this way, he never overtly lied or misstated data but still misrepresented the situations and made implications that were not logically supported.

D’Souza incorporated manipulation in his argument by frequent using of the straw man fallacy. A straw man occurs when a person describes their opponent’s position in a weak way and then has no problem in discrediting that straw-like position. Several times, he paired an exaggerated and ridiculous position with the opposing argument, then dismissed the entire argument with ridicule without ever addressing its realistic components. For example, D’Souza sarcastically asked if the Ku Klux Klan had written the SAT, implying that since it was not, it must be benign.

D’Souza’s ethnicity and background gives him incredible flexibility when addressing race issues. Elitely educated as a child in India, he came to the U.S. as an exchange student before attending an Ivy League college. With his diversity, he becomes almost a shapeshifter. With a mocking tone of superiority, he often denied that institutional racism causes individuals of color to receive different educational opportunities. However, when a young man articulated the discrimination he faced in school, D’Souza suddenly could relate, saying, “You and I are on the same page.” At the end of his speech, D’Souza claimed to be advancing intellectual diversity; this claim could have been legitimate had he presented information in a well-referenced manner so anyone could find the statistics he cited. But apparently, he intentionally kept the audience in the dark about the specific details of his sources.

The most unfortunate aspect of the lecture was that an incredible opportunity to hold an honest dialogue about a timely, important issue was degraded by this speaker’s disrespect for opposing points of view and his refusals to reason logically. It is surprising the Foley Institute would sponsor someone who modeled such poor scholarship to WSU students. After last night’s presentation by D’Souza, the issue of racism is further obscured and individuals are more highly polarized. I hope this was not the goal when D’Souza was nominated for a public lecture.

PSU Youtube Video

2008-03-29T20:22:00.000-07:00

...Because every group needs a YouTube video.

NWPC: April 3rd through 5th

2008-03-28T21:15:00.000-07:00

Don't miss this year's second annual Northwest Progressive Conference held on the WSU campus April 3ed through the 5th. According to the Web site,

"The goal of the Northwest Progressive Conference is to reach out to the Northwest community in an effort to bring together activists, artists, academics, advocates, and anyone who is interested in social change and social justice to share skills, ideas, and educate one another." Northwest Progressive Conference Web Site

To learn more:

Northwest progressive Conference Web site

Northwest Progressive Conference Facebook