Oregon's Voting Rights Victory

Posted by Adam Waxman at 2:24 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

We’re recovering here in Washington, DC from a major Metro accident (it happens to impact me as I use the line that the accident occurred on), so I’m going to focus on something progressive that happened far, far away. Oregon progressives have been celebrating a voting-rights victory this week. Both houses of the Oregon legislature have passed a new bill that will allow Oregon voters to register online. A press release from lead sponsor Representative Ben Cannon elaborates:

[the law] would model Oregon’s online voter registration system on those of Washington and Arizona, where the programs have proven extremely popular. In 2003, the first year of Arizona's Online Voter Registration program, 25 percent of all new voter registrations were done online. In 2007, that percentage jumped to 72 percent. After Washington implemented online voter registration, 1,634 online applications were recorded in the first three days and 38 percent of all Washington voter registrations in 2008 were done online.

The bill received an impressive amount of bipartisan support in the Oregon house. Only nine members voted against the bill in its final form.

Online voter registration is an important step for opening up the democratic process and ensuring that the widest possible group of people have access to the electoral process. The numbers cited by Cannon in many ways speaks for themselves -- people clearly find online voter registration convenient and use it if given to the option. The Bus Project played a large role in ensuring the perspective of young people was heard during this debate.

Ultimately, this bill is about culture change. There’s no reason why Americans shouldn’t be able to register to vote online when we can use so many other government and financial services online. Young people, particularly, need to view voting as a modern thing that is accessible -- being able to register online is an important part of ensuring that the election process keeps up with culture.

Innovation and Iran's Evolution

Posted by M. Junaid Levesque-Alam at 1:10 PM | 1 comment | Permalink

As the tensions and contradictions of Iranian society have been laid bare over the past week, some Western observers have adopted a predictably self-centered view of events, eschewing sober analysis of the protests for ungrounded assertions that do little more than telegraph their own wishes and biases.

Topping the list as always are the neoconservatives, who, apparently not yet hoarse from bellowing for the destruction and invasion of Iran, are now squealing and squawking with feigned concern for the Iranian people as they scold President Obama for not intervening on the protesters’ behalf.

Even much of the mainstream coverage imparts to viewers the impression that Iran’s internal conflict is a Manichean matter of the secular versus the religious; those eagerly aspiring to Western liberal democracy squaring up against dour-faced and ancient Islamists.

A more dispassionate view reveals a much different picture. The protest movement, swelling in the streets of Tehran and other major cities with hundreds of thousands of adherents, has adopted as its banner the signature color of Islam: green. Its defiant nighttime chant is not culled from Die Hard or de Tocqueville, but the iconic cry of the Islamic Revolution: God is Great. The leader of the opposition, Mir Hussein Moussavi, is himself a veteran of the 1979 revolution.

This reality is entirely alien to “experts” who have divided Iran (and the Muslim world at large) into two imaginary camps: radical Islamists who denounce the Great Satan and aspiring secularists who swill wine while swooning over Sex and the City.

Iran has been an Islamic society for 1,300 years, but it has not always been an Islamic Republic. The critical point missed in much of mainstream analysis is that Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution of 1979 was not a wholesale restoration of some glorious Islamic past, but partly an innovation with no precedent in Muslim history—and it is this particular innovation that is the focal point of the current crisis.

Khomeini introduced the principle of Valet-e Faqih into Iranian political discourse—the idea that the wisest and most authoritative Muslim jurist should serve as the representative of the Twelfth Imam, who, in Shi’ite belief, did not die in the 10th century but was hidden by the hand of God and will return alongside Jesus to restore peace and justice on earth.

Khomeini’s theological innovation marked the first time in Muslim history that a cleric claimed not only spiritual but supreme political power—and, quite conveniently, placed him as the head of Iran . Khomeini’s shrewd combination of charisma and ruthlessness ensured that the station of Supreme Leader remained untouchable and irreproachable—but only so long as he was alive.

His successor, the current leading Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is but a shadow of the revolution’s founder; he lacked the religious legitimacy to occupy Khomenei’s post and was therefore forced to consolidate his power by pandering heavily to Iran’s military.

Some commentators on both the left and the right believe that it is precisely Khamenei’s over-reliance on the military that has forced him to throw his weight behind Mahmoud Ahmedenijad (a Revolutionary Guard veteran) and preemptively declare him the winner of the likely-rigged elections.

This theory goes a long way toward explaining the composition and attitudes of the opposition.

In a comprehensive poll conducted by an outside non-profit group three weeks before the election, four-fifths of Iranians said they wanted to make Khamenei’s post elected rather than appointed, vitiating the entire theological basis behind the Valet-e Faqih. This same poll also showed Ahmedinijad holding a commanding 2 to 1 lead, but as it was conducted before the opposition’s impressive push on the eve of elections, it’s not outlandish to assume that an even greater majority support making Khamenei accountable to the people.

Furthermore, what separates this round of protests in scale, scope and substance from the largely student-led eruptions of the past is the support of sections of the clergy, which includes not only relative moderates like Moussavi but firmly established figures like former president Hashemi Rafsanjani. This unlikely alliance between progressives and pragmatic clerics may have come about because the latter feel that their power is being eclipsed by the military.

A fitting illustration of the situation's complexity is today's Washington Times article that says the protests “are led largely by young nonreligious Iranians” but then goes on to note that clerics and ayatollahs are among the opposition's main leaders.

Whatever the particulars, the situation in Iran is complex, fluid, and contradictory, and cannot be oversimplified into a “secular versus religious” schema superimposed by Western onlookers.

The GIVE Act / Kennedy Serve Act PASSED, Moves to Obama

Posted by Kristina Rizga at 12:20 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

***April 1 UPDATE***

The House of Representatives passed the Senate version of the Serve America Act with a 275-149 yesterday. President Obama is expected to sign it into law.

You can see how your Senators or House Representatives voted here.

Here is an analysis of the latest version by the Independent Sector website - an online forum representing the leaders of America's charitable and philanthropic sector.

Serve America Act

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act will triple the number of service volunteers -- from 75,000 to 250,000 -- and expand service opportunities for all stages of life, focusing on such targeted areas as veterans services, the environment, disaster relief, and arts education. The bill will also create a nationwide community-based infrastructure fund to leverage investments in service and set up a volunteer generation fund to help build the capacity of nonprofits to coordinate, train and manage volunteers.

Serve Act Amendments

Advocacy Challenge

Language was included in the House version of this legislation that would prohibit individuals and organizations that participate in National Service programs from engaging in lobbying and advocacy activities outside of National Service programs. The Senate-passed bill contains restrictions on the types of activities for which national service positions can be used, preventing participants from engaging in activities such as voter registration drives, political or legislative advocacy, or providing abortion services. Nonprofit organizations remain free under the bill sent to the President to utilize their own funds to advocate for causes in which they believe.

Nonprofit Capacity Building

The Senate agreed to include the Baucus-Grassley nonprofit capacity building amendment to set up a program in the Corporation for National and Community Service to expand organizational development assistance to small and midsize nonprofit organizations.

Volunteer Generation Fund

This grant program, which was included in the bill sent to the President, will increase the supply of volunteers in the country and strengthen volunteer infrastructure organizations nationwide by helping nonprofits recruit, coordinate, train and manage volunteers. The Volunteer Generation Fund will help communities match volunteers to needs, while providing operational support that enables organizations to fulfill their missions.

Music and Arts Education

The Senate also accepted an amendment offered by Senators Shaheen (D-NH) and Gregg (R-NH) that expressly includes music and arts education in the Education Corps activities. The amendment will encourage the use of "skilled musicians and artists to promote greater community unity through the use of music and arts education and engagement through work in low-income communities, and education, health care, and therapeutic settings, and other work in the public domain with citizens of all ages."

SUMMARY OF THE BILL (PDF)

Section by Section (PDF)

Final Text as Passed

***************

Today, March 31, the House is considering the Senate amendments to H.R. 1388, Edward M. Kennedy Serve Act. This legislation is very similar to the version of the bill (then called the GIVE Act) I wrote about two weeks ago, which the House passed with a bipartisan vote of 321-105 on March 18. The Senate passed its version of the bill with a bipartisan vote of 79-19 on March 26 and renamed it the E.M. Kennedy Serve Act. Now, the changes suggested by the Senate are being reviewed by the House.

If the House approves this legislation, it will move to the President's desk for his signature.

I wanted to point out that we've had a good discussion with our readers about this bill.

Our reader cfsg brought up an important issue,

"The GIVE Act authorizes the government to look into the feasibility of mandatory public service for all middle, high and college students. Mandatory means you must serve or you won't graduate ... "

I looked into it, and found out that the GIVE Act does not make any service opportunities mandatory. I just want to make that clear to our readers, since this bill is being considered by the House today.

However, cfsg is right that this language has been moved to a different bill currently in the House HR 1444. The following language is in Section 4. b) 6.

Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Thank you for pointing that out, cfsg. Clearly, this is just a requirement to compose a study regarding mandatory civic service, volunteering and national service that will be then open to public debate. Still, WireTap will reach out to the sponsoring representatives to find out the reasoning behind this. We think anything that has a word "mandatory" attached to it warrants public scrutiny.

Thank you for a good, constructive discussion, delriobob and cfsg.

Good News: GIVE Act Passes House, Moves to Senate

Posted by Kristina Rizga at 4:00 PM | 6 Comments | Permalink

The GIVE Act (the Generations Invigoration Volunteerism and Education), HR 1388, passed the house with a bipartisan vote of 321-105 today. It is expected to move for a vote in the Senate next week.

If passed, how could it benefit young people?

It will create more jobs and community service opportunities for young people. It will more than triple the number of paid and unpaid volunteers of all ages serving in America, from the current 75,000 to 250,000.

It could create more paid opportunities at AmeriCorps. This federal agency places young people in non-profits working on issues that range from public education to environmental clean-up. The allowance is modest, but it will probably cover basic living expenses. Also, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 made college repayment more affordable for low-income students, such as those enrolled in AmeriCorps.

For students in college, volunteer hours could turn into college payment credits. The bill could also increase the education reward from $4,725 to $5,350 in 2010.

For high school students, the legislation will also provide new incentives to volunteer in the local communities. It would create a Summer of Service program to engage students in service and allow them to earn a $500 education award to be used for college costs.

The bill also includes the creation of Clean Energy Corps, (among other corps). These new service and volunteer programs for younger students could include programs that introduce young people to the green-collar jobs, such as performing energy audits and retrofits, weatherizing homes, rebuilding trails and parks, building and maintaining gardens and green spaces in communities, managing recycling programs, and more.

To find a Senator in your state and contact them in support or opposition of this bill, visit here. The United States Student Association has endorsed this bill.

To see what kind of National Service Programs exist in your state now and to take advantage of them, visit here.

To see the entire Bill, visit here.

The Great "Beige" Hope of the Republican Party

Posted by Tanzila Ahmed at 12:48 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

(This post originally appeared on Sepia Mutiny)

I was hesitant when I heard 60 Minutes was doing an interview with Governor Bobby Jindal because frankly, I didn’t think I could take sixty minutes of the sing-songy voice we heard on Tuesday night. But Jindal’s segment is only 12 minutes long. So I watched. And was a little bit impressed. Don’t believe me? Here, watch for yourself.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Watch CBS Videos Online

I’m not sure if it’s because I’m juxtaposing this clip with his speech earlier this week, but I actually kind of liked watching it. The segment shows him as an ethical, straight-edge, god-fearing, son-of-immigrants, birthed-his-third-child-himself family man. I think it was smart of him to do this interview so soon after the disastrous performance earlier this week, but I’m just not sure enough people watched it to nullify the effect.

It was interesting how Jindal and his wife tried to downplay the Indian factor when approached with questions of race. When asked if he felt any racial tension while being raised in Baton Rouge, he said he didn’t feel any and “they accept you based on who you are.” When asked about if his family maintained any Indian traditions, the couple responded, “Not too many. We’ve been here for so many years. We were raised as Americans.”

Personally, I think that maintaining Indian traditions is completely American and you should not have to marginalize one for the other. We are all Americans with a hyphenated back story. But I also think the question was poorly asked and I wonder if the couple would have responded differently if it was a Desi reporter asking the question with more nuance. I also wonder how much of what they say to media is political posturing verses what they feel about identity behind closed doors.

Overall, I think it was a decent bio-fluff interview with no real hard hitting questions from 60 Minutes. We didn’t learn too many new Jindal facts, though Manish listed some here. But I think what this interview did for me was remind me that there’s a brown* guy in politics gunning for Obama’s seat in seven years. But from the other side. And my kind of brown*. And that is kind of… remarkable.

*I say brown. Republicans say beige. Can someone explain to me why he’s the “beige hope”, not “brown hope”?

Can America Learn from Iran?

Posted by Nour Merza at 10:00 AM | Comment Now | Permalink

It’s not often that we see the words “America” and “Iran” in the same sentence – at least in a context not relating to friction or war. For the first time in years, however, we have reason to put the names of these two countries in sentences that allude to cooperation and mutual respect. Why? Because former president Mohammad Khatami, the major proponent of reform in Iran, is running for a third term in his country’s elections later this June.

For most Americans, the Iranian political experience has been nothing but a series of failures after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. To say that Americans can learn from Iran therefore seems counterintuitive. However, a closer look at Khatami’s attempts at reform in Iran provides a lesson for all of us in the United States, particularly for the Obama Administration and its supporters.

To start with, the parallels between Khatami and the current U.S. president are rather striking: both men have experience living in foreign countries and mixing with other cultures, are considered progressive reformers within their country’s political spectrum, and entered their first presidential races as the underdog. Defying all expectations, both men won their elections and went on to lead their nations. At the start of Obama’s term, hopes are extremely high, just as they were at the beginning of Khatami’s.

However, it is here that Obama and his supporters must take heed of Khatami’s story.

A gradualist like Obama, Khatami wants to promote progressive change without overthrowing the system his country is founded on. During his earlier terms in office, he advocated democracy, freedom of expression, civil society and the greater inclusion of Iranian citizens in the political decision-making process – but all without overstepping boundaries that he believed would cause a backlash in the conservative circles that controlled most of the country. If he offended too many conservatives on too many issues, he could have easily been removed from power, which would have undermined the whole reform project he had in mind for Iran.

His followers, however, wanted immediate change. What Khatami saw as calculated political moves, much of his supporting base saw as timidity and compromise on the ideals of freedom and reform. After a number of Khatami’s reforms were undermined by conservative hardliners, many of these supporters became disillusioned with him. Because of this, they did not come out to vote in the subsequent elections, allowing a conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to come into power.

What Obama and his supporters must take from this story is that change takes time. Sometimes a leader has to balance between that and stability to ensure that change does take place. Iranians learned this the hard way, and after four years of conservative leadership, they are now struggling to get the very same man they had thrown aside back into the center of power.

Can America learn from Iran instead of repeating its mistake, so that the foundation it is setting for progressive change does not fizzle out within a generation? And, if elected, will Khatami be able to strike a more effective balance between continuity and reform? If the answer is “yes,” both American and Iran can show the world that change, anywhere, is possible.

Obama Taking Cues From Sweden, Really?

Posted by John Wilson at 4:12 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

Word out of D.C. is that the Obama administration is looking to glean some insight from Sweden's nationalization of their banks some 30 odd years ago. Not that nationalization is the demonic word it used to be considering even Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina mentioned it as a possible option this past weekend. And we certainly do need a fresh approach to the housing/banking/credit situation (at this point they are certainly interwoven). But why should we take cues from an ocean away when we have our very own recent history to learn from?

The Savings & Loan debacle of the 80's, that the Reagan administration was able to salvage from financial damnation was scarier than Sarah Palin appearing on Jeopardy: between '86 -'95 1,043 savings and loans institutions failed, with over 500 billion in assets at risk and losses totaled 152.9 billion, of which taxpayers were on the hook for 123.8 billion, according to the Federal Reserve. And, just like now, the initial estimates of the costs were much lower than the final tab because the ultra-conservative accounting. In addition, there were some similar causes for the crisis, namely: riskier loan markets and products (think subprime borrowers and adjustable rate mortagages - ARMS), ineffective regulatory climate (think the securitization of loans, where lenders have bundled loans together, done a poor job of assessing whether homeowners can afford payments and sold the bundle off to an unsuspecting investor) and poor economic regional conditions.

This list is far from exhaustive, and Federal Reserve regulation Q changes in the early 80's, which led to lower industry profitability and capital, along with the withdrawal of tax deductions for commercial investments in '86 were particularly pernicious. Looking back at the crisis, three big lessons include:

• Cost - the Bush 41 administration struggled with a cost estimate. No one inside or outside D.C. had a handle on the amount needed to recapitalize banks and for good reason - inability to estimate how many banks did what. Hence, no consensus in Congress and weakened consumer confidence. The Obama administration should avoid this scenario by not talking about overall cost. Be clear about objectives and parse funds based solely on them, whether it's easing credit liquidity, stemming foreclosures, or buying "toxic" assets.
• Resolution Trust Corporation was created to manage all insolvent banks placed in receivership or conversatorship. Assets were apportioned based on a new risk ratio that reflected the recessionary economic environment. The private sector was encouraged to invest through limited partnerships in various funds that assets were allocated in. This sounds similar to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner's plan (PDF). Only problem is that when Geithner spoke about his plan he was vague and looked like a man who had been told it was his last day on the job. RTC worked. Reestablish it and finally rid the market of "toxic" assets.
• What Bailout? The Obama administration must remind people that TARP (while I don't agree with how it was written) is an investment in the banks. The Bush administration purchased shares in various banks to assist them in their capitalization. Uncle Sam is going to get it back with interest.

In sum, there is much to be learned from the S&L crisis that we can put to good use during these harrowing times. Partial nationalization must be on the table if we are to rid "toxic" assets from the market swiftly with least amount of injury to homeowners, credit markets and investors.

DC Still Without Full Voting Rights

Posted by Jen Herrick at 10:21 AM | Comment Now | Permalink

(This post originally appeared on the Young People For blog.)

Nearly 80 percent of Americans do not realize that, as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-5th MD) put it, "out of all of the world's democracies, there is only one national capital without full voting rights: this city full of monuments to democracy."

Before an Act of Congress moved the nation's capital to DC in 1801, city residents had the right to vote as residents of the states that had donated land to create the District: Maryland and Virginia. But in 1801, they were disenfranchised, and had to wait over 150 years to even be able to vote for President and Vice President - a right granted in 1961 with the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the United States Constitution. The city government has developed since then, but the US Congress still has control over DC funding, and could essentially "veto" DC laws if it desired to do so. Since 1990, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) has represented DC in the House of Representatives, but while the people of DC vote on Delegate candidates, Delegates cannot fully participate in floor votes. (A fact illustrated by Stephen Colbert when he interviewed Delegate Norton. But don't panic: DC is part of the United States.)

Even though the people of DC pay taxes and serve in the military, they do not have a voice when tax policy is crafted on Capitol Hill, nor do they have voting representation when Congress considers sending them into war or approving the Defense budget.

Today we are closer than ever to righting these wrongs. During the 110th Congress, the DC House Voting Rights Act passed the House and was just 3 votes shy of overcoming a Senate filibuster. In the 111th, we hope to see it move swiftly toward the President's desk, and there are signs that it's already well on its way. This legislation would give DC a full Representative with the same voting power as other House members.

While testifying on H.R. 157, this year's DC House Voting Rights Act, Leader Hoyer asked: just what would one vote be worth?

I ask you: what would your vote be worth if you had been without it for over 200 years?

I imagine your answer would be much the same as Mr. Hoyer's: dignity.

Note: I write today as a Legislative Representative in the Public Policy department at People For the American Way. From now on you'll hear a lot more from me about legislative advocacy.

Juvenile Sentencing Laws Under Attack

Posted by Michelle Chen at 12:00 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

(This post originally appeared on RaceWire)

Some interesting recent twists at the intersection of youth and the prison system.

A dozen young people in the custody of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services could soon be liberated, thanks to a Supreme Judicial Court decision striking down a law that enabled the Youth Services to preemptively keep juvenile offenders imprisoned—on the grounds that they might be “physically dangerous to the public.” The law allowed as much as three extra years of detention after the child turned 18, while skirting the basics of due process. The Boston Globe reports:

“The law is flawed, according to the court, because it fails to set a standard for dangerousness. The court also noted that the law leaves a determination of dangerousness to the “unbridled discretion” of the Department of Youth Services, which isn’t required to hold a hearing before concluding that a juvenile offender — who ordinarily is released on his 18th birthday — should be civilly committed for three more years. A judge then presides over a trial to determine whether the juvenile should remain in custody…”

On the opposite coast, Ventura County is mulling over the fate of an underutilized youth prison, which columnist Timm Herndt warns could be converted to a new facility to accommodate the state's burgeoning incarcerated population.

In Oakland, meanwhile, resistance has exploded in response to a City Council proposal* for a youth curfew (PDF), floated in the wake of the clashes and arrests stemming from the Oscar Grant demonstrations. To activists, the move is not only ineffective as a public safety measure, but fundamentally destructive for a community already besieged by police violence.

State restrictions on people's freedom of movement have a historical precedent, notes Critical Resistance organizer Ritika Aggarwal:

“After what happened to Oscar Grant and many other youth killed by the police, how could we consider giving police yet another opportunity for racial profiling. Who will Oakland police stop at 10 p.m.?...The 1865 Black Codes permitted the imprisonment of ex-slaves traveling after 10 p.m. without a note from their employer.”

Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund, which runs the "Cradle to Prison" campaign, further contextualizes the criminalization of youth in country's past, present and future. Calling the youth-prison connection "America's new apartheid," she writes:

"It is time to sound a loud alarm about this threat to American unity and community, act to stop the growing criminalization of children at younger and younger ages, and tackle the unjust treatment of minority youths and adults in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems with urgency and persistence. The failure to act now will reverse the hard-earned racial and social progress for which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many others died and sacrificed. "

How many generations must be broken before we lose our ability to build?

*Update: the curfew proposal has been derailed by vocal opposition. The meeting notes can be viewed here.

Republicans Ask for Financial Restraint in Stimulus Bill

Posted by John Wilson at 12:00 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

Republicans have finally found their rallying cry against President Obama’s recently passed stimulus plan: fiscal restraint. They are bolstered by polls claiming public support for the stimulus package is lessening each week, as the American people brace for a Democratic onslaught of irresponsible spending on pork conceived through ill-timed partisanship. Yes, the GOP has changed its ways, folks. Remember the original the Trouble Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailout money that was doled out to nice principled folks at places like, oh, Merrill Lynch (home of the $87,000 office rug), AIG, and last but not least, Citigroup?

Who upon realizing that since they've only lost 27 billion or so in the past 2 years and Uncle Sam was willing to give them 20 billion, they might as well invest in a stadium. When the TARP plan passed in late September of last year, it had the support of 91 House Republicans, while the recent stimulus bill was supported by 0. And it was devised and implemented in such a hectic manner, that renowned Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren says the Treasury "failed to price for risk and paid "substantially more" for assets it purchased under the $700 billion financial-rescue program implemented last year than their market value at the time." That more of which she speaks equals out to 78 billion dollars. So not only did the Treasury purchase assets no one else wanted to buy but they also overpaid for them too.

But if the meek GOP has proved one thing it's this: If the buck doesn't stop here, might as well let the pork stop here. But whoever said pork couldn't stimulate jobs? To paraphrase President Obama in his remarks at the Democratic Caucus retreat, isn't that the purpose of a stimulus plan? To get the money invested in shovel-ready infrastructure projects, programs that will create jobs or reduce layoffs, and infuse money into cities and locales, of which 363 of 369 are facing higher unemployment and 40 of those have rates higher than 10 percent.

The GOP has got it all wrong. The debate doesn't revolve around whether to spend money and judge the allocation with the usual parameters, limited scope, and metrics. Instead, the debate is defined overwhelmingly by a singular motive: Will it create jobs and how soon? The GOP loved pork when it had a Bush label on it, and I understand that they just may be brand loyal. A Gallup poll released on February 9 showed that 58 percent of voters disapprove of the way Republicans have handled the stimulus debate. So if Republicans continue to hem and haw, make illogical arguments, and generally act as though they have no recollection of a badly written and applied bill like TARP then maybe they need a refresher.

Did the Democratic Party Exploit Hip-Hop?

Posted by Nina Jacinto at 10:18 AM | 1 comment | Permalink

In a recent editorial, activist and former Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate Rosa Clemente challenged the declaration made by some hip-hop artists and community organizations that Barack Obama is America's first Hip Hop President:

"The hip-hop generation has never been a priority, we have always been an option and that option is used mostly to get out the vote during elections...those G.O.T.V. efforts become guaranteed votes for the Democratic Party and often fail to educate their followers about candidates that run outside of the two-party system...I believe that like many before him, President-Elect Barack Obama's campaign used Hip Hop to create excitement amongst young people in this country, but we must clearly see through the $750 million bling-bling marketing haze of his campaign.."

Clemente calls for a political movement that is multiracial and moves away from a white liberal-centric, two-party leadership.

I don't think Clemente is wrong in questioning how exactly President Obama became known as the country's first hip-hop President. After all, Obama has expressed concern about the explicit lyrics and misogynistic content of some hip-hop music. The fact that he was mobilized by efforts such as Rock the Vote, Respect my Vote, even Will.I.Am's "Yes We Can" video, do not mean President Obama is hip-hop. His Presidency in no way should suggest that the struggle is over or that the hip-hop generation has "arrived." Hip-hop, as a culture, movement and lifestyle, is too complicated and too often analyzed along oversimplified binaries to be assessed in this way.

But Clemente's editorial fails to complicate a few aspects of Obama's relationship to hip-hop. First, I doubt Obama is considered the "first hip-hop President" simply because he fist-bumped the First Lady and brushed dirt off his shoulders. Barack Obama is the first president to be from a hip-hop listening generation. He is the country's first President of color and, some argue, the first urban President. It's likely that his work as a community organizer, his residence in Chicago, his race, and his politics, have made him the historic candidate embraced by hip-hop artists around the nation.

Whether or not Obama is the first hip-hop President remains to be seen. Creating a strong political movement that empowers youth and continues to raise questions is work that began even before the 2008 election and must continue long after Obama leaves office. I have to hope that now that he is in the White House, President Obama will not ignore the promises he has made to his young voters and that he will speak out against the injustices that continue for people of color, women, poor people, queer people in the United States. And I have to believe that organizers, progressives, and Hip Hop artists will continue to mobilize for justice and will hold President Obama accountable while he is in office.

===

Obama speaks on hip-hop:

Democrats Try to Change White House

Posted by Sarah Burris at 8:33 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

In a relatively short period of time the US has gone from having all branches of government controlled by Republicans to the House, Senate, and White House controlled by Democrats.

Saturday Night Live opened this week with a press conference on the stimulus where fake Nancy Pelosi says that the House passed the stimulus because "we won."

In past sessions of Congress, divisions have plagued the coveted concept of bi-partisanship. President Barack Obama was no different than George W. Bush with his claims of bi-partisan intentions. What was surprising were the matched hopes for bi-partisanship from GOP House members who demanded tax cuts be part of the stimulus package who then voted in unison against the very tax cuts they asked for.

After the House vote a friend tweeted his displeasure:

"not a single Republican vote for stimulus package. Can we quit pretending we need to be bipartisan now and just pass progressive stuff?"

Attempts at bipartisanship coming out of the White House are substantial, including a GOP friendly Super Bowl Party.

"Since becoming president, Obama has met at the White House with congressional leaders, traveled to Capitol Hill for private sessions with House and Senate Republicans and invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to the executive mansion for cocktails."

This is a huge shift from the Bush Administration's efforts, which some argue were phony when he entered the White House.

The outreach has marked a substantial change from the previous administration, but some things still stay the same: the GOP only believes in bi-partisanship when you agree with them.

Obama's Inauguration Shifts US-Arab Relations

Posted by Nour Merza at 11:38 AM | 2 Comments | Permalink

(This post originally appeared on Crisscrossing Borders)

President Barack Hussein Obama.

Just his name signals a transition in American history.

Like most other people, I'm excited. But, also like many others, I'm wary of all this excitement. After months of poetic rhetoric, the time has come to actually start getting some work done. And work takes time. That's something I'm afraid will upset some of us. People seem to think that once President Obama gets settled in office, he'll wave some sort of magic wand and solve all our problems. Well, that's not happening. The President himself reminded us of it again and again in his inauguration speech.

President Obama's speech felt rather symbolic of his coming term. People had such high expectations for it, but it fell kind of flat. Not that it was a bad speech - it covered all the necessary points in clear, organized prose. It also had some poetic parts, as when President Obama described "why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."

But rather than the expected pomp and splash, the President gave a restrained, almost somber speech. Whether this was by design or a failure on the speech writers' part, I think it was pretty appropriate. It signaled a sense of maturity. The time of waving banners and speaking in slogans in over. Reality must settle in: there's a lot of work for us to do, and it'll be hard work.

But it'll be worth it.

Already we're seeing, on an international level, how President Obama is starting to usher in change. As an Arab-American, I've been keeping up with the Arab news, seeing how Arabs are gauging this Presidential transition. And the Arab World, while still struggling to recover from the horrors of the Gaza crisis, is generally optimistic about America's new president.

Al Quds Al Arabi, a relatively independent, secular, and aggressively Arab nationalist newspaper, just published an editorial about how the election of President Obama is restoring faith in the democratic system in the Middle East.

Read the rest of the post »

MTV Celebrates Politics Again

Posted by Sarah Burris at 12:00 AM | Comment Now | Permalink

Last week MTV announced that they will be joining forces with Service Nation to host the Be The Change Inaugural Ball on January 20, 2009:

"The event will celebrate the massive youth-voter turnout in this month's presidential election and an active commitment from America's youth to impart positive social change through volunteer service." the press release said.

While the event will be hosted in Washington DC and tickets will be hard to come by, the festivities will be broadcasted across all MTV stations including MTV, MTV2, and others while also streaming live on MTV.com.

"Over the last year and culminating in this election, we have seen a groundswell of engagement and a refreshed spirit of activism from young people," MTV general manager Stephen Friedman said.

Wanna go to the party? Like most inauguration events, tickets are hard to come by, even though neither ticket prices nor a party time has been announced. The party will take place at the Ronald Reagan Trade Center in downtown Washington, DC. If you can't be there in person, you can join the millions of people watching it live as young people across the country celebrate together knowing that their vote helped elect a President. MTV will also showcase stories of young people providing service to their communities starting on January 1.

For the first time in a very long time, youth are seen as power players on Capitol Hill. Having an event in the place that has traditionally ignored youth or belittled young voters will help fuel youth influence on the hill, while also showing appreciation for the dedication and loyalty to both President-elect Obama and progressive values.

MTV hasn't hosted an inaugural celebration since 1992 when President Bill Clinton was elected. There was also a substantial turnout in youth participation in '92 but that number decreased until 2000, when those trends began moving upward again. That number nearly met the all time record in 1972 when the age of voting was dropped to 18. Rewarding youth participation is important - but also utilizing new technologies like MTV.com's streaming video and putting it on TV for the up and coming teens who are making a difference or are about to is a great way to help bring people in who can't be there.

The Impact of the Hip Hop Vote

Posted by Jeff Chang at 4:00 PM | Comment Now | Permalink

(This post originally appeared on Zentronix)

We now have some idea of how hip-hop may have impacted the presidential election. According to stats from CIRCLE, those under the age of 45 delivered all of Obama's margin of victory.

Those under 30 formed the core of his victory. 23 million young voters came out, and nearly 16 million voted for Obama. He won by 9 million votes.

Youth voter turnout increased to 53 percent, a 4 percent increase over 2004 and the highest turnout rate since the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972.

All demographics under 30 voted for Obama by huge margins--including 95 percent of African Americans, 76 percent of Latinos and 54 percent of whites.

We don't yet know what the turnout rates were for young African Americans and Latinos, or the precise racial breakdown of young voters. But we do know that 36 percent of Under-30 voters were not white, an 8 percent difference from 30-45s and 20 percent difference from over-60s.

We also know that 2004 marked a turning point for young African American and Latino voters. That year, for the first time, they made up more than half of all new voters. In this election, 43 percent of young voters were first-time voters, including 45 percent of African Americans and 61 percent of Latinos.

Credit goes to a robust Obama operation. It's the first time that a party has taken full measure of the importance of young voters and post-Boomer voters of color.

Credit also belongs with the many organizing efforts in the hip-hop world that were largely--and quietly--responsible for the 2004 surge. It's clear that without their success back then, an Obama candidacy would have been unimaginable.

There is one significant down-note. CIRCLE notes that there remains an economic gap in the voting population. It turns up as a gap in voters' educational attainment. Those with at least some college-going experience were about twice as likely to vote as those without any.

There are still lots of hip-hop heads alienated from electoral politics. But it's possible to say that the electorate looks a lot more like the one hip-hop introduced to the mainstream over a decade ago than at any time in the past.