Liberty University has prohibited privileges granted to other student organizations, and these privileges where denied based solely on what the organization believes. Did Liberty deny recognition to a white supremacy group, or did Liberty not allow an anti-Semitic organization to use the universities name in association with their group? The university has denied the College Democrats to ability to use the university’s name or to receive any funding from the university, based on their support of candidates.
According to a Liberty press release, the College Democrats are allowed to meet on campus, however the student group could no longer identify with the university and the university will no longer sponsor or endorse the group. The university has stated that this would be a better situation for the student group because they did not have to gain approval for meetings and could endorse candidates that are pro-life. However, this also means that the student group cannot participate in promoting their group on campus, and will not be allowed to invite speakers or hold any other events besides the unofficial meetings.
According to a National Public Radio (NPR) report, the chancellor of the university, Jerry Falwell, Jr., said that “"It's not about Democrat/Republican. It's about protecting the sanctity of life.” Falwell stated that the reason the student group is not longer recognized was because of its support for pro-choice candidates and candidates that support gay rights. The College Democrats on campus have not publically endorsed abortion rights or same-sex marriage, and in fact the group’s constitution expresses their opposition to those policies. In the NPR report Brian Diaz, the President of the College Democrats, said that “Jesus talked about the poor more than he did about abortion or gay marriage.”
According to another article in the Washington Post, Diaz stated that the group’s constitution, which was approved by university officials, gives the group latitude to endorse candidates. Both the College Democrats and the College Republicans endorsed candidates. Also, according to the same article the two groups where preparing to organize anti-abortion events this fall.
What this situation really exposes is how out of touch the officials at Liberty University are with the direction that America is going, and with how the new generation of college students and young Christians view the world. Christians have begun to vote Democratic with increasing regularity over the last thirty years, and a majority of Catholics voted for Barack Obama this November. The idea that you have to be conservative if you are a Christian has been changing, and organizations such as Cross Left and the Center for Progressive Christianity have been challenging the status quo. Also, there are Christian denominations such as the Disciples of Christ and the United Church of Christ that have been promoting more inclusive congregations.
In an article in Britain’s Guardian, Kevin Roose wrote about spending a semester as an undercover student at Liberty. Roose notes that while there is the conservative Christian population there that you would expect, there is also a growing number of Christians with a more progressive view of the world. However, the university uses its authority to suppress minority opinions, from censoring the student newspaper to disciplining those that participate "in an unauthorized petition or demonstration.”
Liberty University is a private institution, and they are allowed to support or not support organizations. However, Liberty has a responsibility to nurture the higher education of its students, and this includes promoting an environment that allows for the open expression of ideas and opinions. Punishing students for expressing their beliefs sends a terrible message. If students must worry about the punitive results of expressing an opinion than it stifles discussion and learning, which is the ultimate purpose of any university. Liberty should reinstate the College Democrats.
Would you like to get involved?
Join the Facebook Group:
We Support Liberty University College Democrats
Sign the Petition:
Support Recognition of the Young Democrats at Liberty University
Starting June 1st and ending June 5th, there will be multi-faceted campaign to showing support for the College Democrats of Liberty University as well as showing disappointment in the decision to suspend their activities as well as no longer recognize them as an official Liberty University organization.
Contact Information:
Jerry Falwell Jr. (Chancellor)
email: chancellor@liberty.edu
(434) 582-2950
Mark Hine (VP for Student Affairs)
email: mhine@liberty.edu
(434) 592-3240
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Diversity of Opinion
President Barack Obama likes to make history. Yesterday Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for Supreme Court Justice; Sotomayor, if confirmed by the Senate, will be only the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court and the first person of Latin descent. Within the first twenty-four hours of the announcement the conservative voices began to attack Sotomayor, and the attacks have little if anything to do with substance and everything to do with sexism and racism. However, most of the mainstream media and even most of the alternative media will not call these attacks what they are.
There have been the expected references to Judge Sotomayor being a liberal and an activist judge, and these labels would have been applied to whatever nominee President Obama would have announced. However, there have been questions raised about her intellect and her temperament, questions that are completely centered in sexism. From all of the usual suspects these questions have been raised about a woman with impeccable credentials, a woman that graduated with honors from two of the most prestigious universities in the country. None of these same questions where raised about any of the previous male nominees. Also, this idea of temperament has a mixture of both sexism and racism. Women who achieve higher positions of authority are often painted as less feminine, and as being overly aggressive. There is also the racial stereotype of the angry Latin woman, a stereotype that is often specifically perpetuated about Puerto Rican women.
Judge Sotomayor has also already been labeled as a racist, or even the ridiculous label of reverse racist, because of the Ricci v New Haven case in which the New Haven fire department through out promotion exams because it was deemed racial bias. There is also the quote that the conservatives are already repeating with regularity. Sotomayor said in 2001 that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That sound you heard was every conservative white man clinching his fist at the idea that a Latina could actually reach a better conclusion than them.
However, these attacks will likely be limited to the conservatives that are not elected to office, because it is going to be politically dangerous for the Republican Party to been perceived as attack the first nominee to the court of Latin decent. The GOP is already losing ground in every demographic, and the GOP that has been alienating the Hispanic electorate. Attacking her will also have an impact on with woman voters, which is among the largest group of people that have shifted away from the GOP. Judge Sotomayor is not going to face nearly the same type of criticism during her Senate confirmation that she will face from the conservatives in the media. That’s not to say that there will not be any opposition; there will be some conservative senators that will make noise. For the most part I think that the confirmation process will go relatively smooth, and it will be difficult to oppose someone with such obvious qualifications.
Perhaps the simplest reason to support Judge Sotomayor is that former Office of Legal Council (OLC) lawyer John Yoo opposes her nomination. Yoo suggest that that Sotomayor was only chosen because of her race, and that that she is undistinguished and could not be an intellectually leader. I think there is no better argument to confirm Sotomayor than the fact that someone who opposes her wrote, according to Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh, “perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read.” John Yoo is the antithesis of the belief in the rule of law, and that the Constitution and the law cannot be bent to suit a political or any other agenda.
One of the most significant reasons to support Judge Sotomayor, besides her impeccable credentials, is diversity. The fact is that diversity is important and it is a necessary component to ensuring not only the effectiveness of the Supreme Court but any other court or legislative body. In fact diversity in fact should be a standard that we apply from the acceptance into a college to the hiring practices of an employer. There are two reasons why this is important. The first is diversity breads debate among people of different backgrounds and different perspectives, and this creates broader more complete conclusions. The second is that there is still persistent and entrenched racism, sexism, homophobia, and other prejudices in our society, and these cannot be overlooked as obstacles to minority groups.
The diversity of our leaders should represent the diversity of the American people. We have taken an important step in a long journey that is far from over.
There have been the expected references to Judge Sotomayor being a liberal and an activist judge, and these labels would have been applied to whatever nominee President Obama would have announced. However, there have been questions raised about her intellect and her temperament, questions that are completely centered in sexism. From all of the usual suspects these questions have been raised about a woman with impeccable credentials, a woman that graduated with honors from two of the most prestigious universities in the country. None of these same questions where raised about any of the previous male nominees. Also, this idea of temperament has a mixture of both sexism and racism. Women who achieve higher positions of authority are often painted as less feminine, and as being overly aggressive. There is also the racial stereotype of the angry Latin woman, a stereotype that is often specifically perpetuated about Puerto Rican women.
Judge Sotomayor has also already been labeled as a racist, or even the ridiculous label of reverse racist, because of the Ricci v New Haven case in which the New Haven fire department through out promotion exams because it was deemed racial bias. There is also the quote that the conservatives are already repeating with regularity. Sotomayor said in 2001 that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That sound you heard was every conservative white man clinching his fist at the idea that a Latina could actually reach a better conclusion than them.
However, these attacks will likely be limited to the conservatives that are not elected to office, because it is going to be politically dangerous for the Republican Party to been perceived as attack the first nominee to the court of Latin decent. The GOP is already losing ground in every demographic, and the GOP that has been alienating the Hispanic electorate. Attacking her will also have an impact on with woman voters, which is among the largest group of people that have shifted away from the GOP. Judge Sotomayor is not going to face nearly the same type of criticism during her Senate confirmation that she will face from the conservatives in the media. That’s not to say that there will not be any opposition; there will be some conservative senators that will make noise. For the most part I think that the confirmation process will go relatively smooth, and it will be difficult to oppose someone with such obvious qualifications.
Perhaps the simplest reason to support Judge Sotomayor is that former Office of Legal Council (OLC) lawyer John Yoo opposes her nomination. Yoo suggest that that Sotomayor was only chosen because of her race, and that that she is undistinguished and could not be an intellectually leader. I think there is no better argument to confirm Sotomayor than the fact that someone who opposes her wrote, according to Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh, “perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read.” John Yoo is the antithesis of the belief in the rule of law, and that the Constitution and the law cannot be bent to suit a political or any other agenda.
One of the most significant reasons to support Judge Sotomayor, besides her impeccable credentials, is diversity. The fact is that diversity is important and it is a necessary component to ensuring not only the effectiveness of the Supreme Court but any other court or legislative body. In fact diversity in fact should be a standard that we apply from the acceptance into a college to the hiring practices of an employer. There are two reasons why this is important. The first is diversity breads debate among people of different backgrounds and different perspectives, and this creates broader more complete conclusions. The second is that there is still persistent and entrenched racism, sexism, homophobia, and other prejudices in our society, and these cannot be overlooked as obstacles to minority groups.
The diversity of our leaders should represent the diversity of the American people. We have taken an important step in a long journey that is far from over.
Left of College Station on Biased Transmission
Tonight I will again be a co-host of Biased Transmission, a progressive talk radio show which airs on 89.1FM KEOS every Wednesday from 6:00pm – 7:00pm. The guest on tonight’s show will be Professor Nandini Bhattacharya, an English professor and professor at the Women’s Studies Department at Texas A&M University. This discussion will center on women’s issues and feminism; Professor Bhattacharya will share her insight on feminism both on campus and off.
Tonight Ann Preston will be hosting the show, and there will also be other guest host in the booth tonight, Shelly and Vandy, who will soon be hosting their own show about women’s issues and feminism. Tonight’s discussion should be very engaging, and hopefully you will be able to listen and join us at Revolution Café and Bar after the show for debrief and drinks. If you cannot tune into the show tonight the show will be posted online at the Biased Transmission archive, and it will also be posted here at Left of College Station on Sunday.
Tonight Ann Preston will be hosting the show, and there will also be other guest host in the booth tonight, Shelly and Vandy, who will soon be hosting their own show about women’s issues and feminism. Tonight’s discussion should be very engaging, and hopefully you will be able to listen and join us at Revolution Café and Bar after the show for debrief and drinks. If you cannot tune into the show tonight the show will be posted online at the Biased Transmission archive, and it will also be posted here at Left of College Station on Sunday.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup
It's a special Memorial Day edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance weekly blog roundup. Here are the highlights:
WhosPlayin only had Random Thoughts this week, but guest blogger Calvin Tillman - mayor of Dish, TX - weighed in with his thoughts on the Stacked Deck being dealt by the Texas Railroad Commission and their bias towards the interests of the oil and gas companies.
At Left of College Station, Teddy reports on the recent increase in violence, the withdrawal of troops, and the possibility of what could happen in the war that has vanished from public debate: the fading war in Iraq.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme says the Voter ID debacle demonstrates the differences between Republicans and Democrats.
Off the Kuff takes a look at a battle between cities and some legislators over red light cameras.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the great job our Democratic state representative in HD-52 is doing this session in, Diana Maldonado’s legislation.
TXsharon asked you to help Close the Halliburton Loophole and it looks like it's working, but don't let up on the pressure yet. From Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS
New TPA member blog Castle Hills Democrats ran a satire piece by the blogger's good friend Melinda, poking fun at those who say they're Tired of Big Government.
Neil at Texas Liberal has been accepted as a member of the Academy of Political Science. Also, Neil finds that Houston's District H Council special election makes him ill.
This week, the Republican's sent out an email asking people to fight... for toll roads. McBlogger, predictably, thought their arguments were pretty weak.
Rick Carney, Gov. Suckseed's political consultant, likened efforts to broaden the appeal of the Texas Republican Party "becoming a whorehouse", and for some reason several of Kay Bailey's female supporters took offense. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs pops the corn and documents the atrocity.
Over at TexasKaos, TxSharon begs Congress to Close the Halliburton Loophole. She explains that the drilling industry is the only industry allowed to pump toxics into our water sources without special permission! Read the rest!
WhosPlayin only had Random Thoughts this week, but guest blogger Calvin Tillman - mayor of Dish, TX - weighed in with his thoughts on the Stacked Deck being dealt by the Texas Railroad Commission and their bias towards the interests of the oil and gas companies.
At Left of College Station, Teddy reports on the recent increase in violence, the withdrawal of troops, and the possibility of what could happen in the war that has vanished from public debate: the fading war in Iraq.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme says the Voter ID debacle demonstrates the differences between Republicans and Democrats.
Off the Kuff takes a look at a battle between cities and some legislators over red light cameras.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the great job our Democratic state representative in HD-52 is doing this session in, Diana Maldonado’s legislation.
TXsharon asked you to help Close the Halliburton Loophole and it looks like it's working, but don't let up on the pressure yet. From Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS
New TPA member blog Castle Hills Democrats ran a satire piece by the blogger's good friend Melinda, poking fun at those who say they're Tired of Big Government.
Neil at Texas Liberal has been accepted as a member of the Academy of Political Science. Also, Neil finds that Houston's District H Council special election makes him ill.
This week, the Republican's sent out an email asking people to fight... for toll roads. McBlogger, predictably, thought their arguments were pretty weak.
Rick Carney, Gov. Suckseed's political consultant, likened efforts to broaden the appeal of the Texas Republican Party "becoming a whorehouse", and for some reason several of Kay Bailey's female supporters took offense. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs pops the corn and documents the atrocity.
Over at TexasKaos, TxSharon begs Congress to Close the Halliburton Loophole. She explains that the drilling industry is the only industry allowed to pump toxics into our water sources without special permission! Read the rest!
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Fading War
After President Obama’s election and the adoption of the nineteen month withdrawal plan, the war in Iraq has faded out of the public debate. However, the war in Iraq is far from fading on the battlefield, and the violence in Iraq could be on the verge of increasing.
According to Casualties.org 4,299 American military service members have died in Iraq and March was the lowest level of American casualties (9) since the war in Iraq began. However, last month was the highest total of American casualties (19) since September of last year, and this month 17 service members have died in Iraq.
The Washington Post reported yesterday, that three United States soldiers were killed and nine were wounded while on patrol in a marketplace in western Baghdad. Also, early that day eight Sunnis where killed in a suicide bombing in Kirkuk.
In northern Iraq tensions between the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs are mounting. According to an article in the New York Times earlier this week, the Kurds have refused to recognize the Iraqi government’s sovereignty over the Kurdish occupied Nineveh province. The newly elected Sunni Arab governor was not allowed to enter a Kurdish controlled town, a Sunni Arab Nineveh police chief was not allowed to cross a bridge into a Kurdish controlled area, and there have been other similar incidents in the last several weeks.
Early this month the New York Times reported on a bombing in Sadr City; that kind of violence had not been seen in the city since November of 2006. The report stated that sectarian violence had increased recently, and the victims of the attacks expressed the possibility of retaliation against those they felt where responsible.
“…the people were angry and they started talking about reacting. Some of them said that they were ready to return back to the old days, and sink deep into a sectarian war again. Until last week I would not have believed that Iraqis dared to think that there is a possibility of returning to hell.”
This violence precede the scheduled pulling out of American troops from Sadr City, and according to an article in the Washington Post, the residents of Sadr City fear that at best there will be lawlessness and at worst there will be civil war. This is going to be a key moment for the war in Iraq, and for the Obama Administration. If the violence escalates will the current administration continue to withdraw its forces, or will it change strategy because of the conditions on the ground and the political realities of a possible civil war.
The tentative date for the Iraqi elections has been set for January 30th, and this election will be the second election since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the first election to be organized exclusively by the Iraqi government. Although, according to an article in the Washington Post, new coalitions across Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurdish could be formed, and there is the possibility of a coalition government.
Thomas E. Ricks, author of The Gamble and Fiasco, has written at Foreign Policy.com about the unraveling of the “surge era deals in Iraq” since March, and today posted the ninth installment. The unraveling of these deals has included the Shiite lead government of Iraq arresting leaders of the Awakening forces, integrating only 5,000 of the promised 20,000 Awakening forces into the Iraqi security forces, and not paying members of the Awakening forces their agreed upon payments.
As the Iraq war has faded into the background of the nation’s conscience, being replaced by other foreign policy issues such as Afghanistan and Pakistan and domestic issues such as the economic crisis, the urgency to leave Iraq and the dramatic cost of the war has also faded. There was a collective sigh of relief when Barack Obama was elected President and many of us, myself included, felt as if the war in Iraq would soon be at an end. The sixteen month timetable to leave Iraq that was originally laid out by Obama during the Presidential campaign seemed measured, reasonable, and realistic. The nineteen month timetable to leave Iraq seemed at first like an acceptable compromise, although the prospect of leaving between 30,000 and 50,000 service members in Iraq seemed questionable.
It remains important to continue to pressure this administration to end the war in Iraq, and with every day that passes and with every soldier that we lose it becomes more and more important to end this war of choice.
According to Casualties.org 4,299 American military service members have died in Iraq and March was the lowest level of American casualties (9) since the war in Iraq began. However, last month was the highest total of American casualties (19) since September of last year, and this month 17 service members have died in Iraq.
The Washington Post reported yesterday, that three United States soldiers were killed and nine were wounded while on patrol in a marketplace in western Baghdad. Also, early that day eight Sunnis where killed in a suicide bombing in Kirkuk.
In northern Iraq tensions between the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs are mounting. According to an article in the New York Times earlier this week, the Kurds have refused to recognize the Iraqi government’s sovereignty over the Kurdish occupied Nineveh province. The newly elected Sunni Arab governor was not allowed to enter a Kurdish controlled town, a Sunni Arab Nineveh police chief was not allowed to cross a bridge into a Kurdish controlled area, and there have been other similar incidents in the last several weeks.
Early this month the New York Times reported on a bombing in Sadr City; that kind of violence had not been seen in the city since November of 2006. The report stated that sectarian violence had increased recently, and the victims of the attacks expressed the possibility of retaliation against those they felt where responsible.
“…the people were angry and they started talking about reacting. Some of them said that they were ready to return back to the old days, and sink deep into a sectarian war again. Until last week I would not have believed that Iraqis dared to think that there is a possibility of returning to hell.”
This violence precede the scheduled pulling out of American troops from Sadr City, and according to an article in the Washington Post, the residents of Sadr City fear that at best there will be lawlessness and at worst there will be civil war. This is going to be a key moment for the war in Iraq, and for the Obama Administration. If the violence escalates will the current administration continue to withdraw its forces, or will it change strategy because of the conditions on the ground and the political realities of a possible civil war.
The tentative date for the Iraqi elections has been set for January 30th, and this election will be the second election since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the first election to be organized exclusively by the Iraqi government. Although, according to an article in the Washington Post, new coalitions across Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurdish could be formed, and there is the possibility of a coalition government.
Thomas E. Ricks, author of The Gamble and Fiasco, has written at Foreign Policy.com about the unraveling of the “surge era deals in Iraq” since March, and today posted the ninth installment. The unraveling of these deals has included the Shiite lead government of Iraq arresting leaders of the Awakening forces, integrating only 5,000 of the promised 20,000 Awakening forces into the Iraqi security forces, and not paying members of the Awakening forces their agreed upon payments.
As the Iraq war has faded into the background of the nation’s conscience, being replaced by other foreign policy issues such as Afghanistan and Pakistan and domestic issues such as the economic crisis, the urgency to leave Iraq and the dramatic cost of the war has also faded. There was a collective sigh of relief when Barack Obama was elected President and many of us, myself included, felt as if the war in Iraq would soon be at an end. The sixteen month timetable to leave Iraq that was originally laid out by Obama during the Presidential campaign seemed measured, reasonable, and realistic. The nineteen month timetable to leave Iraq seemed at first like an acceptable compromise, although the prospect of leaving between 30,000 and 50,000 service members in Iraq seemed questionable.
It remains important to continue to pressure this administration to end the war in Iraq, and with every day that passes and with every soldier that we lose it becomes more and more important to end this war of choice.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Left of College Station on Biased Transmission
Tonight I will be a co-host on Biased Transmission, a progressive talk radio show which airs on 89.1FM KEOS every Wednesday from 6:00pm – 7:00pm. Kenneth Michael Absher*, a fellow at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service, was scheduled to be a guest on tonight’s show and participate in a discussion about the Bush Administration’s “enhanced interrogation” policies. Absher, who served for over 30 years in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), informed the show that he is “committed to activities that will prevent [him] from being available for an interview on [the] radio show for the foreseeable future”
The discussion will center on the current debate about “enhanced interrogation,” otherwise known as torture. Topics will range from the release of the “torture memos” to the non-release of the torture photographs, the political debate surrounding Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the C.I.A. Also, we will be discussing what constitutes torture, and if it is ever justified. The co-hosts that will be participating in the discussion are Michael Alvard, Ann Preston, and Srikanth Sastry. If you cannot tune into the show tonight the show will be posted online at the Biased Transmission archive, and it will also be posted here at Left of College Station on Sunday.
*It was originally noted on the Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup that Jim Olson, Texas A&M University Senior Lecturer and CIA-Officer-in-Residence, was going to be the guest on Biased Transmission, however, Olson was the guest on a previous show on February 6, 2008.
The discussion will center on the current debate about “enhanced interrogation,” otherwise known as torture. Topics will range from the release of the “torture memos” to the non-release of the torture photographs, the political debate surrounding Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the C.I.A. Also, we will be discussing what constitutes torture, and if it is ever justified. The co-hosts that will be participating in the discussion are Michael Alvard, Ann Preston, and Srikanth Sastry. If you cannot tune into the show tonight the show will be posted online at the Biased Transmission archive, and it will also be posted here at Left of College Station on Sunday.
*It was originally noted on the Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup that Jim Olson, Texas A&M University Senior Lecturer and CIA-Officer-in-Residence, was going to be the guest on Biased Transmission, however, Olson was the guest on a previous show on February 6, 2008.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup
It's Monday, and that means it is time for another edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly round-up.
At Bluedaze, TXsharon asks: What are the chances that an industry in charge of conducting its own testing to determine waste disposal methods will find toxin levels too high if that means disposal of the waste will be more
costly? Landfarms: Spreading Toxic Drilling Waste on Farmland. With VIDEO.
BossKitty at TruthHugger sees lessons never learned ... it is NOT about religion, ya'll! How does it fit that US Military crusader evangelists want to save these souls right before we blow them away. How can we justify putting Mulims on death row, by their own people, just because we convinced them to become APOSTATES?! General Order Number One, Forbid Proselytizing – Evangelists Cannot Protect Murtads - Wars fought using 12th century religious mentality means that civilization has made two steps backwards!
Mean Rachel is reminded on Mother's Day of children, the lack thereof and why The Pill should be available over the counter.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants to know how can Rick Perry brag about how well Texas is doing when over 22% of our children face hunger every day?
Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News showed a video from the Texas
Freedom Network of our own Texas Department of Miseducation in action.
WhosPlayin covered the Denton County Democrats' election of a new County Chair, after previous chairman Neil Durrance resigned to run for U.S. Congress in District 26 in 2010.
The bad news is that unemployment keeps rising in Texas. The good news is that means there's more federal stimulus money available for unemployment insurance, if the Lege and Governor Perry take it. Off the Kuff has the details.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the latest stunt by our member of Congress, AusChron asks a question about Rep. John Carter - is he a nutball?
Neil at Texas Liberal is very glad that the left won a big election victory in India, Strong Victory For Center-Left Congress Party In India—World’s Two Largest Democracies Now Firmly Reject Conservatives, and that now the world's two largest democracies have firmly rejected conservatives.
Harry Balczak is a little upset. Come by McBlogger so you to can understand how much.
John Coby at Bay Area Houston says it is Time to Sunset Bob Perry's Builder Commission.
This week Teddy at Left of College Station covers President Obama’s decision to continue to use the Bush Administration “con-missions” to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Also, Wednesday Teddy will be a co-host of Biased Transmission, a progressive talk radio show on the community radio station 89.1FM KEOS. This week Jim Olson, Texas A&M University Senior Lecturer and CIA-Officer-in-Residence, will return to the show to discuss the “enhanced interrogations” used during the Bush Administration.
Over at TexasKaos, liberaltexan takes on the Obama administration's decision to continue the military Con-Missions. He seems to believe we should, like, trust our own judicial institutions and not make up new, untested ones with no demonstration of necessity or superiority.. See his diary, President Obama to Continue Con-Missions…
Xanthippas at Three Wise Men takes heed of journalist Ahmed Rashid's warnings about Pakistan, which teeters on the brink of chaos.
Good ol' boy Gene Green got real scared by some progressive activists who came to his office this past week. PDiddie recounted the poor Congressman's terror at Brains and Eggs.
At Bluedaze, TXsharon asks: What are the chances that an industry in charge of conducting its own testing to determine waste disposal methods will find toxin levels too high if that means disposal of the waste will be more
costly? Landfarms: Spreading Toxic Drilling Waste on Farmland. With VIDEO.
BossKitty at TruthHugger sees lessons never learned ... it is NOT about religion, ya'll! How does it fit that US Military crusader evangelists want to save these souls right before we blow them away. How can we justify putting Mulims on death row, by their own people, just because we convinced them to become APOSTATES?! General Order Number One, Forbid Proselytizing – Evangelists Cannot Protect Murtads - Wars fought using 12th century religious mentality means that civilization has made two steps backwards!
Mean Rachel is reminded on Mother's Day of children, the lack thereof and why The Pill should be available over the counter.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants to know how can Rick Perry brag about how well Texas is doing when over 22% of our children face hunger every day?
Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News showed a video from the Texas
Freedom Network of our own Texas Department of Miseducation in action.
WhosPlayin covered the Denton County Democrats' election of a new County Chair, after previous chairman Neil Durrance resigned to run for U.S. Congress in District 26 in 2010.
The bad news is that unemployment keeps rising in Texas. The good news is that means there's more federal stimulus money available for unemployment insurance, if the Lege and Governor Perry take it. Off the Kuff has the details.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the latest stunt by our member of Congress, AusChron asks a question about Rep. John Carter - is he a nutball?
Neil at Texas Liberal is very glad that the left won a big election victory in India, Strong Victory For Center-Left Congress Party In India—World’s Two Largest Democracies Now Firmly Reject Conservatives, and that now the world's two largest democracies have firmly rejected conservatives.
Harry Balczak is a little upset. Come by McBlogger so you to can understand how much.
John Coby at Bay Area Houston says it is Time to Sunset Bob Perry's Builder Commission.
This week Teddy at Left of College Station covers President Obama’s decision to continue to use the Bush Administration “con-missions” to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Also, Wednesday Teddy will be a co-host of Biased Transmission, a progressive talk radio show on the community radio station 89.1FM KEOS. This week Jim Olson, Texas A&M University Senior Lecturer and CIA-Officer-in-Residence, will return to the show to discuss the “enhanced interrogations” used during the Bush Administration.
Over at TexasKaos, liberaltexan takes on the Obama administration's decision to continue the military Con-Missions. He seems to believe we should, like, trust our own judicial institutions and not make up new, untested ones with no demonstration of necessity or superiority.. See his diary, President Obama to Continue Con-Missions…
Xanthippas at Three Wise Men takes heed of journalist Ahmed Rashid's warnings about Pakistan, which teeters on the brink of chaos.
Good ol' boy Gene Green got real scared by some progressive activists who came to his office this past week. PDiddie recounted the poor Congressman's terror at Brains and Eggs.
Friday, May 15, 2009
President Obama to Continue Con-Missions…
The New York Times confirmed through administration officials that President Barack Obama will continue the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, despite suspending the commissions after he was inaugurated in January.
President Obama has decided to keep the military commission system that his predecessor created to try suspected terrorists but will ask Congress to expand the rights of defendants to contest the charges against them, officials briefed on the plan said Thursday.
According to another article in the New York Times, the upgraded military commissions “would limit the use of hearsay, ban evidence gained from cruel treatment, give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers and provide more protection if they do not testify.”
Despite the “revamped” commissions this raises questions, and on the heels of decisions to repress photographs depicting torture it appears that the President may not be making as clean a break from the Bush Administration policies as he promissed during the campaigned. Beyond the civil rights issues of the decision to continue the military commissions there are political issues. President Obama has made it clear that he intends to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, however, as of yet there is no clear plan to how it will be shut down and what will happen with the detainees. Congress has already denied the $80 million that the President has requested to fund closing Guantanamo, and there is increasing political pressure not to allow detainees to be transferred to the United States.
The Republicans in Congress has spent much of the last few weeks promoting the idea that if Guantanamo is closed that apparently detainees will be released in the United States. The continued promotion of the generalization that all of the detainees in Guantanamo are the very same people that attacked the United States on September 11th is ridiculous. Also, there has been the continued use of the debunked idea that there are significant amounts of former Guantanamo detainees that are returning to the battlefield. Since the Bush Administrations characterization of the detainees as the “worst of the worst” any realistic approach to how to legally deal with those detained in Guantanamo by has been largely replaced by fear inducing rhetoric.
Although, mainly because of their own rhetoric, there is not a congressman (or possibly elected official for that matter) who wants detainees to be held in their state or district. The town of Hardin, Montana lobbied to have the detainees sent to the newly built and empty prison, Two Rivers Detention Facility. The Montana congressional delegation baulked at the idea of having detainees transferred to the state they represented. According to an article in Time, Democrat Senator Max Baucus said “we're not going to bring al-Qaeda to Big Sky Country.” Since February Texas lawmakers have been lobbying not to allow detainees to be transferred to Texas or to another other state. Republican Congressman Lamar Smith said that lawmakers will do whatever possible to “prevent the transfer or release of known terrorists into the neighborhoods and communities of Texas.”
What this really says is that there is a lack of trust in the United States justice system, and it also suggests that the commissions may be the only way to actually convict many of the detainees of anything. Despite the fact that the Bush Administration has done anything and everything possible to make it difficult to impossible to prosecute terrorist under United States law, it is important that terrorist be brought to justice in a real court room, not a con-mission. Congressman Peter King suggested that the very idea of having a terrorist standing trial within walking distance of the September 11th terrorist attacks is “offensive” and “dangerous.” When it concerns prosecuting the detainees that were involved in terrorist activities; there is no more fitting place than in the shadow of ground zero.
President Obama has decided to keep the military commission system that his predecessor created to try suspected terrorists but will ask Congress to expand the rights of defendants to contest the charges against them, officials briefed on the plan said Thursday.
According to another article in the New York Times, the upgraded military commissions “would limit the use of hearsay, ban evidence gained from cruel treatment, give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers and provide more protection if they do not testify.”
Despite the “revamped” commissions this raises questions, and on the heels of decisions to repress photographs depicting torture it appears that the President may not be making as clean a break from the Bush Administration policies as he promissed during the campaigned. Beyond the civil rights issues of the decision to continue the military commissions there are political issues. President Obama has made it clear that he intends to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, however, as of yet there is no clear plan to how it will be shut down and what will happen with the detainees. Congress has already denied the $80 million that the President has requested to fund closing Guantanamo, and there is increasing political pressure not to allow detainees to be transferred to the United States.
The Republicans in Congress has spent much of the last few weeks promoting the idea that if Guantanamo is closed that apparently detainees will be released in the United States. The continued promotion of the generalization that all of the detainees in Guantanamo are the very same people that attacked the United States on September 11th is ridiculous. Also, there has been the continued use of the debunked idea that there are significant amounts of former Guantanamo detainees that are returning to the battlefield. Since the Bush Administrations characterization of the detainees as the “worst of the worst” any realistic approach to how to legally deal with those detained in Guantanamo by has been largely replaced by fear inducing rhetoric.
Although, mainly because of their own rhetoric, there is not a congressman (or possibly elected official for that matter) who wants detainees to be held in their state or district. The town of Hardin, Montana lobbied to have the detainees sent to the newly built and empty prison, Two Rivers Detention Facility. The Montana congressional delegation baulked at the idea of having detainees transferred to the state they represented. According to an article in Time, Democrat Senator Max Baucus said “we're not going to bring al-Qaeda to Big Sky Country.” Since February Texas lawmakers have been lobbying not to allow detainees to be transferred to Texas or to another other state. Republican Congressman Lamar Smith said that lawmakers will do whatever possible to “prevent the transfer or release of known terrorists into the neighborhoods and communities of Texas.”
What this really says is that there is a lack of trust in the United States justice system, and it also suggests that the commissions may be the only way to actually convict many of the detainees of anything. Despite the fact that the Bush Administration has done anything and everything possible to make it difficult to impossible to prosecute terrorist under United States law, it is important that terrorist be brought to justice in a real court room, not a con-mission. Congressman Peter King suggested that the very idea of having a terrorist standing trial within walking distance of the September 11th terrorist attacks is “offensive” and “dangerous.” When it concerns prosecuting the detainees that were involved in terrorist activities; there is no more fitting place than in the shadow of ground zero.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Day in 100 Seconds: Interrogation Hearings
A Senate Judiciary Subcommittee looked into the legal conduct of Justice Department lawyers who approved harsh interrogation techniques. One of the witnesses, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, interrogated Guantanamo detainee Abu Zubaydah.
Watch the Interrogation Hearing at C-SPAN.org
Monday, May 11, 2009
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup
It's Monday, and that means it is time for another edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly round-up.
The city of DISH, TX is one of several municipalities that have already adopted a resolution calling for the repeal of Big Oil's exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act. TXsharon gives DISH a high-five and hopes your group, organization, club, city or county will do the same, at Bluedaze.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is glad the internets have Texas Progressive Alliance! The Republicans have their house of cards and a batsh*t crazy base.
BossKitty at TruthHugger sees danger in the watered down, dumbed down attempt to educate students by committee. Sanitized History, Truth or Consequences is an example of why education needs serious attention.
Houston political reporter Jane Ely passed away this week. PDiddie collected some recollections of her life at Brains and Eggs.
WhosPlayin was totally absorbed in the municipal elections in Lewisville, and was glad to see conservative radio talk host Winston Edmondson soundly defeated by 30 points in his bid to turn Lewisville into the next Farmers Branch.
Is it a good idea to give TXDOT it's own taxpayer funded investment bank? Yeah, McBlogger doesn't think so, either.
Over at TexasKaos, lightseeker thinks it is time to reconsider moral absolutism in politics. He talks about how Obama made progress on this issue nationally and how his tatics may apply in Texas. Check out his posting:Moral Absolutism and Politics - What Obama's Victory Has to Say to Texas Progressives
Off the Kuff takes a look at the latest polls in the GOP gubernatorial primary.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson has a wrap-up of the action taken on the TxDOT Sunset bill in the House last week, CDA/PPP’s kicked to House Transportation Committee.
Neil at Texas Liberal writes that using Twitter in politics may well have the effect of further isolating a narrow elite from the larger mass of folks.
Vince at Capitol Annex discusses the rightwing's email lobbying campaign against legislation that would have subjected the State Board of Education to Sunset review provisions.
The city of DISH, TX is one of several municipalities that have already adopted a resolution calling for the repeal of Big Oil's exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act. TXsharon gives DISH a high-five and hopes your group, organization, club, city or county will do the same, at Bluedaze.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is glad the internets have Texas Progressive Alliance! The Republicans have their house of cards and a batsh*t crazy base.
BossKitty at TruthHugger sees danger in the watered down, dumbed down attempt to educate students by committee. Sanitized History, Truth or Consequences is an example of why education needs serious attention.
Houston political reporter Jane Ely passed away this week. PDiddie collected some recollections of her life at Brains and Eggs.
WhosPlayin was totally absorbed in the municipal elections in Lewisville, and was glad to see conservative radio talk host Winston Edmondson soundly defeated by 30 points in his bid to turn Lewisville into the next Farmers Branch.
Is it a good idea to give TXDOT it's own taxpayer funded investment bank? Yeah, McBlogger doesn't think so, either.
Over at TexasKaos, lightseeker thinks it is time to reconsider moral absolutism in politics. He talks about how Obama made progress on this issue nationally and how his tatics may apply in Texas. Check out his posting:Moral Absolutism and Politics - What Obama's Victory Has to Say to Texas Progressives
Off the Kuff takes a look at the latest polls in the GOP gubernatorial primary.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson has a wrap-up of the action taken on the TxDOT Sunset bill in the House last week, CDA/PPP’s kicked to House Transportation Committee.
Neil at Texas Liberal writes that using Twitter in politics may well have the effect of further isolating a narrow elite from the larger mass of folks.
Vince at Capitol Annex discusses the rightwing's email lobbying campaign against legislation that would have subjected the State Board of Education to Sunset review provisions.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
College Station City Council Elections: Incumbent Faces Two Challengers
Councilwoman Lynn McIlhaney is running for reelection and being challenge by two other candidates in the campaign for College Station City Council Place 4.
Councilwoman McIlhaney, Mayor Pro Tem, is a long serving member of the local government, and has served as a city council member or mayor for 22 of the last 27 years. It should also be noted that McIlhaney is a member of the Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Keep Brazos Beautiful, and was a board member of the Brazos Valley Animal Shelter. McIlhaney is the only candidate for Place 4 who answers all of the Brazos Progressives candidate survey questions.
According to an article in The Eagle, McIlhaney supports building a convention center to foster tourism; however, she would also support allowing the voters to have the final word in a referendum. The councilwoman believes that the current City Hall “does not give us the space needed for future growth, it is not centrally located for our citizens and the cost to re-locate rather than renovate is a better investment for our citizens in the long term.”
She supports the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and noted that the city is in the “process of looking for a staff person to co-ordinate the Green City program.” On her list of possible improvements are hybrid cars, energy efficient buildings, and continuing the wind watts program. Along with these the councilwoman also supports promoting the curb side recycling program, and ensuring that new programs are cost effective and achieve the goal of reducing waste.
Providing access to pedestrians, bicyclists, and wheel chair users is something that McIlhaney supports, and note that the city plans to address the issue of “connectivity through our transportation plan as part of the new Comprehensive Plan and our Greenways Plan.” The councilwoman does not support funding for a permanent farmer’s market. Although she supports public/private partnerships, she does not “support tax payers buying land, building a building” in order to create a permanent famer’s market.
According to the article in the Eagle McIlhaney supports the current "conservative approach" to annexing land, and believes that the city should encourage “development within the existing city limits, in-fill development, zoning, building standards and pedestrian friendly infrastructure.”
According to an article in the Eagle, Douglas Cummings made to the decision to run in a “spur-of-the-moment decision.” Cummings came to College Station in 2000, and after living in Japan for a while, moved back to College Station in 2004.
Cummings favors building both a new City Hall, and a convention center, however, he believes that the City Hall should not be renovated or built without a compromise plan such as “selling it to offset the costs of the move, or allocating it for something such as a farmers’ market.” He supports aggressive annexation of land but feels as though the city should focus on high density development to prevent urban sprawl.
Creating “incentives to redevelop areas within the city more densely” is how Cummings believe “smart growth” should be achieved; some of those incentives would include tax breaks, green building credits, and pressuring owners of vacant land to either develop or sell the property. Funding for a permanent farmer’s market is an idea that he supports, and believes that a “central public square would be ideal.”
Cummings supports the creation of single member districts to replace the six at large city council places, which none of the other candidates have supported.
Katy-Marie Lyles has lived in College Station for seven years, and is the Director of college ministries at A&M United Methodist Church. In The Eagle’s endorsement of Lyles it characterized her as “young, she is energetic and we feel that she would be willing to ask tough questions of the staff and stand strong for her positions.” However, Lyles did not answer any questions on the Brazos Progressives candidate survey, and it certainly appears as if Lyles is running on only one issues: protection of churches and faith based institutions in and around North Gate. According to her Facebook group, she makes it clear that she is “grossly offended and concerned about the city's behavior towards the church community and faith communities of Northgate. Also, in the same article in which The Eagle gave its endorsement, she made the claim that the city council is attempting to take “land her church sits on for commercial development,” and compared it to gentrification. Perhaps a better place for someone with such a narrow issue focus would to be on the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission.
Cummings has some interesting ideas, and creating single member districts is an important idea that should be promoted. However, a decision to run for public office should never be made without full considerations, and there is some concern about his lack of positions on environmental issues.
Left of College Station supports Councilwoman Lynn McIlhaney for reelection.
Councilwoman McIlhaney, Mayor Pro Tem, is a long serving member of the local government, and has served as a city council member or mayor for 22 of the last 27 years. It should also be noted that McIlhaney is a member of the Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Keep Brazos Beautiful, and was a board member of the Brazos Valley Animal Shelter. McIlhaney is the only candidate for Place 4 who answers all of the Brazos Progressives candidate survey questions.
According to an article in The Eagle, McIlhaney supports building a convention center to foster tourism; however, she would also support allowing the voters to have the final word in a referendum. The councilwoman believes that the current City Hall “does not give us the space needed for future growth, it is not centrally located for our citizens and the cost to re-locate rather than renovate is a better investment for our citizens in the long term.”
She supports the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and noted that the city is in the “process of looking for a staff person to co-ordinate the Green City program.” On her list of possible improvements are hybrid cars, energy efficient buildings, and continuing the wind watts program. Along with these the councilwoman also supports promoting the curb side recycling program, and ensuring that new programs are cost effective and achieve the goal of reducing waste.
Providing access to pedestrians, bicyclists, and wheel chair users is something that McIlhaney supports, and note that the city plans to address the issue of “connectivity through our transportation plan as part of the new Comprehensive Plan and our Greenways Plan.” The councilwoman does not support funding for a permanent farmer’s market. Although she supports public/private partnerships, she does not “support tax payers buying land, building a building” in order to create a permanent famer’s market.
According to the article in the Eagle McIlhaney supports the current "conservative approach" to annexing land, and believes that the city should encourage “development within the existing city limits, in-fill development, zoning, building standards and pedestrian friendly infrastructure.”
According to an article in the Eagle, Douglas Cummings made to the decision to run in a “spur-of-the-moment decision.” Cummings came to College Station in 2000, and after living in Japan for a while, moved back to College Station in 2004.
Cummings favors building both a new City Hall, and a convention center, however, he believes that the City Hall should not be renovated or built without a compromise plan such as “selling it to offset the costs of the move, or allocating it for something such as a farmers’ market.” He supports aggressive annexation of land but feels as though the city should focus on high density development to prevent urban sprawl.
Creating “incentives to redevelop areas within the city more densely” is how Cummings believe “smart growth” should be achieved; some of those incentives would include tax breaks, green building credits, and pressuring owners of vacant land to either develop or sell the property. Funding for a permanent farmer’s market is an idea that he supports, and believes that a “central public square would be ideal.”
Cummings supports the creation of single member districts to replace the six at large city council places, which none of the other candidates have supported.
Katy-Marie Lyles has lived in College Station for seven years, and is the Director of college ministries at A&M United Methodist Church. In The Eagle’s endorsement of Lyles it characterized her as “young, she is energetic and we feel that she would be willing to ask tough questions of the staff and stand strong for her positions.” However, Lyles did not answer any questions on the Brazos Progressives candidate survey, and it certainly appears as if Lyles is running on only one issues: protection of churches and faith based institutions in and around North Gate. According to her Facebook group, she makes it clear that she is “grossly offended and concerned about the city's behavior towards the church community and faith communities of Northgate. Also, in the same article in which The Eagle gave its endorsement, she made the claim that the city council is attempting to take “land her church sits on for commercial development,” and compared it to gentrification. Perhaps a better place for someone with such a narrow issue focus would to be on the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission.
Cummings has some interesting ideas, and creating single member districts is an important idea that should be promoted. However, a decision to run for public office should never be made without full considerations, and there is some concern about his lack of positions on environmental issues.
Left of College Station supports Councilwoman Lynn McIlhaney for reelection.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
College Station City Council Elections: Students Challenge Incumbent
College Station City Council member Dave Ruesink is facing a challenge for the council seat in Place 6 from two Texas A&M University students: Cliff Eggers and Chandler Salome.
Ruesink has served on the on the city council for the last three years, and the Bryan-College Station newspaper The Eagle said in a recent editorial that he “has shown himself to be more than up to the challenge of the job.”
Ruesink supports funding for a permanent farmers marker in a visible central locations, and noted that having a market in Central Park would be a step forward but that a better location should be found. Also, Ruesink supports “smart growth,” as opposed to urban sprawl, and has proposed the possibility of rasping property taxes on undeveloped property within the city to “make it more attractive to sell than to hold onto the land.”
The construction of a new city hall has been an issue of great concern, and Ruesink had the most thoughtful approach to the problem. While agreeing that the city needs to be expanded, he also noted that it might not be possible to expand the current city hall efficiently in its current location. Ruesink said that “it would be more effective to being a totally new building that could incorporation “green” methods for construction.”
*Note: Ruesink did not respond to Brazos Progressives questions about the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, the curb side recycling program, or access for pedestrians, bicyclist, and wheel chair users.
Clif Eggers is both a Texas A&M student and a veteran of the United States Navy, and as a fellow veteran I am both grateful for his service and for his involvement in local politics. Eggers decided to run for office because he felt that rather than “complian (sic) about government, I have volunteered to stand up to be a part of the solution.” Eggers has placed his name on the ballot for city council presenting a platform that is anti-red light cameras, anti-landlord registration (Eggers is a landlord), and generally pro-limited government.
Eggers has questioned whether or not the College Station City Council passing over 200 ordinances in less than two years was well thought out and perused with diligence. Also, he believes that there has been too much interference from the local government without the residents’ consent, asking on his Facebook group how residents “feel about red light cameras, speed cameras, surveylance (sic) cameras in town, moving city hall, landlord registration, penalizing private citizens for crimes committed by other citizens, and ordiances (sic) that restrict what you may do on your own private property?”
While there is a need for pedestrians, bicyclist and wheel chair users to have access to all places of residence, commerce and employment within the city, he is not in favor of giving access in “all places.” Eggers believes that sidewalks in Northgate negatively affect places of worship and thinks that College Station should continue to make progress without “creating undue hardships on the churches and businesses.” Eggers is also against funding for a permanent farmers marker stated that he does not “believe that running a business, or supporting a business, is a legitimate function of government.”
Eggers does support “smart growth” and limited urban sprawl by renovating areas area College Station such as the South Gate area, and said that creating parks and “with some new roads and development investors might have incentives to build new houses.” Although Eggers is against building a new city hall, he did not offer any ideas for an expansion of the current city hall or the possibility of building a city hall on a new site at a future date.
While Eggers does support the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, he believes that “warming on a global scale may one day be proven to be a miscalculation.” However, Eggers does support the curbside recycling program, and believes that the council should make efforts to raise awareness about the program.
Chandler Salome is a student at Texas A&M University and a member of the Corps of Cadets, and is expected to graduate from Texas A&M in December of 2010.
Along with the other two candidates Salome supports limiting urban sprawl and agrees with the principle of “smart growth.” Fully researching plan of redeveloping rundown neighborhoods is how Salome believes would be the best way to grow the city. Salome does believe that City Hall needs to be expanded but does not believe that now “is a great time for the city to spend money on itself” when it should be spending more money on infrastructure.
Salome supports the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, and believes that College Station “needs to increase its public transportation.” Also, Salome supports the curbside recycling program, and believes that the city should “reach out to those citizens [students] and get them involved.”
According to an article in the Eagle, Salome said that he would try to represent all of the residents of College Station, but he does not feel as if the students are adequately represented. Salome said the he feels that he “can represent a larger portion of the population that's not being represented.”
On Salome’s Facebook group, which has nearly 700 members, he has laid out his platform of student involvement in the local government, cutting city spending on projects, and preventing the further development on Northgate. The web site for Salome’s campaign is not up and running, although a note promises that the site should be up today.
While Eggers and Salome both valuable experience and are important members of their communities both do not seem to have the time necessary that is required of a member of the city council.
Eggers seems less concerned about representing the residents of College Station and more interested in voicing and promoting his own political opinions, and I question if he would listen to the citizens he would be elected to represent. The politics and positions that Eggers supports seem to be much more suited to a congressional campaign; the city council elections are non-partisan and it feels as though Eggers has forgotten that.
Salome seems to have a genuine interest in representing his community and has some interesting ideas. Perhaps Salome should run again for public office in a few years after he has completed college.
Ruesink has the experience of being on the council for the last three years, and because he is retired he can devote a far greater amount of time to the city than the other two candidates.
Left of College Station supports Dave Ruesink for re-election to College Station City Council Place 6.
Ruesink has served on the on the city council for the last three years, and the Bryan-College Station newspaper The Eagle said in a recent editorial that he “has shown himself to be more than up to the challenge of the job.”
Ruesink supports funding for a permanent farmers marker in a visible central locations, and noted that having a market in Central Park would be a step forward but that a better location should be found. Also, Ruesink supports “smart growth,” as opposed to urban sprawl, and has proposed the possibility of rasping property taxes on undeveloped property within the city to “make it more attractive to sell than to hold onto the land.”
The construction of a new city hall has been an issue of great concern, and Ruesink had the most thoughtful approach to the problem. While agreeing that the city needs to be expanded, he also noted that it might not be possible to expand the current city hall efficiently in its current location. Ruesink said that “it would be more effective to being a totally new building that could incorporation “green” methods for construction.”
*Note: Ruesink did not respond to Brazos Progressives questions about the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, the curb side recycling program, or access for pedestrians, bicyclist, and wheel chair users.
Clif Eggers is both a Texas A&M student and a veteran of the United States Navy, and as a fellow veteran I am both grateful for his service and for his involvement in local politics. Eggers decided to run for office because he felt that rather than “complian (sic) about government, I have volunteered to stand up to be a part of the solution.” Eggers has placed his name on the ballot for city council presenting a platform that is anti-red light cameras, anti-landlord registration (Eggers is a landlord), and generally pro-limited government.
Eggers has questioned whether or not the College Station City Council passing over 200 ordinances in less than two years was well thought out and perused with diligence. Also, he believes that there has been too much interference from the local government without the residents’ consent, asking on his Facebook group how residents “feel about red light cameras, speed cameras, surveylance (sic) cameras in town, moving city hall, landlord registration, penalizing private citizens for crimes committed by other citizens, and ordiances (sic) that restrict what you may do on your own private property?”
While there is a need for pedestrians, bicyclist and wheel chair users to have access to all places of residence, commerce and employment within the city, he is not in favor of giving access in “all places.” Eggers believes that sidewalks in Northgate negatively affect places of worship and thinks that College Station should continue to make progress without “creating undue hardships on the churches and businesses.” Eggers is also against funding for a permanent farmers marker stated that he does not “believe that running a business, or supporting a business, is a legitimate function of government.”
Eggers does support “smart growth” and limited urban sprawl by renovating areas area College Station such as the South Gate area, and said that creating parks and “with some new roads and development investors might have incentives to build new houses.” Although Eggers is against building a new city hall, he did not offer any ideas for an expansion of the current city hall or the possibility of building a city hall on a new site at a future date.
While Eggers does support the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, he believes that “warming on a global scale may one day be proven to be a miscalculation.” However, Eggers does support the curbside recycling program, and believes that the council should make efforts to raise awareness about the program.
Chandler Salome is a student at Texas A&M University and a member of the Corps of Cadets, and is expected to graduate from Texas A&M in December of 2010.
Along with the other two candidates Salome supports limiting urban sprawl and agrees with the principle of “smart growth.” Fully researching plan of redeveloping rundown neighborhoods is how Salome believes would be the best way to grow the city. Salome does believe that City Hall needs to be expanded but does not believe that now “is a great time for the city to spend money on itself” when it should be spending more money on infrastructure.
Salome supports the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, and believes that College Station “needs to increase its public transportation.” Also, Salome supports the curbside recycling program, and believes that the city should “reach out to those citizens [students] and get them involved.”
According to an article in the Eagle, Salome said that he would try to represent all of the residents of College Station, but he does not feel as if the students are adequately represented. Salome said the he feels that he “can represent a larger portion of the population that's not being represented.”
On Salome’s Facebook group, which has nearly 700 members, he has laid out his platform of student involvement in the local government, cutting city spending on projects, and preventing the further development on Northgate. The web site for Salome’s campaign is not up and running, although a note promises that the site should be up today.
While Eggers and Salome both valuable experience and are important members of their communities both do not seem to have the time necessary that is required of a member of the city council.
Eggers seems less concerned about representing the residents of College Station and more interested in voicing and promoting his own political opinions, and I question if he would listen to the citizens he would be elected to represent. The politics and positions that Eggers supports seem to be much more suited to a congressional campaign; the city council elections are non-partisan and it feels as though Eggers has forgotten that.
Salome seems to have a genuine interest in representing his community and has some interesting ideas. Perhaps Salome should run again for public office in a few years after he has completed college.
Ruesink has the experience of being on the council for the last three years, and because he is retired he can devote a far greater amount of time to the city than the other two candidates.
Left of College Station supports Dave Ruesink for re-election to College Station City Council Place 6.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Bryan City Council Elections: Southerland and Hughes Unopposed
Bryan residents will go the polls on Saturday to choose city council members. Well, choose might not be the best word. Unlike their neighbors across town in College Station, Bryan residents do not get to choose between the best of two or three candidates. Both candidates running for Bryan City Council are unopposed, which is not good for the democratic process. However, there are five propositions on the ballot that Bryan resident do get to either accept or reject. It is important to look at both of the candidates, even though they are unopposed, and the issues on the propositions.
Mike Southerland is running for re-election as an At-Large (Place 6), and has served the residents of Bryan well. The At-Large position on the city council serves as a voice for all of the residents, and Southerland has consistently taken into consideration the best interests of the residents of Bryan.
In August Left of College Station reported on the Bryan City Council vote to increase the number of city council members was required to place an item on the agenda. Council member Southerland was one of the two dissenting voices, the other being council member Al Saenz, that voted against the change and who vocally supported both the principle of democracy and the will of the people. Southerland voiced his opposition to the change by saying that “in the hast to pass a law that limits the voice of the citizens due diligence has not been exercised.” After the decision by the Bryan City Council over 1,800 Bryan residents, which is twice the average number who vote in municipal elections, signed a petition to override the city council. Mike Southerland has truly represented all of the residents of Bryan.
Southerland also supports the revision of the animal ordinance which allows for warrantless home inspections and searches, and has stated that the new program “attempts to balance the health and safety of the animal and the citizens with the pet owner rights.” Pedestrians, bicyclist, and wheel chair users should have complete and safe access to residence, commerce and employment within the city, and Southerland supports using the capital improvement plan to “more effectively solve these issues.” Also, Southerland supports spreading the expenditures throughout the five districts and not focusing so heavily on downtown Bryan. Another initiative that Southerland supports is promoting locally owned business by restricting the size of retail outlets.
Southerland has supported green initiatives, such as the recycling program at Wal-Mart, the compost facility, Keep Brazos Beautiful; however, he stopped short of endorsing the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, which the College Station City Council has signed. Although Southerland does not support a curbside recycling program he does support any ideas that will improve the environment of Bryan and “any recommendation that can reduce waste is welcome.”
Art Hughes is a Bryan City Council candidate for Single Member District; Hughes is running for Ben Hardeman who is stepping down after two terms do to term limits. Three years ago Hughes, who is a project manager for Madison Construction, ran an unsuccessful campaign against Hardeman.
Hughes has said that he is “not aware of any real problems” with requiring three council members to place an item on the agenda. While he did not voice support of the proposition to change the requirement he said that he would respect what the “majority of the voters decide.” Also, Hughes has stated that he is not aware of unjust practices against pets and pet owners, and has stated that although he supports the rights of pet owners that those rights must “not infringe on the rights of others.” As for increasing access for pedestrians, bicyclist, and wheel chair users Hughes supports making “all public areas and buildings accessible when possible.” Hughes does not support any restrictions on businesses, and feels that competition is good for all businesses in the community.
Perhaps the most significant problem with Hughes is his views on the environment. While he believes that the community should strive to keep the environment clean he does not support the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, and feels that the “global warming issue is an ongoing debate” and that the city council should be cautious in making decisions “based solely on what we presently know about global warming.” Also, Hughes does not support the curb side recycling program but not for the same reasons that Southerland has expressed; Hughes believes that you do not “encourage responsible behavior by making it easier to do the right thing.”
Hopefully next year more Bryan residents will take an active role in their local government. The best ideas and solutions come from a variety of sources and voices, and the more that people are involved with the government the more likely that our government will work for the citizens.
Left of College Station supports council member Mike Southerland for re-election.
Mike Southerland is running for re-election as an At-Large (Place 6), and has served the residents of Bryan well. The At-Large position on the city council serves as a voice for all of the residents, and Southerland has consistently taken into consideration the best interests of the residents of Bryan.
In August Left of College Station reported on the Bryan City Council vote to increase the number of city council members was required to place an item on the agenda. Council member Southerland was one of the two dissenting voices, the other being council member Al Saenz, that voted against the change and who vocally supported both the principle of democracy and the will of the people. Southerland voiced his opposition to the change by saying that “in the hast to pass a law that limits the voice of the citizens due diligence has not been exercised.” After the decision by the Bryan City Council over 1,800 Bryan residents, which is twice the average number who vote in municipal elections, signed a petition to override the city council. Mike Southerland has truly represented all of the residents of Bryan.
Southerland also supports the revision of the animal ordinance which allows for warrantless home inspections and searches, and has stated that the new program “attempts to balance the health and safety of the animal and the citizens with the pet owner rights.” Pedestrians, bicyclist, and wheel chair users should have complete and safe access to residence, commerce and employment within the city, and Southerland supports using the capital improvement plan to “more effectively solve these issues.” Also, Southerland supports spreading the expenditures throughout the five districts and not focusing so heavily on downtown Bryan. Another initiative that Southerland supports is promoting locally owned business by restricting the size of retail outlets.
Southerland has supported green initiatives, such as the recycling program at Wal-Mart, the compost facility, Keep Brazos Beautiful; however, he stopped short of endorsing the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, which the College Station City Council has signed. Although Southerland does not support a curbside recycling program he does support any ideas that will improve the environment of Bryan and “any recommendation that can reduce waste is welcome.”
Art Hughes is a Bryan City Council candidate for Single Member District; Hughes is running for Ben Hardeman who is stepping down after two terms do to term limits. Three years ago Hughes, who is a project manager for Madison Construction, ran an unsuccessful campaign against Hardeman.
Hughes has said that he is “not aware of any real problems” with requiring three council members to place an item on the agenda. While he did not voice support of the proposition to change the requirement he said that he would respect what the “majority of the voters decide.” Also, Hughes has stated that he is not aware of unjust practices against pets and pet owners, and has stated that although he supports the rights of pet owners that those rights must “not infringe on the rights of others.” As for increasing access for pedestrians, bicyclist, and wheel chair users Hughes supports making “all public areas and buildings accessible when possible.” Hughes does not support any restrictions on businesses, and feels that competition is good for all businesses in the community.
Perhaps the most significant problem with Hughes is his views on the environment. While he believes that the community should strive to keep the environment clean he does not support the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, and feels that the “global warming issue is an ongoing debate” and that the city council should be cautious in making decisions “based solely on what we presently know about global warming.” Also, Hughes does not support the curb side recycling program but not for the same reasons that Southerland has expressed; Hughes believes that you do not “encourage responsible behavior by making it easier to do the right thing.”
Hopefully next year more Bryan residents will take an active role in their local government. The best ideas and solutions come from a variety of sources and voices, and the more that people are involved with the government the more likely that our government will work for the citizens.
Left of College Station supports council member Mike Southerland for re-election.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Texas Progressive Alliance Roundup
It's Monday -- time for another edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's weekly blog roundup.
How would Republicans handle a pandemic? CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme knows. They'd hunker down. Get out their guns and shoot anybody with a runny nose.
After a record 3 weeks without a post in his six years of blogging, Easter Lemming has a very brief round-up of the Pasadena elections.
Off the Kuff writes about the resolution to impeach Judge Sharon Keller as submitted by Rep. Lon Burnam, which received a committee hearing last week.
Vince at Capitol Annex tells the sad story of how a fundamentalist "historian" and evangelist who believes that hurricanes are God's punishment on society for tolerating gay citizens will guide the writing of Texas' new social studies standards. If you thought Darwin versus Don McLeroy was a train wreck, wait until it is the treatment of American Indians, what labor unions have done for America, Islam, women's suffrage, 9/11, the free enterprise system, and the civil rights movement versus David Barton. First one who catches one of the new "experts" complaining about too much information about minorities in textbooks wins a prize!
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posted this week on the latest transportation funding scheme the lege came up with, a "transportation bank", Texas Transportation Revolving Fund?.
I, Neil at Texas Liberal, wrote a helluva post about the inability of the Republican Party to return to it's pre-1929 Stock Crash numbers in the U.S. Senate. I also wrote about the albino buffalo in Kenya. Texas Liberal passed 600,000 total page views this week and is averaging 1570 a day for 2009. Thanks blog reading public!
Why on earth is the Texas Senate, working with TXDOT, trying to turn the public pensions trusts into another AIG? McBlogger would really like an answer.
Arlen Specter's political deathbed conversion didn't strike PDiddie at Brains and Eggs as something wonderful. And Burka's conflating Kay Bailey into the conversation was greeted with even more derision.
BossKitty at TruthHugger wonders about those poor souls on death row who depend on the passion of protesters and technology for hope. Whether they know they are guilty or innocent, at least they know they'll get the needle, instead of the chair or the noose. Those death row inmates now have the best chance ever, with revelations about bias and legal system misconduct are front and center, death penalty question marks are getting bolder. Take a look at Killer Texas Laws and Lawmakers Continue To Amaze with many historic reference links to click.
Over at TexasKaos, Boadicea says no to Fake Reform. See what she has to say in her posting:
"Transparency"-I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means...
After much talk about secession, Perry has found yet another reason to keep the government around. The Texas Blue notes that the guy who wanted American troops to defend the border and asked for money -- and then more money -- to help the Hurricane Ike cleanup shortly before talking about leaving the Union now wants the Centers for Disease Control to give us 37,000 doses of Tamiflu to help with the swine flu virus.
WhosPlayin is neck-deep in the local mayor's race, and examined candidate Winston Edmondson's wacky ideas to increase police morale by giving them more patches, and finding corporate sponsors.
How would Republicans handle a pandemic? CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme knows. They'd hunker down. Get out their guns and shoot anybody with a runny nose.
After a record 3 weeks without a post in his six years of blogging, Easter Lemming has a very brief round-up of the Pasadena elections.
Off the Kuff writes about the resolution to impeach Judge Sharon Keller as submitted by Rep. Lon Burnam, which received a committee hearing last week.
Vince at Capitol Annex tells the sad story of how a fundamentalist "historian" and evangelist who believes that hurricanes are God's punishment on society for tolerating gay citizens will guide the writing of Texas' new social studies standards. If you thought Darwin versus Don McLeroy was a train wreck, wait until it is the treatment of American Indians, what labor unions have done for America, Islam, women's suffrage, 9/11, the free enterprise system, and the civil rights movement versus David Barton. First one who catches one of the new "experts" complaining about too much information about minorities in textbooks wins a prize!
WCNews at Eye On Williamson posted this week on the latest transportation funding scheme the lege came up with, a "transportation bank", Texas Transportation Revolving Fund?.
I, Neil at Texas Liberal, wrote a helluva post about the inability of the Republican Party to return to it's pre-1929 Stock Crash numbers in the U.S. Senate. I also wrote about the albino buffalo in Kenya. Texas Liberal passed 600,000 total page views this week and is averaging 1570 a day for 2009. Thanks blog reading public!
Why on earth is the Texas Senate, working with TXDOT, trying to turn the public pensions trusts into another AIG? McBlogger would really like an answer.
Arlen Specter's political deathbed conversion didn't strike PDiddie at Brains and Eggs as something wonderful. And Burka's conflating Kay Bailey into the conversation was greeted with even more derision.
BossKitty at TruthHugger wonders about those poor souls on death row who depend on the passion of protesters and technology for hope. Whether they know they are guilty or innocent, at least they know they'll get the needle, instead of the chair or the noose. Those death row inmates now have the best chance ever, with revelations about bias and legal system misconduct are front and center, death penalty question marks are getting bolder. Take a look at Killer Texas Laws and Lawmakers Continue To Amaze with many historic reference links to click.
Over at TexasKaos, Boadicea says no to Fake Reform. See what she has to say in her posting:
"Transparency"-I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means...
After much talk about secession, Perry has found yet another reason to keep the government around. The Texas Blue notes that the guy who wanted American troops to defend the border and asked for money -- and then more money -- to help the Hurricane Ike cleanup shortly before talking about leaving the Union now wants the Centers for Disease Control to give us 37,000 doses of Tamiflu to help with the swine flu virus.
WhosPlayin is neck-deep in the local mayor's race, and examined candidate Winston Edmondson's wacky ideas to increase police morale by giving them more patches, and finding corporate sponsors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
