Quantcast

The Nation

The Cheney Family Gets the Soprano Family Fade-to-Black Treatment

Cheneys

Waving handcuffs in the air and shouting that the former vice president is a “war criminal,” a Code Pink protester yesterday rose from the audience to disrupt a public Politico interview of the Cheney family. That sort of thing isn't unusual for Pink. But just as security was escorting the woman out, C-SPAN’s live feed of the event went dead. An announcer said they were having technical difficulties, and C-SPAN eventually switched to another program, leaving the ongoing heckling of the Cheneys out of its live feed.

Was the transmission fail deliberate sabotage or simply an exquisitely timed accident? C-SPAN certainly didn't cut the feed on purpose, a spokesman says, adding, "It was technical, not editorial." And Politico, which sponsored the event with Mike Allen running the interview, wasn't trying to block out the protest--nothing was cut from its own online feed, a spokeswoman says..

But whatever the cause, the fade-to-black was briefly reminiscent of the final episode of The Sopranos, when the crime boss’s family (minus the daughter, Meadow, who was running late) gathered at a diner, under the gaze of ominous-looking characters, and the screen suddenly went blank. Yesterday, the Cheney family—minus one daughter, Mary, who’s been supremely pissed at Liz for opposing same-sex marriages like Mary’s own—gathered at the Politico Playbook luncheon, under the gaze of protesters (and undoubtedly others who can’t stand them), when the screen went mysteriously dark.

The Cheney sit-down started out normally enough, with Dick Cheney chuckling about how “when the family is alone—Liz and Mary and Lynne and I—we usually end up telling war stories about campaigns we were involved in. It’s always funny, it always involves train wrecks. The funniest political stories are the train wrecks, and we had a lot train wrecks along the way.”

Note how the war stories were about campaigns, not about the actual war that was the largest political train wreck in modern history.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Lynne cracked that she and Dick weren’t “dead broke” when he became veep, and Mike Allen had barely begun plugging Lynne’s latest book when the protester began shouting them down. Lynne responded by laughing heartily and Liz, more embarrassingly, by clapping her hands and chanting, “Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!”

As you can see in the full, uncut video that C-SPAN ran later yesterday and today, the protest went on for quite a while, as a second woman from Code Pink nearly drowned out the Cheneys, shouting, “You destroyed Iraq and you’re destroying this country!” Security also removed her from the room (neither woman was arrested or fined, according to the New York Daily News).

With the danger soon gone, the Cheneys blabbed on about the grandeur that was Iraq when Cheney left office, the evils of Obama, and everything they’ve been blabbing about for their years-long restoration tour.

Unlike the Sopranos, the Cheneys were able to return.

 

Read Next: Rebecca Gordon asks, “Does America Still Torture?

This Bill Could End State Abortion Restrictions

Pro-Choice Protest

(AP Photo/David Goldman)

For years the pro-choice movement has had to battle a wide array of restrictions passed on the state level, from onerous regulations on abortion clinics to “fetal pain” bills that deliberately give women bad information about abortion procedures. In fact, from 2011 through 2013, more than 200 state laws were passed that make it harder for women to access abortion services.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee held an important hearing Tuesday on a bill that could, in one swoop, clear out most of those laws. The Women’s Health Protection Act, introduced last year by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Tammy Baldwin, enumerates many of these laws that would be expressly prohibited and keeps abortion providers from being singled out by legislation that doesn’t apply broadly to most other medical services in the state.

Republican Senators and witnesses at the hearing, as one would expect, objected strenuously to the legislation. They relentlessly brought up the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia-area abortion doctor who repeatedly broke the law and carried out gruesome, illegal abortions. Their message was that these state laws just aim to make abortion safer and avoid more cases like Gosnell’s.

In reality, Gosnell was already operating well outside the bounds of the law and is actually a better example of what would happen were abortion to be outlawed entirely. As Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, testified at the hearing, that is the real and often stated goal of these laws:

[O]pponents of women’s reproductive rights, seeking to make an end run around public opinion and the Constitution itself, have shifted their strategy. They have resorted to obfuscating their true agenda by pushing laws that pretend to be about one thing but are actually about another. They claim these laws are about defending women’s health and well-being, and improving the safety of abortion care—but they most assuredly are not. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are advanced by politicians, not by doctors, often based on model legislation written by explicitly anti-abortion groups.

When Mississippi enacted such a law in 2012, a state senator put it quite plainly: “There’s only one abortion clinic in Mississippi. I hope this measure shuts that down.” Others showed their hands as well. Lt. Governor Tate Reeves stated that the measure “should effectively close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi” and “end abortion in Mississippi” when the bill passed the state Senate. Governor Phil Bryant, in vowing to sign the bill, said that he would “continue to work to make Mississippi abortion-free.” When he actually signed it, he said, “If it closes that clinic, then so be it.” Right now, Mississippi’s sole clinic is holding on by virtue of a temporary court order.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

The legislation has essentially no chance of passing this Congress, but for pro-choice advocates, presents a chance to at least go on the offensive. It also may be needed in coming months as a backstop to a potential Supreme Court decision that could severely restrict abortion access.

Many federal courts have blocked this sort of state legislation as de facto abortion bans, as Northrup noted. But legal experts are increasingly convinced the Court may take up one of these cases in the next term—and that five conservative justices could move to affirm these abortion-restricting laws and effectively hollow out Roe v. Wade. The Women’s Health Protection Act would be a simple way to neutralize that decision, should it come.

 

Read Next: Hobby Lobby’s discrimination against a transgender employee

Martin O’Malley’s Right: The Immigration Debate Must Respect ‘Essential Human Dignity’

(Reuters/Eric Gay/Pool)

Martin O’Malley is speaking about immigration policy in smart, reasonable and moral terms. This distinguishes the two-term governor of Maryland and potential 2016 presidential contender from most politicians these days.

O’Malley’s approach is not a radical one. But his emphasis on fairness and human dignity, as opposed to predictable political positioning, is refreshing. And the governor’s fellow Democrats would be wise to consider the wisdom not just of his words but of the tone in which he is speaking.

O’Malley does not deny the serious practical and political challenges that have arisen as thousands of children from Central America have crossed into the United States in recent months. He know that there are a lot of issues to be resolved with regard to the particular circumstances of these children—and with regard to broader need to reform an ill-defined and frequently dysfunctional approach by the United States to immigration policy. But the children who have entered the United States are children. They come, in many instances, as desperate refugees fleeing extreme violence, poverty and dislocation in countries where the social fabric is rapidly fraying because of destructive globalization schemes, corruption and a horrific maldistribution of wealth.

The reality of why immigrants flee their own lands must, by legal and ethical standards, be taken into consideration.

So O’Malley has broken with prominent members of his own party—and with Republicans who, like Arizona Senator John McCain, propose to deport “planeloads of these young people”—to say that the response to the plight of the children must be a humane and knowing one.

“We are not a country that should send children away and send them back to certain death,” O’Malley told reporters at last week’s National Governors Association meeting in Nashville. “I believe that we should be guided by the greatest power we have as a people, and that is the power of our principles. Through all of our great world religions, we are told that hospitality to strangers is an essential human dignity.”

The governor remarks drew immediate criticism from conservatives who make little secret of their determination to politicize border issues. The Republican-linked group America Rising portrayed O’Malley’s position as a left-wing stance—a “hit from the left” at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leader in 2016 Democratic presidential polls.

But O’Malley’s response is grounded not in the language of left or right, or even of predictable political positioning. Instead, he is placing the debate in a moral, and American historical, context. In media interviews over the weekend, the governor calmly explained, “I believe that it is contrary to everything that we stand for as a people to try to summarily send [refugees] back to death, whether it’s in famine; death whether it’s in the middle of the ocean; death whether it’s in a war torn area or death in a place where gangs are the greatest threat to stability and the rule of law and democratic institutions in this hemisphere."

Media outlets were quick to suggest that O’Malley’s position places him at odds with the Obama administration—which is seeking $3.7 billion in funding to respond to the challenges posed by the arrival of tens of thousands of children in the region along the United States border with Mexico. The Huffington Post noted that “much of that money will be spent on carrying out deportations.”

O’Malley argues that legal representatives of the children and family members should be afforded an opportunity to challenge the threat of deportation. “They should have their ability to make their case for protection and asylum in the United States,” explains the governor.

O’Malley’s remarks provoked a response from White House press secretary Josh Earnest, who on Monday told reporters that, under the president’s plan, children facing credible threats would likely be “granted humanitarian relief.”

The back-and-forth provided a reminder that any serious immigration debate is more nuanced than the headlines suggest. But the broader point ought not be missed. By speaking in humanitarian terms, O’Malley is helping to reframe the discussion, and forcing fellow Democrats to clarify their positions.

The governor’s focus and tone is significant. And it is distinct from that of his potential 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, who in a recent interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said the United States must “send a clear message: just because your child gets across the border doesn’t mean your child gets to stay.”

“They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are,” added the woman who leads in polls that ask Democrats who they would like to have as their next presidential nominee. While she acknowledged that “there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton added, “I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.”

The problem with Clinton’s calculus, of course, is that many of the children were sent to the United States from countries such as Guatemala and Honduras, by families that have legitimate fears for the safety of the youngsters. That’s what O’Malley means when he expresses concern about a policy that would “send children away [from safety in the States] and send them back to certain death.”

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

This is not the first time that O’Malley has spoken up for immigrants. Indeed, his record provides an indication that when a Democrat offers a humane and thoughtful response to immigration issues, voters respond positively.

When he was running for re-election in 2010, O’Malley defended immigrants as “new Americans”—a reference that was seized on by his Republican opponent. But even in that “Republican wave” year, the governor was easily re-elected. Against a popular and well-financed Republican, former Governor Robert Ehrlich, the Democrat won 56 percent of the vote.

In 2011, O’Malley signed state “DREAM Act” legislation, opening access to in-state tuition at state colleges for many children of immigrants who has arrived in the United States without documentation. That created an outcry and a Republican legislator led a drive to force a statewide referendum vote on the issue in 2012.

O’Malley campaigned for the DREAM Act, raising money for an Educating Maryland Kids coalition that supported the legislation. “The DREAM Act says that students can be eligible for in-state tuition, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, provided they pay state taxes, graduate from a Maryland high school and commit to legalizing their status as soon as they are eligible,” the governor declared. “This issue is about fairness and basic human dignity for all.”

The emphasis on “fairness and basic human dignity” was spot on. The pro–DREAM Act campaign adopted the slogan “It’s Right and It’s Fair.” Maryland voters agreed. On November 6, 2012, they decided by a 59-41 margin to keep the DREAM Act that O’Malley and the coalition had championed.

Read Next: Christy Thorton and Adam Goodman explain how the Mexican drug trade thrives on free trade.

Is an Israeli Official Spreading Propaganda on Tinder?

screen grab by author

(Screen grab by author)

“Operation Protective Edge,” Israel’s self-named “defensive” operation in Gaza, is killing a lot of Palestinians in response to rocket fire from Gaza. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza puts the latest casualty toll at 174 killed Palestinians and over 1,100 wounded. The UNRWA commissioner general in Gaza told The New York Times, “Women and children make up a sizable number of victims of the current strikes.” As of yet, no Israelis have been killed during the latest Gaza offensive.

One hundred and seventy-four to zero is a tough ratio to explain. Especially for an operation that Israel claims is being taken in self-defense against terrorists in Gaza. But the Israeli Prime Minister’s office may have found an answer to this minor public-diplomacy challenge: Tinder, a popular online smartphone dating/hookup app.

A friend who uses Tinder logged on yesterday and was swiping through profiles when he came upon “Israel,” age “34” (?!). Israel said it (he? she?) was five miles away, but seemed to have one thing on its mind: sharing images justifying Israel’s bombing campaign of Gaza.

The images are simple and contain short phrases like, “We’re using anti-missile systems to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles – that’s the difference,” and, “While Israel protects the holy sites of Jerusalem, Hamas targets rockets at them.”

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

One of the images advises viewers to visit #IsraelUnderFire, a Facebook site full of Israeli Defense Forces meme-style images. Several of the images on the Tinder profile had been posted on #IsraelUnderFire. The administrator for the page is Yair Eddie Fraiman, “Director of Interactive Media & Public Diplomacy at Office of the Prime Minister of Israel,” according to his LinkedIn profile.

Fraiman hasn’t responded to a request for comment (I’ll update this post if he does).

 

Read next: Obama Fiddles While Gaza Burns..”

The Distorting Reality of ‘False Balance’ in the Media

Newspapers

(Jon S./CC 2.0)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

False equivalence in the media—giving equal weight to unsupported or even discredited claims for the sake of appearing impartial—is not unusual. But a major media organization taking meaningful steps to do something about it is.

Earlier this month, the BBC’s governing body issued a report assessing the BBC’s impartiality in covering scientific topics. When it comes to an issue like climate change, the report concluded, not all viewpoints share the same amount of scientific substance. Giving equal time and weight to a wide range of arguments without regard to their credibility risks creating a “false balance” in the public debate.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

This is a lesson for all media on both sides of the Atlantic—and not just when it comes to science coverage. There are many sides to almost every story, but that doesn’t mean they are automatically equal.

Unfortunately, too much of the media has become increasingly fixated on finding “balance,” even if it means presenting fiction on par with fact. If media outlets wanted to present an accurate account of the climate change “debate,” for instance, they would have to follow comedian John Oliver’s lead and host a “statistically representative” face-off with three climate change deniers up against ninety-seven scientists armed with proof. Instead, they contort themselves to find “balance,” and we’re left with segments like “Is the climate change threat exaggerated?”—presented on the always reliable Fox News—which promised to “weigh the evidence on both sides of the divisive topic.” It’s no wonder that only 60 percent of Americans know that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring—and almost 30 percent aren’t sure if there is any scientific consensus.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

 

Read Next: No water for Motown—why Detroit is denying its citizens this basic human right.

The Palestinians Must Put an End to Suicidal Hamas

Hamas supporters

Palestinian supporters of the Islamic Hamas movement shout and wave flags during a demonstration in the West Bank of Nablus. (AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)

One message from the current crisis over Gaza is clear: the Palestinians have to get rid of Hamas. No one else can do it: the Israelis, vastly superior in military terms, only strengthen Hamas politically by wantonly raining death and destruction on Gaza. But the fanatics of Hamas, who seem to believe that they can resist Israel militarily—along with the even more radical Islamist groups that run around in Gaza—do incalculable damage to the Palestinian cause.

In this case, I agree with Bret Stephens, who wrote today in The Wall Street Journal, concerning Israel and Hamas, “If you must have a nemesis, better it be a stupid one.” Stephens, a neoconservative hawk who is a blind supporter of Israel, certainly doesn’t qualify as sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. But he’s right here: Israel has no stupider enemy than Hamas. And the people of Gaza, entrapped in a hellish, prison-like entity—where conditions of despair give rise to the nihilist, Islamist radicalism of Hamas—have once again to endure the pain of Israel’s bombardment. And for what? Already in Gaza Israel has struck nearly 1,500 separate targets and killed more than 200 people, including civilians and children.

As I’ve written repeatedly over the years, in the 1970s and 1980s Israel’s intelligence service—especially after the rise of the Likud government of Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977—helped Hamas organize and gain power. The Israelis aided Islamists on the West Bank and in Gaza, including the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a branch), in the belief (correct, as it turned out) that Hamas would be a bitter enemy of the Palestinian nationalist movement. Indeed, back then the early supporters of Hamas clashed with moderate and left-wing Palestinian groups throughout the occupied territories. Decades later, Hamas has emerged as the perfect foil for Israeli rightists and advocates of Greater Israel, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the latest round, Hamas’s idiotic decision to fight Israel by firing useless missiles against unseen Israeli targets not only gave Netanyahu a pretext for his brutal war but managed to erase the controversy over the premeditated killing of a Palestinian youth by a gang of ultra-nationalist, right-wing Israelis. Just a week or so ago, that killing transfixed Israel and generated horror among Israelis with a conscience. Now, while the story goes on, it’s figuratively buried under the rubble of Gaza.

Making matters worse, and perhaps leading to a full-scale assault on Gaza, Hamas arrogantly rejected a workable cease-fire plan that was proposed yesterday by Egypt and apparently accepted by Israel’s government—though not without criticism of Netanyahu’s agreement to the cease-fire from even more militant Israeli factions. The Egyptian proposal also had the support of Secretary of State John Kerry, although the United States could do a lot more, including issuing strong condemnations of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of civilian homes in Gaza. (Apparently, the White House believes that Israel’s use of force is not disproportionate.) But it boggles the mind to think what Hamas believes it is accomplishing by continuing a suicidal campaign against Israel’s overwhelming might.

In Gaza, supporters of Hamas are chanting, “Ya Qassam, ya habib. Strike, strike Tel Aviv!” Do they live on another planet?

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Kerry, whose life has been difficult lately—dealing with the Iran nuclear talks, the crisis in Afghanistan, the Iraq-Syria civil war and Russia’s continuing destabilization of Ukraine—is at least right when he said: “I cannot condemn strongly enough the actions of Hamas in so brazenly firing rockets in the face of a goodwill effort to offer a ceasefire.”

Not that a cease-fire would solve any problems, other than ending the current round of violence. It would still leave Gaza in its abysmal state, and it certainly wouldn’t restart the collapsed Israel-Palestinian peace talks on a two-state solution. But Hamas seems determined to be Israel’s useful bogeyman.

 

Read Next: Iran-Suadi deal is crucial to resolve Iraq-Syria civil war.

The Very Naughty Whistleblower

Tom Tomorrow

(Click to Enlarge)

Support independent cartooning: join Sparky's List—and don't forget to visit TT's Emporium of Fun, featuring the new book and plush Sparky!

Whose Summer Break? Students Fix the ‘Utah Man,’ Lower the Confederate Flag and Ask Hillary for Their Money Back

Hillary Clinton

Accompanied by young supporters, Secretary Clinton says farewell. (Photo: Pat Dollard)

Last spring, The Nation launched its biweekly student movement dispatch. As part of the StudentNation blog, each dispatch hosts first-person updates on student and youth organizing. For recent dispatches, check out June 15 and July 1. For an archive of earlier editions, see the New Year’s dispatch. Contact studentmovement@thenation.com with tips. Edited by James Cersonsky (@cersonsky).

1. As Migrant Children Wait, LA Kicks Out ICE

With an influx of children showing up at the border seeking refuge from violence, cities like Murrieta, California, and League City, Texas, have put up the barricades. In Los Angeles, which has the largest undocumented immigrant population in the country, youth and community organizers have assembled in support of the children—and, with little recourse on the federal level, taken migrant justice into our own hands. On July 7, building on the TRUST Act, the ICE Out of LA coalition pushed the LAPD to stop turning over inmates to ICE without a judicial warrant. Still, ICE remains in our county jails and collaborates with the LA Sheriff’s Department, the root force of deportations. Moving forward, we will put the pressure on LA County police departments and county jails to cut ties with ICE.

—Luis Serrano

2. As Gaza Blows, Thousands Mass for Palestinian Justice

On Saturday, July 5, a network of Students for Justice in Palestine members in Chicago, alongside a coalition of human rights activists, organized an emergency demonstration of more than 1,000 protesters—among thousands more across the country. In response to the murder of three Israeli youth, Israel has engaged in collective punishment, heavily bombing the Gaza strip and raiding West Bank. More than nineteen people have been killed in the attacks on Gaza; 17-year-old Mohammad Abu Khdair was abducted, tortured and killed by settlers overnight. On July 9, protesters flooded downtown Chicago for yet another emergency demonstration.

—Nashiha Alam

3. The “Utah Man” Gets Fixed

Since the early 1900s, the University of Utah has sung the “Utah Man” fight song at its sporting events. The lyrics of the song, along with the title, have been felt by many to be exclusionary and sexist. On April 22, following discussions with student leaders and broad campus outreach, the Utah student government passed a resolution asking the university to change the words to reflect the school and student body’s values of inclusion and diversity. In response, the administration assembled a committee to look into the issue and receive public comments. On July 2, after alumni and community members angrily demanded retention of the song, the university settled on a compromise, endorsing two different versions: the traditional version and a more inclusive version. Many view this as a step forward, but still feel that the decision reflects the administration’s inability to identify and effectively address issues of diversity and inclusion on campus.

—Sam Ortiz

4. The Confederate Flag Falls

The Committee is a group of primarily black law students at Washington and Lee University. In the fall, we drafted a list of grievances with the university over the experiences of black students. One of our goals was to get Confederate flags removed from Lee Chapel on campus, where they have flown for nearly eighty years. Members of the Committee believed the removal of the flags would improve the experiences of black students who sit in the chapel for campus events. We pledged to engage in acts of civil disobedience if our demands were not met. Fortunately, university officials responded by seriously considering our concerns. On July 8, the president announced that the Confederate flags located on the campus would be removed. The efforts of the Committee have reignited a dialogue about diversity and inclusion on campus and encouraged the administration to continue working to make it a more welcoming place for all students, particularly black students.

—Brandon Hicks

5. In Arizona, the Courts Overrule Jan Brewer

August 15, 2012, was the first day that DREAMers, a class of undocumented youth who arrived as children, were able to submit their application to receive a work authorization permit under DACA. That same day, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer used her executive power to halt driver’s licenses for DACA beneficiaries. In response, members of the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition marched to the capitol to request a meeting with the governor, who refused. That November, ADAC, alongside NILC, MALDEF and the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against the governor on constitutional grounds. On July 7, after two years of meetings, actions and canvasses, the Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against the ban. Moving forward, we will host a series of actions to ensure we win the lawsuit.

—Reyna Montoya

6. In North Carolina, Students Put Voting Rights on Trial

In 2012, the Koch brothers and right-wing millionaire Art Pope achieved an extremist takeover of North Carolina, resulting in devastating legislation from healthcare to education to voting rights. Fifty years after the original Freedom Summer in Mississippi, youth are organizing to reverse the onslaught. July 7 marked the first day of hearings for a preliminary injunction on the most draconian voter suppression law in the country, which eliminates same-day registration and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, guts campaign finance laws and requires a photo ID but prohibits the usage of student IDs. In response to this law, we’ve mobilized at Moral Monday’s with the state NAACP, and more than 350 people with NC Vote Defenders and Democracy NC have monitored polls in thirty-four counties. This month, while youth pack the court room and county board of elections, the Youth Organizing Institute Freedom School is training high school students on community organizing to build on the legacy of youth struggle in North Carolina.

—Bryan Perlmutter

7. The Harris v. Quinn Generation

On July 8, one week after the Harris v. Quinn ruling, home care workers in Minnesota filed for what will be the largest union election in Minnesota history, covering more than 26,000 workers, with SEIU Healthcare Minnesota. I have been a home care worker now for almost four years and care for my mother who started receiving these services after having a few minor strokes. When I first found this campaign, I heard stories of others’ struggles, from younger people like me to others who are older than my grandparents, and realized that I was not alone. In our winning battle to gain the right to vote for our union last year, there were nights I even slept on the floor at the state capitol. A win in our election later this summer would bring us one step closer to our goal of making our work Invisible No More.

—Darleen Henry

8. The FCC’s Communication Gap

On June 30, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler arrived at the South Broadway Cultural Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for a discussion with local youth. The event, hosted by Media Literacy Project and Digital Justice Coalition of New Mexico, was organized to promote youth knowledge and representation in discussions surrounding media policy and the FCC—which has no youth involvement at any level. In New Mexico, which ranks last in internet connectivity, lack of access keeps youth from connecting with loved ones and friends, fulfilling homework requirements, gaining health information and finding jobs and educational opportunities. Young people ranging in age from 12 to 20 took the mic to ask about net neutrality, the security of the Lifeline program and broadband in rural areas. Following the event, the chairman agreed to work toward preserving the Lifeline program and improving broadband connections in tribal and rural New Mexico—and, alongside New Mexico State Senator Jacob Candelaria, committed to consulting youth voices on issues of media justice.

—Pria Jackson

9. Can Dyett High School Be Saved?

In 2012, Chicago Public Schools announced that Walter H. Dyett High School, where I graduated this spring, would be phased out and closed in 2015. If Dyett closes, we won’t have any neighborhood high schools in the Bronzeville area. This spring, we delivered 1,000 signatures and 500 postcards of support for the Dyett Global Leadership and Green Technology plan; met with Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office; assembled in front of Alderman Will Burns’s ward office for three days and nights; and took over a city council meeting chanting, “Burns, do your job!” Since early June, students and community members have been pressuring Burns to hold a public hearing about Dyett’s future; with no response by our stated deadline of July 9, we will hold one of our own.

—Parrish Brown

10. What Will Hillary Do With $225,000?

This October, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be cashing in $225,000 to speak to the non-profit arm of the University of Nevada–Las Vegas. In opposition to outrageous expenditures like these, and near-constant tuition hikes, UNLV students have organized to request that she donate her speaking fee to the 23,000 students of UNLV. While Clinton’s fee is coming from private donors and funds from her appearance are set to go to the university, the money from the fee could help us directly. Just a few weeks earlier, thousands of UNLV students voiced our opposition to a 17 percent tuition hike, with hundreds signing a Statement of Solidarity and dozens standing up at the Board of Regents meeting about being priced out of a quality higher education. As we await Secretary Clinton’s response, UNLV students will continue pressuring administrators and legislators on their spending and tuition decisions—and show that we will not be silent.

—Daniel Waqar and Elias Benjelloun

Thanks to Sounders, I See Another World Cup Is Possible

Seattle Sounders

Seattle Sounders players celebrate on the pitch after they beat the Portland Timbers 2-0 in an MLS soccer match, July 13, 2014. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

I am often asked, given my love of soccer and my criticisms of how the World Cup is organized, whether it is possible in the twenty-first century to have the spectacle of top-notch organized sports and have it done ethically? Or, can it at least be done more ethically than the neoliberal carnival of debt, displacement and militarization we normally see?

Well yesterday, I witnessed a better, more humane version of the mass spectacle of soccer, and feel remarkably rejuvenated for the experience. No, I’m not talking about the World Cup final between Argentina and Germany. I’m not talking about an event that is supposed to be the apex of “the people’s game” that the people cannot afford to attend. I’m not talking about an event surrounded by a one-kilometer exclusion zone and guarded by a small army for the pleasure of a den of thieves including Vladamir Putin, Angela Merkel, Dilma Rousseff and their pied piper of graft, FIFA chief Sepp Blatter.

I’m not talking about a final game that took place while protesters who had been promised by their government that they could assemble peaceably were tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets at the supposed fan-fest put on by FIFA for tourist consumption.

I’m not talking about an event that displaced thousands of people for the almighty purpose of producing billions in profits for Brazil’s construction, real estate and surveillance industries. I’m not talking about an event that put a fortune in the hands of Israeli armament companies and counterinsurgency “advisers” who market themselves as bringing the hands-on experience they have had turning Gaza into an open air prison, and then sell that experience to countries hosting the Olympics in the World Cup. I’m talking about another game entirely.

I’m talking about the game yesterday between the Seattle Sounders and the Portland Timbers here in the Emerald City. It was just me and 65,000 of my closest friends chanting, screaming, yelling and of course standing for the full ninety minutes as the Sounders beat the Timbers 2-0, led by the inimitable Clint Dempsey, scoring Seattle’s opening goal and then hitting the cross bar at the end on a shot that would’ve been highlight material for the next year. Having recently returned from Brazil where I attended World Cup matches, it was not difficult to count off the ways that this experience was not only different but also “ethical” in the way a FIFA-run tournament could never be.

Let’s start with the ticket prices. We were right there just a few rows up from the field for $24 bucks a pop. Twenty-four dollars would pay for about two minutes of World Cup action, especially if you bought your tickets through FIFA’s don’t ask, don’t tell network of ticket brokers.

Speaking of the stadium, there was also not a one-kilometer exclusion zone surrounding it and people could actually—even without tickets!—get near the facility that their tax dollars purchased. It is also worth adding that the Sounders play in the home of the Seattle Seahawks. As of now, anyway, there are no demands to build a new publicly funded stadium just for them.

I loved everything about the Sounders-Timbers game. I loved the singing of Woody Guthrie songs. I loved the signs. I loved the colors. I loved the group-cussing (to each their own). I loved the chants and cheers that made it seem like everyone in the crowd had been rehearsing for hours before the start of game time. I loved that it seemed to be a combination of sports and Queen at Live-Aid.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

I loved the fact that the 6-year-old I was with had the time of his life and didn’t sit down for ninety minutes. And I loved the play. Maybe it wasn’t World Cup semifinals quality but it was passionate and powerful. Its very existence stands as a threat to FIFA: a living embodiment of the idea that there is an alternative to their wretched stench.

The Sounders-Timbers game, coming just hours after a desultory World Cup Final, entirety convinced me like little else that sports truly is like a fire and you can use a fire to cook a meal or burn down your house. In the hands of FIFA, the house of international soccer is burning down while they play a chorus of discordant violins. But this doesn’t have to be the case. If we want ethical soccer on a local, national or global scale, then along with the out-of-control flames of greed, corruption displacement and match fixing, FIFA itself will need to be extinguished.

 

Read Next: Dave Zirin on why LeBron James was always coming back to Cleveland