MDP Jeff-Jack Recap

Yesterday the Michigan Democratic Party held the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner at Cobo Hall in Detroit. I thought I would post a not so brief recap for those of you who couldn't make it to the event.

The event started out with a reception for the Youth Caucus. It was great to see all of the elected officials and party leaders who came out to support the young folks like us who are active in the party. Our own congressman Rep. Dale Kildee was among those who came to start the evening with the youngest members of the party. We heard from Gary Peters who is running a great campaign to become the next congressmen from Oakland County. He encouraged us to stay involved in politics. Even though I enjoyed seeing the older crowd, the highlight of the Youth Caucus reception was hanging out with other folks (read: ladies) our (my) age interested in politics.

The dinner was well a dinner. There was chicken which was both well seasoned and tender. For the price of the ticket I would have expected a Porterhouse steak or a bucket of crab legs. There was also pretty decent cheesecake (I'm a cheesecake snob) and the rest of the food wasn't really worth mentioning.

The dinner included lots of awards, but since I was sitting in the corner and they didn't show the award recipients on the jumbo tron screen I can't tell you who won what. There were a lot of speakers including Gov. Granholm, Lt. Gov. Cherry, Sen. Levin & Sen. Stabenow. The main speaker was the Gov. Brian Schweitzer from Montana. He seems like a regular guy who just happens to run a state. He had a funny metaphor about driving a car backwards you put it in 'R' and when you want to go forward you put in in 'D'. I used that metaphor with someone at work and they laughed so I will plagiarize it liberally.

After the dinner, we met at the lounge in Cobo for refreshments. I had a good time and it was great to spend time with new and old friends. Plus, if nothing else, by attending the Jeff-Jack Dinner I didn't have to watch the Tigers get whooped by the White Sox.

Enough of my ramblings, it is almost tip off of the title game where I hope Memphis will beat Kansas.

-Kyle

MSU Anti-War Protesters Try to Intimidate the State News

Typically, I am as pro-civil liberties as a person can be, but this video really made me angry. I am also a MSU grad student, but I have a different perspective of the protest. In the video, a mob of anti-war protesters at MSU were angry about the recent decision of the State News (MSU's student newspaper headquartered in downtown E. Lansing on Grand River) to not cover some of their recent protest events. This protest group drew crowds of over 400 on several occasions, but had been covered in the paper previous years.

Regardless of one's stance on the Iraq War, this behavior is appalling. First, I object to the use of numbers to intimidate the editorial board at the newspaper. The students were chucking newspapers at the window, cussing, and mocking the newspaper employees who refused to unlock the door. Second, the vulgar language was unacceptable on such a busy street. Third, many students used this protest as a means to protest administration decisions that had nothing to do with the paper including a University safety policy that prohibits skate boarders. Wow, how altruistic of them. That brings me to my fourth point. It seems incredibly selfish of the protesters to intimidate the newspaper into re-printing the issue because it did not cover the protesters' event or put their names in the paper. This "we want to be in the paper" mentality seems antithetical to the altruistic mission of stopping the war in Iraq. Fifth, the entire protest wrongly criticizes the character of those who are merely working on a student newspaper. Especially the lady with the blood red paint on her hands who smeared the window. What is their point? Are the student editors responsible for the number of casualties in Iraq?

There are those who support this protest in the Michigan Liberal community. They seem to believe that the ends justify the means. They do not. Feel free to protest, but please do not attempt to intimidate and harass others in the process. They believe that they are conforming to a great tradition of anti-war protests in the 1960's. However, this current anti-war movement is just a cheap knock-off of the Vietnam anti-war movement, where the issues mattered and not the egos.

-Keith

Mideast Politics and Religon Quiz

Given the issues of the day and the current events in the news, I thought it would be great if we had a short three question quiz about religon and politics in the Mideast. The answers are at the bottom of the post. Enjoy!



Question #1:

Which branch of Islam is the dominant religous group of the nation of Iran and has complete control of the Iranian government:



A) Sunni

B) Shia



Question #2:

Which branch of Islam do the members of Al-Qaeda follow:



A) Sunni

B) Shia



Question #3:

Would a Shia or Sunni government provide material support to a violent extremist group of the opposing branch of Islam when the two branches have waged an often violent struggle against each other for over 1000 years?



A) Yes

B) No



Now check your answers at the bottom of the post.



Questions Answered Correctly:



3- You are a brilliant foriegn policy mind. The breadth and depth of your knowledge of geopolitics and religous affairs is astounding.



2- Not bad. You have a good grasp on the issues of the day but you could do better.



1- Well, there is room for improvement. Don't be discouraged, watch the evening news or visit websites other than ESPN.com or Facebook!



0- Great News!!! You are the presumptive Presidential Nominee for the Republican Party Arizona Senator John McCain. Continue talking about subjects that you obviously don't understand and rationalizing an irrational war.



That's right folks John McCain got all three questions wrong. From the washingtonpost.com :



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."



Fourtanately for Senator McCain, his pal Sen Lieberman was there to help his illiformed collegue.

It is all on video courtesy of the good folks at CBS News and YouTube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU

The Answers

1) B

2) A

3) B

Hat tip to Daily Kos for first bringing Senator McCain's gaffe to my attention.

-Kyle

Republicans Implement an Discriminatory Drivers License Policy

The decision to refuse non-residents and non-citizens a driver’s license seems un-American. Americans have enjoyed a long history of vehicular travel. The ability to move around the country and live anywhere we want seems important. In other countries with states, identification is required in order to move from state to state. We take the opposite of this totalitarian policy for granted in the United States. Now, the country seems to be reverting back to the Articles of Confederation when every state was on its own and statehood could be compared to nationality.

This policy can be used for some rather devious purposes such as the direct discrimination of foreign students who are here legally. The license has become a means of identification that police often use even when they have no right under the Fourth Amendment. Most people just hand their licenses over because they do not think they have anything to hide or they believe they have an obligation. I can imagine a situation where a foreign student or a visitor may feel threatened by handing over their foreign license. It seems like a clear way to separate individuals for discrimination and considering these “imperatives of national security” I am afraid of the behavior police officers can engage in with this new policy.

Additionally, there are other uses for a license that could unfairly restrain visitors to Michigan or individuals who have no desire to apply for a license. Airlines are making it more difficult to travel within the country without a license. Voters in Michigan are now required to present a license. Simple business transactions such as the use of credit cards, banking, or cashing a check require a license. This policy makes all of these activities unfairly burdensome.

Also, business has gone global. Global businesses depend on temporary international employees and this policy will not only burden the employees, but the businesses as well. If Michigan wants to compete in a global economy, this fetish for security is going to be hard to reconcile. Businesses want as little regulation as possible in many instances. This policy only makes their jobs more difficult in merging their international employees together with domestics and American life. The Republicans have just found another way to lose jobs in the name of security. Yet, who honestly believes they are secure in an economy this troubled?

If security is the only concern justifying these intrusions, then it is important to remind ourselves that some of the hijackers on 9/11 were in this country as legal residents. For those who were not legal residents, passports and licenses were forged. Terri Lynn Land and Mike Cox are only punishing law abiding citizens for the terrorist actions that they have already been victim to. Maybe they should change their priorities. The State of Michigan should be more worried about forgeries than preventing people from attaining legitimate licenses and harassing visitors. There should be excitement over visitors, tourists, and international diversity because right now this state is suffering from a huge population decline. Michigan needs to be practical and not rhetorical. Michigan needs to discard this policy and discourage harassment.

-Keith

Don't Blame the MDP, Blame Those Who Refuse to Listen to MI

As a result of our efforts, the GCYD has brought attention to the DNC's harsh ruling against Michigan that will disenfranchise Democratic voters. We have had our letter published in the Flint Journal and on several forums. We have been interviewed by ABC-12 and the Flint Journal. We have illicited a response from the DNC.

Here is the response from the DNC:

"Keith,

Thank you for sharing your concerns with the DNC. On December 1st the DNC*s Rules and Bylaws Committee, nearly unanimously, found Michigan*s 2008 Delegate Selection Plan in Non-Compliance with the
2008 Delegate Selection Rules because of its January 15, 2008 primary date - a date that violates the rule on timing. It should be noted that the full DNC, including members from Michigan, voted to adopt the Rules
last year after an 18-month-long transparent, thoughtful and deliberative process.

The DNC gave the Michigan Democratic Party 30 days to submit a plan that could have complied. During that time, the DNC worked with the Michigan State Party to develop a plan that complied. It should be noted
that in the summer of 2007 the RBC considered and took action on a Michigan Delegate Selection Plan that used the results of a State Party-run caucus process on February 9, 2008 to allocate delegate positions among presidential candidates. This system and date complied with all relevant Delegate Selection Rules and that original Plan was found in Conditional Compliance by the RBC. In the end, the Michigan
Democratic Party chose the January 15, 2008 primary date. Because of this the DNC is forced to enforce its rules.

This was not an arbitrary decision made by the DNC, but one that was considered by the entire Rules and Bylaws Committee. We feel it is important to enforce the rules that were voted on by the full DNC to ensure that the nominating process is more fair, more representative and more effective as a proving ground for our own candidates. Our ultimate goal is to put forth the strongest presidential nominee. The Party must
enforce its calendar at this time to prevent other states from leapfrogging ahead.

We are disappointed by this turn of events because we know how important it is to the Party that Michigan Democrats play a meaningful part in the nominating process and send a full delegation to the Convention. We remain hopeful that the Party leaders and elected officials in Michigan will reconsider their decision to use the state government-run January 15, 2008 primary and will instead continue to use the State Party's traditional caucus process as was originally planned.

We appreciate the hard work of the Michigan Democratic Party in dealing with this matter and re-commit ourselves to continuing to work with the Michigan Democratic Party on many other levels to strengthen the Party
in Michigan and achieve victory in 2008."

The letter is a polite way to dismiss Michigan voters. The DNC argues that they had no choice, yet, the DNC could have made reforms to the primary system. Instead, the DNC has sided with political and financial interests
in the early states who desperately want to remain first in the nation. As a result, the DNC has given up on competing in Michigan. Not only are Democratic candidates not campaigning in MI, the DNC is sticking to its decision over refusing to sit our delegates.

The MDP has urged the DNC to reform this old-fashioned system that guarantees MI no role in the process. The MDP seems to have been caught bluffing, believing that the DNC would never take actions that would alienate an entire state of voters. While the MDP is not free from guilt arising from other issues in this primary fiasco ($10 million of state funds to pay for Republican and Democrat primaries, "uncommitted," and bluffing), the DNC is crazy for throwing away our votes. MI is a battleground state last time I checked. The Republicans understand this and allowed their state party to violate the bylaws. The Republican candidates understand this and have made MI a priority. Only Howard Dean and the rest of the DNC seems unable to comprehend this point. Howard Dean's DNC has acted rashly and harshly to take away our rights to vote. These actions should demonstrate the amount of political force these early states are able to muster against the DNC to defend this unfair primary system.

MI voters matter. Stick up for your state party concerning reform in the DNC. They are only trying to carry our voice to a national capital that has forgotten all about us. So what should you do on Tuesday? Here are some tips and clarifications:

1) DO NOT vote "uncommitted" believing that it is a vote in opposition to the few candidates on the ballot. "Uncommitted" is a vote for delegates to pick whoever they want at the convention, including candidates already listed on the ballot.

2) If there is a candidate you oppose on the ballot, then vote for the other candidate on the ballot. Dennis Kucinich is one of the candidates to vote for in opposition to others.

3) Another option is to vote in the Republican primary. Voting Republican does two things: 1) gives Democrats control over a more moderate Republican candidate than our current President, and 2) sends a message to the DNC that MI matters and that any candidate who hopes to win had better pay attention to Michigan voters.

How can we reform the DNC so that this does not happen in the future? Write to the DNC using the link at the side-bar. Organize a protest event. Get media attention. Use your vote on Tuesday to send a message to party leaders that this behavior will not win them votes. Keep your eyes open as the GCYD continues to take a stand on this issue.

- Keith

GCYD Takes a Stand on the MI Primary

This letter has been submitted to organizations and media outlets such as the DNC, Flint Journal, and Washington Post:

The Genesee County Young Democrats (GCYD) disapproves of the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) decision to sanction Michigan for setting the primary date before Iowa or New Hampshire. Iowa and New Hampshire have dominated the Party's nomination process for too long. Whoever wins the first few primary states tend to find themselves receiving the Party's nomination. This antique of party politics has narrowed the type of candidates to those who are more conducive to small states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Small states are not a microcosm of America and our candidates emerge from the primary ill-suited to compete in the general election as a result. Until this past approach is corrected, states like Michigan should have every right to refuse compliance with the DNC's primary process.

Michigan is a key battleground state in the 2008 elections. In 2000 and 2004, candidates focused on winning votes in our state because of the tight competition between Democrats and Republicans for the hearts and minds of the public. The DNC will lose Michigan by rejecting our primary results and refusing to come to Michigan to campaign. As a result, our presidential candidate will be unable to compete in the general election. Additionally, Michigan is a large state in a region which seems to have been forgotten by the DNC. Michigan has one of the worst economies in the nation because of the transition from an industrial economy to service-based. People in Michigan are the ones who are hurting in order to maintain the economic prosperity of the rest of the nation. It is about time that the DNC think about states like Michigan.

"Right to Work " Misleads Michigan Voters

Republican big interests are targeting Michigan voters believing that their lies can mislead enough of us to eliminate our rights to organize at the workplace. These individuals want Michigan voters to believe that they are struggling to protect employees' right to refuse a union. These laws forbid unions and employers from negotiating over agreements where employees agree to join a union and pay fees in return for their employment. Their claimed motivation is disingenuous. These people are supported and manipulated by powerful conservative business interest such as local Chambers of Commerce and large corporations (Berkeley Miller and William Canak, (1991) "From "Porkchoppers" to "Lambchoppers": The Passage of Florida's Public Employee Relations Act," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 2; pp. 349-366; Dane M. Partridge, (1997) "Virginia's New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition," Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Volume 10, Number 2; pp. 127-139). The National Right to Work Foundation claims to be an organization based on ordinary citizens yet it was founded and financed by powerful and influential right-wing organizations ( "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation," Media Transparency, Accessed December 14, 2007).

Do you think these entities care about you or the fact that unions are responsible for helping workers gain better benefits, better wages, and better safety conditions ( United States Dept. of Labor)? Wages and benefits are lower in right-to-work states. Without stable unionization, many jobs that depend on unionized wages and benefits could be on the decline. The reality is that companies are giving a lot of money to keep your wages down and to reduce the standard of living for all Michiganders, so they can take record breaking profits from your hard work. These third party out-of-staters want to convince people to agree to this obscene plan by misleading voters that their rights are being taken away by labor unions.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) almost all employees have the right to unionize and bargain collectively. There are already restrictions placed on unions to protect employees' right to refuse to partake in union activities. You can also choose which employer you want to take a job with. These rich elites want you to believe that you are not free to refuse, but you are. They are the ones who are not free to interfere with your right to organize and to engage in concerted activity for the mutual gain or benefit of fellow employees, which is a duty that was created to protect you from them. Please don’t forget that.

In a free market society, unions and employers should be free to negotiate an agreement to keep employers unionized. Unions give something to the employer in negotiations for these agreements because they provide employees with stability and security. This decreases industrial fighting and protects employee rights. Additionally, these agreements give employees a better bargaining position for all employees. In right-to-work states, employees who decide not to join a union still receive the benefits of your union fees as an employer cannot discriminate between employees based on union activity. These states force you to pay for someone else a free ride on the benefits unionized employees fight to protect. We are all in this together and without cooperation Michigan laborers will suffer.

If you care about this issue, please email Luke Canfora lcanfora@miaflcio.org at the Michigan State AFL-CIO and volunteer to work the polls on Janurary 15^th to stop this petition from threatening Michigan workers.

-Keith