pageviewsWe hear about violence every day in this country. Our newspapers abound with stories of robbery and assault, and every day there is another conveniently edited sound bite about violent crime on our trusty television news networks. The way the news paints it, urban America is a not-so-safe place to live. But most of us at Georgetown—a haven for the “educated elite”—only experience violence from behind a television screen. We Hoyas are generally insulated from the everyday presence of violent crime in the D.C. area, not to mention the rest of the world. But last month’s assault on a gay Georgetown student hit a little too close to Healy Gates for comfort. Far from a mugging on the Lauinger Library steps, this crime has different implications for our student body. That the assailant is one of our own places hate and violence within the context of our own community, facing us with the unacceptable reality that Georgetown is not a bubble and that college students, too, can be victims—or villains.
Only a few weeks into the term, an anonymous Georgetown student was assaulted after being harassed about his sexual orientation. Philip Cooney, MSB ’10 (allegedly the son of Philip Cooney, Sr., former White House chief-of-staff of the Council of Environment Equality who was forced to resign after doctoring reports on the severity of Global Warming, which might explain why Jr. doesn’t play by the rules either), has been charged with assault with a hate bias. The incident was met with refreshing outrage on the part of GUPride, the College Dems, and other Georgetown students, which culminated in a Pride Ralley in Red Square on Tuesday, and a vigorous appeal to the administration that they must treat such incidents with a greater degree of gravity.
A hate crime on a Georgetown student, by a Georgetown student, may have come as a shock to the rest of us. But what’s more shocking to me is that it doesn’t happen more often. In a country where gay citizens are treated by the government as “separate but equal” at best—and even more frequently as second-class citizens—Americans are raised with conflicting notions about how to treat members of the GLBTQ community. Legislation, religion, and the news media all teach us in no uncertain terms that gay people are different, and an emphasis of that difference is only a stone’s throw away from legalized discrimination and socially condoned segregation. Under D.C. law, the punishment for a violent crime with a “bias/hate specification” is more severe than the same crime committed on an impersonal basis. And yet, current law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation every day. Gay people are not protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, are actively denied entrance into the armed services, and are barred from participation in the most fundamental of social contracts. So why should gay-bashing be a hate crime? It seems to me that this double standard is the government’s way of shirking responsibility. The government can assault gay people in the harshest way they can—by denying them basic rights—but the average citizen is held to a more stringent standard. Here in America, it’s okay to discriminate against gay people, as long as you don’t hit them.
I’m not accusing the Georgetown community of fostering the rampant homophobia that spurred an attack on one of our own. On the contrary, I appreciate that the student body is shocked, surprised, and angry. But the reality is that we operate under a government that marginalizes the GLBTQ community—and an administration that has even threatened to veto legislation that would nationalize the hate-crime laws. If we can’t expect equality from the government, then how can we reasonably ask it from the citizens? In short, I hope the hate crimes legislation passes, and I hope that the assailant is punished to the fullest extent of the law. But I also hope that we use this as an opportunity to demand from our government the same behavior it expects from us. Real change needs to happen on a legal level, and that means ending the heterosexist doctrine by which we are governed. The attitudes and behaviors of the people just might follow suit.
In an interview with the New York Observer, Coulter said the following:
If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'
She is just so special. And by special, I mean speshul. read more...
So, apparently some idiot has been setting garbage can fires in Senate bathrooms for the past week. That's weird enough, but weirder is that they've done it at least half a dozen times over the past two weeks without getting caught.
Four of the fires were set yesterday between 10:45 am and 2:00 pm in women's bathrooms in Dirksen and Hart. You can read all about it at DCist, but I just wanted to bring this semi-bizarre story to everyone's attention.
'Cause seriously, who would do this? I can't imagine that whoever it is won't be caught eventually, and what thrill could he (or probably she) possibly be getting out of it? I may be quasi-delusional from a long day at work, but now that I'm thinking about this, I'm wondering-- what are the chances that this is someone communicating via smoke signals? That would be pretty badass. And with that speculation, this post has officially derailed from its original purpose of informing you about the sketchy SOB (Senate Office Building, get your minds out of the gutter) firebug, so I will leave you with the ever-wise words of Smokey the Bear: "Only YOU can prevent wildfires."
In this case, I guess we're talking about garbage-can fires, but still. Senate interns-- keep an eye out.
In the show The Simpsons, the Springfield Republican Party consists of select members of society who sit in a dark dungeon, usually during thunderstorms, and conceive ways to push a conservative agenda throughout Springfield. Members include successful businessman Montgomery Burns, congressman Krusty the Clown, the Rich Texan, action hero Rainier Wolfcastle, and Dracula.
This setup is strikingly familiar to that of the Council for National Policy (minus Dracula, plus Jesus enthusiasts). Formed in 1981, the CNP is basically a networking institute for conservatives who wish to influence various aspects of society into following a “morally correct” framework.
“Members include corporate executives, television evangelists, legislators, former military or high ranking government officers, leaders of 'think tanks' dedicated to molding society and those who many view as Christian leadership.” (check out http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.htm for more info). Meetings are held publicly unannounced, and guest speakers, including VP Dick Cheney (Dracula??) rarely talk to the press about their addresses, which are not recorded.
When looking at the issues they are most concerned with, their list follows the typical Republican ideals – “conventional” values, shared Christian tradition, military freedom, and administrations that can do what they want. Original? No. Powerful? God, yes. The CNP can monetarily influence nearly any facet of society into following their instructions, thanks to their high-ranking members. An added bonus? Many of the members are not media-recognizable, at least not by their face alone. Would you be able to pick the head of the NRA out of a lineup? This relative anonymity allows the members to hold the reins of the Republican Party without worrying about over-exposure.
Now to put the conspiracy-theories into play. After a meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sept. 29th, talks emerged of a Republican-supported third party candidate, if relatively “liberal” Rudy Guiliani gets the presidential nomination. As terrifying as the authority of this secret organization may seem, a split vote between Guiliani and a third-party conservative Christian (potential crazy-person) candidate would be a Godsend to the Democratic candidate. Let’s face it, with a white woman and a black man as our two leading contenders, we’re going to need all the help we can get.
For more info about the CNP:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DA1E3EF93BA1575BC0A9629C8B63
For more about Rudy’s competition:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/politics/01evangelicals.html?ref=politics
For more Simpsons:
http://supak.com/simpsons/images/wallpaper/Republican-Party-Headquarters-800.jpg
This morning, President Bush vetoed one of the most meaningful pieces of legislation to pass in the current congress. As usual, the administration sought to confuse the American people into believing they had their best interest in mind.
Dana Perino stated that the Bush administration was concerned that the cigarette tax in the SCHIP bill, which promised to help so many uninsured children, would hit the poor the hardest because they are more likely to smoke. This is a ridiculous statement.
One, shouldn't we be creating policy to discourage the poor (and all Americans) from smoking? Maybe a 61 cent increase in their prices could keep a few of us from getting lung and mouth cancers, among many other awful diseases. Republicans, stop answering to the calls from Big Tobacco.
Two, Mr. Bush, have you considered the beneficiaries of the bill? Oh, yes, that's right, the same impoverished people you are so concerned with keeping their cigarettes are just the people whose children need this legislation so they may have health care. What an admittance that this administration does not have its priorities in line.
I think my even bigger problem with the veto is this: Rep. Emaneul released a statement, in which he broke down the costs of this SCHIP legislation. This bill, which would cover the health insurance of 10 million children, will cost only the same as the cost of 41 days in Iraq. Despicable. Just over a month of killing in an endless, increasingly aimless, war or an entire year of ensuring that our great country fulfills a human right, that American children get the health care they need.
Some enterprising activists have taken to the streets to express their displeasure over the current state of the DC Vote fiasco by affixing stickers that read "DC BALLOT BOX: Your vote goes here" to trash cans around the city. DCist covered this story first, and they don't know who is responsible for the guerilla marketing campaign, but it's fantastic.
For those who are interested, one more super cool photo:
In an early morning email from campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign (FINALLY) announced that it raised an astounding $27 million in the third quarter-- $22 million of which can be spent during the primary, and almost $10 million more than she had been rumored to have raised.
By bringing in such a large haul and out-raising Obama's camp for the first time, the Clinton campaign might just have solidified its already-apparent front-runner status.
Before we (and by we, I mean me) start celebrating, however, I think it's important to look at these numbers in context. First, and Chris Cillizza also pointed this out over at The Fix, $22 million is not "substantially" more than $19 million, especially when you consider that so far this year, Clinton's primary fundraising still lags behind Obama's by several million dollars.
If anything, Clinton's fundraising this quarter (along with Obama's) shows that this race has all but eliminated the other candidates from the running. The two campaigns are going to be running smart, disciplined, and expensive campaigns in the early states that the other campaigns have no hope of matching.
Beyond that, however, I don't know how significant this victory is. Very few people outside of Washington will notice these process stories (and ever fewer will care if they do). But for someone on the side that I'm on, it's nice to be on top for once.
And sidenote-- the "personal" note from Hillary included in the email? The Fix says it's a nice touch... I'm not so sure. I think I'm leaning towards annoying, condescending touch. Thoughts?
Campus Progress has a nifty guide up to the Top 100 Effects of Global Warming. Everything from koala bears to Bulgarian hookers(?!) is covered.
Because we don't want cute little Knut to turn cannibal (Effect #26).
I understand the title of this post. My roommates understand it. You understand it. (Maybe not you, Adam, but I'm sure if you ask one of your roommates, they'll explain...)
Apparently, the code is too complicated for the US Navy to crack. The subtle nuances of using initials and acronyms to represent larger concepts is far beyond the comprehension of this particular service branch, and in order to bridge such a significant cultural gap, the Navy has started leading trainings for its recruitment officers in order to make sure they understand the "youth of tomorrow". And sidenote-- Aren't we the youth of today? And the adults of tomorrow? Anyway...
A PowerPoint presentation that the Navy is using in these training sessions has begun to circulate the internet, and is worth combing through for pure entertainment value. At one point, for example, the presentation points out that today's typical teenager "has always been online" and "has never known a world without digital phones." Because of such global communications technology, his "best friend may be Chinese". Wonkette's reaction was pretty great: "My god, Chinese?? Ye gods, is nothing sacred in this godless post-9/11 Facebook world?" I heart Wonkette. (And I'm not just saying that so I can demonstrate my nifty knowlege of teen slang, I really do heart Wonkette).
Another great slide presented a pop quiz on teenage culture; questions asked of the recruitment officers addressed topics as diverse as the Black Eyed Peas, emoticons, the Video Music Awards, and Brangelina's baby. I'm not going to lie, those are all important parts of my life, but I was stumped by their question on Degrassi: The Next Generation. I must have missed that trend.
The presentation did eventually get around to more serious topics, such as our generations' over-reliance on planners (excuuuse me for being organized...) and our general apathy towards the Navy and military service in general. It seems to blame such feelings on our parents' "coddling", but I tend to think the war in Iraq might have something to do with it...
Anyway, if you want to sift through the presentation in it's entirety, you can download it from Danger Room, who was first to post it online. There's a link in the first paragraph.
OMG, have fun reading, and ttyl!
Help us host a lively presidential debate on September 19th by submitting questions for the candidates!
The College Dems are hosting a presidential debate on Wednesday, September 19th at 8:00 PM in ICC 107. We have recruited three Georgetown Government Department professors to moderate and, to make their job a little eaiser, we want to provide them with a list of questions they can draw on during the debate. That's where we need your help.
We have divided the debate into eight rounds, each one centered on a different topic. We would really appreciate it if you could each write a question or two based on those topics so that we can put together a list for the professors. Your questions can be general or for a specific candidate. Your questions can be on topics that have received extensive media attention or on more obscure topics. Post your questions as comments to this entry. The round topics are below. Thanks for your help and see you on the 19th!
Round 2 - Iraq
Round 4 - Education and Student Issues
Round 5 -Environmental and Energy Issues
Round 6 - Foreign Policy (Includes all non-Iraq issues, such as Iran, Darfur, North Korea, Nuclear Issues, and the War on Terror.)
Round 7 - Social Issues (i.e. Gay Marriage, Abortion, Gun Control)
Round 8 - Urban, Poverty, and Labor Issues
read more...
