Harvard Blogs Aggregator » Cambridge Common

« Expand/Collapse

Cambridge Common

August 25, 2007
5:21
Two Points
» ‎ Cambridge Common

In a truly diabolical scheme, California may change its electoral policy. While I'm not sure it's going to survive federal review, there's a chance a referendum will take place just months before the 2008 presidential election in California. Democrats depend upon all the electoral votes from California and New York so this would be truly devastating if this passes. Read about it here at CNN. Also note that if this had occured before 2004, Bush would not have even needed Ohio to capture the presidency.

Also, take a look at this awful expose from MSNBC about some Iraq whistlebowers.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.
The article goes on to talk about that massive amount of corruption surrounding Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department.
August 07, 2007
10:58
Let's Give Ben Affleck More Credit
» ‎ Cambridge Common

At the end of the last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, noted Razzie Award winner Ben Affleck delivered a riveting monologue that damn near erased the memory of “Pearl Harbor” from my psyche. Paraphrasing, he basically said that Democrats are so afraid of being pussies that they capitulate to Bush on matters of foreign policy. Ironically this conviction that they won’t be made to look like pussies just makes them huge pussies. Thankfully Affleck’s greatest performance has been immortalized on YouTube (go about to minute six to see Affleck in his greatest glory). Also just because Ron Paul is so endearingly crazy, this was his appearance on that same episode. A round of applause for the only Republican to get an applause from Bill Maher’s audience.

I remembered Ben’s point this weekend when it was announced that a number of Democrats sided with the White House over warrant-less wiretapping. Since I’m not as eloquent as Glenn Greenwald, I’ll highlight what he said about this matter. Russ Feingold, as usual, provides the only silver lining in sight.

There is no vast yearning in America to allow the President the power to eavesdrop on our conversations with no warrants or oversight. There is no powerful political movement in the heartland demanding unlimited executive power. The notion is patently false that it is politically fatal to insist that eavesdropping be conducted only with warrants, or that we abide by minimal norms of civilization in how we interrogate people, or that we grants basic due process rights to people before we detain them for life.

***

It is worth underscoring that Feingold -- the "1" in the 98-1 vote in favor of the 2001 Patriot Act and the prime sponsor of the Censure Resolution -- hails not from Massachusetts or California or some other safe blue state, but from the quite purple state of Wisconsin, and has won re-election by slim margins. Yet he continues aggressively to take these stands, and remains in the U.S. Senate. As noted earlier, Jon Tester removed a long-time GOP incumbent and ran on a platform of complete repeal of the Patriot Act. The Democrats' behavior is not only craven and destructive, but also based on pure myth that opposing George W. Bush on anything -- including Terrorism -- will doom them politically.
And if this doesn’t make you want to vomit, this will. Apparently Bush’s ratings are actually going up. I generally don’t like polls that try and gage the national attitude, but this is the second one in a row that shows Bush and the Iraq War is becoming slightly more tolerable to this country.

On a completely unrelated note, my beloved childhood classic Alvin & The Chipmunks has been re-imagined into an awful CGI mess with that guy from "My Name is Earl." I officially declare the end of Western Civilization as we know it.
July 31, 2007
11:27
It's A Small World After Coll(ege)
» ‎ Cambridge Common

I've been hibernating for a minute, visiting NY and Cambridge and reading blogs for my thesis (today I learned that one of the regulars in my DC home-base coffeehouse describes me as "that girl who stares at her computer screen for hours without looking up"). But this delightful bit of serendipity warrants a quick peek out of my cave.

Just a few minutes ago, as I'm sitting in aforementioned home-base coffeehouse, doing my screen fixation thing, from across the room I hear another patron reveal herself as a Harvard alum. My nosiness kicks in, so on pretense of refilling my hibiscus-ginger iced tea, I sidle up to her and her eating companion and ask what her concentration was. A few rounds of onion-layer comparisons later ("You went to Harvard, too?"..."Oh, you live in Cabot? I lived in Mather"..."Oh, you're WGS? My ex and a lot of my friends were WGS"..."Oh, you know Barusch? I know Barusch"...), it turns out I'm talking to none other than maudite entendante (of Quench fame) and the younger sib of one of my dearest Harvard friends. The former is passing through DC; the latter's been here working and researching for the summer. Seriously, this is like 18 levels of holy shitness.

So here's to the founders of Quench, members of the Cohen family, and the funky little coffeeshops that facillitate my meeting them.
July 23, 2007
12:57
Maybe Al Gore DID Win... in the non-traditional sense
» ‎ Cambridge Common

It’s been awhile since I last posted, mostly because this summer has actually been pretty busy. I had an internship in LA with a talent agency. Since then I’ve been bombarded with two questions 1) Did you see anybody famous? (Yes) and 2) Is it like “Entourage?” (Yes and No). And now I’m back in Dallas working for a book agent and doing research for a writer.

In other words, I’m doing absolutely nothing that has to do with politics or progressivism. In the traditional sense. Lately I’ve been thinking about whether or not politics is the best way to promote progressivism or good old-fashioned liberal ideas. We live in a country where more people can identity Paris Hilton than Nancy Pelosi. It’s a scary truth that perhaps those politically-minded should be mindful of.

I’ve been a lifelong Democrat and a liberal my entire life. I like politics but after last summer when I had an internship in D.C, I realized this is not a lifestyle I could ever adjust to. And this is where Al Gore comes into the picture. As we all know Al Gore was basically bred to be a politician: the son of a senator who went to Harvard who eventually ended up in The Capital. But’s let’s face it folks he was a really bad politician (and he admits it to).

Al Gore lost the 2000 election (or “lost” if you want to be technical about it) and gained a lot of weight and than lost a lot of weight. And somewhere between his elliptical forays he began making some slides and touring around the country showing how our environment is destructing: the polar ice caps are melting, the oceans are rising, and one day we’re going to lose Florida – something Gore knows a lot about. [OK – that’s courtesy of Bill Maher]

And somehow Gore graced the cover of “Entertainment Weekly,” won and Oscar, and ignited what I like to call “conservatism lite.” Sure I’m not saving the rain forest by traveling to the Amazon and planting what ever sort of trees grow there, but I’ve started recycling and my family now turns off the lights more frequently. They’re small steps but those are the very steps that matter in the end.

So maybe Al Gore did lose, but ended up winning in the end. And while Live Earth wasn’t the major concert success it was supposed to be, there were a damn large amount of people watching Fergie declare she’s going to get rid of her Hummer.

I’m not saying politics is a bad thing. Oh no, quite the contrary. But it’s for such a narrow group of people. Al Gore isn’t one of those people. Neither is Michael Moore. Or Morgan Spurlock. The list goes on with people who have accomplished so much progressivism without having to step foot in the swampland of D.C.

The Cineplex has now become a red/blue battleground and movies are now political debates. Both the left and right tried to claim “Knocked Up” (while I’ll grant the movie does have a unique twist on family values, I just don’t think the conservative case is merited).

However, I actually think no movie unless it’s produced by Sean Hannity is truly partisan. Recently the right-wing has desperately tried to wave up And recently the right-wing has desperately tried to portray“Rescue Dawn” as a pro-war film. It’s supposed to show how strong and resilient American soldiers are. He’s a pilot! He’s fighting in a war! He’s a POW! He’s eating maggots to survive! Heck, there was even a fourth of July screening of the movie for the troops at Camp Anaconda.

And this, my friends, is not right. Personally I think this movie is a lot more complex than good old fashioned Democrat v. Republican. But you don’t leave the theater thinking “Wow, this sure is a Blue State movie” or “Wow, This makes me want to vote for Rudy Giuliani.” You leave the theater THINKING. The movie makes you ponder about Iraq, Gitmo, and all the atrocities that humans commit everyday. But most importantly it challenges you. So I hesitate to call it progressivism because I doubt that’s what director Werner Herzog intended.

But after seeing this movie I certainly feel all the more anti-war than ever. And that my friends, is a progressive victory.

Last random thought of the day (courtesy of Bill Maher).

Isn’t it funny that the only major Republican candidate who has only been married once is the Mormon?
July 05, 2007
5:55
Incarceration? Thanks But No Thanks, Say the Rich and Powerful
» ‎ Cambridge Common

When white people say "justice," they mean "just us."

-- Black American folk aphorism

I've spent the bulk of the past two days in wheezing golf carts, shuttling Little Richard and other minor celebrities, so no time for blogging. And I won't say much on the two recent discraceful get-out-of-jail-free shams of the criminal (in)justice system (Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby), except that they serve as a grim reminder that the U.S.'s globally chart-topping imprisonment rate applies mainly to poor people, Black and Latino men, and, increasingly, Black and Latina women (with a whole host of attendant problems there).

Some positive local news, though (well, local to me, anyway): on Tuesday, Maryland's newly enfranchised citizens with past felony convictions submitted their voter registration papers. Prior to passage of the Voting Registration Protection Act of 2007, Maryland was one of 11 states with permanent felon disenfranchisement laws, and even revoked voting rights from some folks convicted of misdemeanors. One out of every 37 Maryland residents was denied the right to vote because they'd been convicted of a felony. One out of every 37. Even more mindboggling, that figure isn't actually far off of the national statistic: one out of every 40 voting age adults, a net population increase of about 500% in the past 30 years. In some states, 1 in 4 Black men do not have the right to vote. (If that's not a gender discrimination problem that ought to concern feminists, I don't know what is.)

Such electorate restrictions not only earn the U.S. a dubious distinction among industrialized countries, they also squarely contradict public opinion domestically: most Americans believe that after you've done your time, you should regain the power of the ballot. Why should such anti-democratic policies -- and one of the starkest examples of institutional racism -- remain open secrets, receiving nary a mention even during the Black-themed Democrat presidential debate hosted at Howard University? Truly, the silence and surrounding the problem is staggering. How many Harvard students, do you suppose, realize that 5.3 million U.S. citizens cannot cast a vote because of a felony conviction? I know I had no clue before taking a Core class freshman year on race, ethnicity, and politics.

If you're looking for a good read on the topic (you know, to celebrate the birth of the nation), check out the latest book from respected researchers Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen, called Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Or, if articles are more your style, they've published plenty in various journals.

Fortunately, tireless efforts by state and local civil rights groups (much more effective, apparently, than large-scale legal groups) are paying off in recent years with new legislation like Maryland's re-enfranchisement law. Now that's the kind of democratic rennaisance befitting the Fourth of July.
July 01, 2007
7:18
Diagnosis: Sicko
» ‎ Cambridge Common

I know embarrassingly little about the ins and outs of health policy in the United States, so seeing Sicko yesterday seemed like a fairly entertaining introduction to the topic before I actually have to get beyond liking healthcare and support an actual candidate with an actual policy. The movie was good - it does a very persuasive job of making everyone in the theater aware that many people get screwed over (and by "screwed over," I kind of mean "killed") by insurance companies, and then charges into the alternatives that they've adopted in Canada, England, France, and finally, Cuba. It careens from funny to tear-jerking with breakneck speed, but the thing that I noticed most (and maybe this has something to do with the emotional tug of the film) is that the most incisive points aren't made by Michael Moore in a voiceover like they were in Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 911. He basically feigns incredulity and lets the people in the hospitals and cities that he visits do all of the legwork, and I thought that actually worked really, really well. Plenty of people hate Michael Moore, but it's hard to hate a single mother who lost a child, or 9/11 rescue workers, or a woman living in her daughter's basement because cancer drove her bankrupt. And for the most part, they're the ones who drive the film.

If anything, that leaves the film a little light on the policy parts of the solution, but it does a decent job of identifying a problem and demonstrating that it's not the only functional system that we necessarily have to be stuck with. Moore interviews this brilliantly charming guy in Britain who talks about how the National Health Service emerged from the devastation wrought by World War II, which sort of begs the question of how a similar system would be brought about in the United States. Obviously, there are different ways to do it, but they were sort of elided by the film. (Which means I do actually have to learn about this, which was kind of a let-down.) I'm just finishing What Should the Left Propose, and Unger talks a lot about the role that crisis has historically played in our major policy changes in America. Even if Britain and France are ideal models, the film didn't really address what it would entail for us to get from here to there, especially without that crisis-induced solidarity to bind us together and spur us to change. Still, it does a very good job of demonstrating that many people don't like it here, and that there might not be so bad after all. And if the film succeeds at all, that should be a pretty great first step.

Then again, I don't actually know that much about health policy. What did other people think of the movie? Are there workable solutions being floated around in policy circles, or is it still a matter of identifying the problem and building the support for a movement? And is Ratatouille going to single-handedly prevent the people from overthrowing corporate healthcare? Discuss.
June 30, 2007
11:28
Family Matters
» ‎ Cambridge Common

This thought isn't particularly novel, but it's something I haven't seen folks raise in the recent discussion on immigration law reform, here or on Harvard listservs. It came to mind thanks to Kyle's important insights (thanks for sharing them -- and sorry for my sloppy error in leaving out Mexico, the Caribbean, etc. from my emigration comment!), in which he writes:

The reason [immigration communities form] that way is directly related to the U.S.'s unique system of immigration that bases itself around families. This bill changes that to a points based system that will radically alter the U.S. for generations to come. Instead of family based immigration, skills will be the primary factor considered, and we all know what that means. This points based system is going to whiten and homogenize the U.S. It's an ingenous way to appease nativist concerns when you think about it--base it around "merit" rather than race.

Altering (and restricting) family reunification and family-based immigration would constitute a significant change, no question. Realistically, I agree that it will probably worsen an already racist selection process, along with undermining the classic "coming to America" narrative many people cherish so dearly. But what does a narrative centered on families really mean?

A look at Stanley Kurtz's wack analysis at the National Review Online provides a clue:

Here we arrive at one of the central difficulties of America’s immigration debate. Mention immigration and many of us conjure up hallowed memories of our ancestors passing through Ellis Island — and of America’s stirring, centuries-long immigration success story. America’s melting-pot is unquestionably one of this country’s great historic triumphs.

Yet the reality of that achievement too easily blinds us to the fact that not all immigration stories end happily. In an era when the assimilationist ethos has been challenged by multiculturalism, when travel, telephones, and satellite dishes continuously link immigrants with homes half-way round the world, and when the cultural gap between immigrant and host cultures can turn into a chasm, we cannot take immigration success for granted.

Nor can pro-family Christians be properly accused of hypocrisy for thinking twice about promoting Asian or Middle-Eastern family values — if those values are radically different from their own. Polygamy? Cousin marriage? Extended clans held together by transnational arranged marriages? If anything these practices (encouraged by permissive family-reunification policies) are seriously undermining Western family values in Europe. Yet neither the pro-family lobby — nor anyone else in America — seems to understand the cultural disaster family-reunification laws have wrought in Europe.
Talk about ugly nativism. The belief that immigrant groups must assimilate to (white) U.S. culture in order to achieve "success" not only pervades conservative thought, but taints even the philosophies of socially progressive icons like Jane Addams. But while Kurtz's horrified enumeration of brown people's scandalous family values stinks of racism, it also reveals something important: American reunification laws have always only formally recognized and validated a certain kind of family. If you're a queer Argentinian who wants to 'reunite' with your lover in the States, sorry -- you're out of luck. Our system is designed for the respectable, "real" families requiring preservation in order to thrive in communities conforming to the American ideal. (One wonders whether assimilation to U.S. family norms means filing for divorce after a few years.) Kurtz is concerned that the sneaky heathens will game the system, finding ways around the regulated marriage standards. But for progressives, the system's setup is troubling in itself.

From the legacy of the Moynihan Report to legislation barring gay couples from adopting, the politics of the family remain rife with racism, sexism, classism, colonialism, and heterosexism. Where white immigration is concerned, heterosexuality (reproductive heterosexuality, really) figures hugely into our treasured legends of the "huddled masses," disembarking on U.S. shores with hope in their eyes and babies in their arms. On the flip side, racist, alarmist strains of environmentalism have accused brown immigrants of breeding like rabbits and degrading precious U.S. ecosystems. Both legends, and more, shape and are shaped by our heteronormative legal systems. It's not all bad news: slowly, ideas about family are assuming more flexible and heterogeneous forms, which is great. But we've got a long way to go. As we oppose the attack on family reunification policies, let's be aware of which loaded fantasies we're marshalling in order to make our point.
June 29, 2007
12:31
Quick Round-up
» ‎ Cambridge Common

Lots to celebrate in our little Harvard blog-o-sphere lately!

Kaya's back at afropologë, wondering why supposed 'gay biology' experts seem to have such a tough time distinguishing between gender and sexual orientation. And why all the focus on whether 'gayness' is a choice or not, when the real problem is that so many people fear the queer. And by "fear" I also mean "perceive as deviant, seek to disfranchise, and generally oppress."

DemApples has some new blood: the impressive incoming first year Sam Jack. Even with the relief labor, Markus remains as prolific (and bizarro-hilarious) as ever. Check out their exchange on post-modern politics (parts 1, 2, and 3). I disagree with Markus that liberals are inherently relativistic; something more along the lines of John Stuart Mill's belief in constructing a total Truth by assembling fragmented perspectives seems more likely. He and Sam also omit a couple of important elements, I think, from the truth-and-politics equation (like money and hierachies of epistemology, both of which determine whose truths gain an audience with government). Interesting stuff, anyway. Glad to have a new neighbor!

icarus and emily0 are holding it down over at Quench, most recently with news of a cross-dressing political candidate in Pakistan, and a chance to support the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition in their lobbying for HR-1722, "An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes."

And in blog-related news, earlier this month the Crimson ran a piece by IvyGate masterminds Chris Beam and Nick Summers, loosely outlining a code of conduct for the age of digital humiliation. Is it just me, or are attempts to construct social norms in cyberpace utterly fascinating?

Happy reading!

ps: This isn't so much Harvard-related as writers-I-like -related, but Katha Pollitt has succumbed to teh blogging fever over at The Nation. Swoon.
8:09
In Which SCOTUS Gives Us Hope That We Won't Totally Hate Them
» ‎ Cambridge Common

In the midst of all of the resegregation and bong hits and gutting of campaign finance laws that has gone on this week, the Supreme Court announced today that it would hear an appeal from detainees at Guantanamo who want the right to be tried in federal court. Although this would be a huge blow to democracy if they heard the case and ruled in favor of the Bush Administration, I'd like to think that even strict constructionists could rally behind, say, habeas corpus.
June 27, 2007
9:18
Janet Napolitano and the Immigration Bill
» ‎ Cambridge Common

I went to the National Press Club today for a briefing on immigration reform, straight from Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona. I've read about her, but only a bit - I knew that she's super-popular as a Democratic governor of a solidly purple state, and that the White House Project had named her one of their 8 in '08. I'm inexplicably invested on the immigration bill passing, though, so I wanted to see what she had to say.

And then she walked in, and I fell in love.

My new BFF Janet supports comprehensive immigration reform, and was on the Hill today to try to build support for the bill. The way she sees it, the opponents of the bill aren't actually in favor of much, and would leave the US with the untenable status quo - which has laws against illegal immigration, but enforces them so rarely that they're ineffective when unused and wholly arbitrary when they're actually enforced. And without comprehensive reform, nothing's going to be beefed up or altered to address that.

So 500,000 people were apprehended by the Border Patrol in Arizona in 2005, which made up 50% of the apprehensions nationwide - partially, because enforcement was heavily focused on California and Texas and left the stretch of Arizona's border badly underaddressed. It's the fastest growing state in the US (who knew?) and spends a great deal of its time and energy dealing with immigration when it should probably be responding to its severe water shortages and serious transportation problems. For a governor, immigration is especially frustrating - the state spends $357 million per annum to imprison undocumented immigrants for various offenses, which could be used to fund all-day kindergarten for every child in Arizona for two years instead. (I gathered that Janet prefers the latter.)

Even for people who are on the fence, I felt like she made a pretty convincing case. If immigration isn't addressed in some form or another this year, it's certainly not going to be addressed during an election year, or in the midst of all the political appointments in 2009, or the midterm elections in 2010. And if something isn't done, the states are going to do it on their own, which leaves the door open for fifty different policies that would basically create a total disaster for businesses, immigrants, the federal government, taxpayers, and citizens who don't want the southwest to turn into a crazy police state. That said, I get that it's a much bigger issue for the vocal 25% of the people who oppose it than it is for many of its supporters, that support on the left is watered down by the valid concerns of unions and other groups, and that that puts lawmakers in an odd position. The bill's not perfect, but it's better to work with something on the books than it is to throw up your hands and do nothing.

← Dem Apples Oh Harvard... →

Harvard Blogs Aggregator » Cambridge Common

Feeds

Cambridge Common