Editor's Note: Today's blog entry was submitted by SFVYD Member Mike Young. Thanks, Mike!
The climate crisis is the single greatest challenge in human history, but there’s a blatant dichotomy between how important the issue is with how much of a priority our parent generation places on it. It’s only now that the baby boomers are beginning to retire that we’re beginning to see a precursor to what our generation will need to face. Widespread drought, increasingly intense hurricanes, and the polar ice caps disappearing just after our parents retire are only a few of the consequences our generation will inherit. While there are courageous leaders addressing the issue like Former Vice President Al Gore and Former California Assembly Member Fran Pavley, their voices tend to be drowned out by the skeptics and reactionaries in office who have been essentially bought by the big oil lobby.
The problem has been exacerbated by President Bush, whose entire cabinet has direct ties to big oil. They have radically changed the purpose of government regulation from working for the public good the way Franklin Roosevelt used it during the 1930s to solely benefiting the special interests that helped elect Bush in the first place. This has had severe consequences for federally run institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA was created for the purpose of benefiting the masses and protecting the commons, and now the only environment it’s “protecting” is one favoring big business.
Sadly, the most recent casualty of the Bush Administration’s unspoken war on nature is none other than Pavley's 2002 Tailpipe Emissions Reduction bill, the landmark bill recognized as being the first in U.S. history directly combating the climate crisis. Despite its popularity, the bill has essentially been trapped in legal and bureaucratic limbo since the day it was passed.
The legality of the bill passed its first challenge in April 2007 when the State of Massachusetts successfully argued to the Supreme Court that greenhouse gases were a pollutant and were thus, contrary to what the EPA argued, able to be regulated by the institution. In other words, the Supreme Court told the EPA that it had the ability but was not required to do its actual job.
Naturally, (which is probably not the best word to use in this case) Stephen Johnson, the Bush-appointed head of the EPA, stalled on a decision about whether or not the EPA would act on greenhouse gas regulations, which meant he refused to decide whether states could pass laws that required stricter greenhouse gas regulations than federal guidelines. Early last month a federal district court upheld California's right to regulate greenhouse gases as long as a waiver was approved by the EPA, but in an upsetting yet unsurprising turn of events the EPA denied California's waiver –on the same day Bush signed a bi-partisan bill to increase CAFE standards from 25mpg to 35mpg by 2020:
“The Bush administration blocked California's plan to put tighter limits on automobile tailpipe emissions, handing a victory to the auto industry on the same day the president signed an energy bill that mandates the biggest boost in federal fuel-efficiency standards in more than 30 years.
Late yesterday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson blocked California from going further than the federal government does in curbing auto emissions that contribute to global warming, setting up a clash with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
It's poetic injustice at its best. Sign a bill to raise federal fuel efficiency standards while denying states their right to reduce tailpipe emissions. To Bush it's all about control -he and his special interest buddies have it, and they're doing their best to make sure nobody else does.
Fortunately, there are still those in Congress who refuse to allow such corruption to go unanswered. Following Stephen Johnson’s announcement Congressman Henry Waxman, a long-time Valley representative who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has begun a probe into how the administration came to its decision and what legal justification it could possibly have for going against the mission of the EPA.
We’re encouraging everyone to contact Congressman Waxman to support his probe and thank him for the immediacy he has placed on this very big problem.
Congressman Henry Waxman 2204 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-3976 (phone) (202) 225-4099 (fax)
This issue will not go away in our lifetimes, and it’s looking more and more likely that our generation will be paying for our parent generation’s mistakes. So now is the time when we should start getting active and show why we are a generation that represents hope.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
New Hampshire Debate Analysis
Editor's Note: This blog post was submitted by E-board member Jesse Switzer. Thanks, Jesse!
Can You Really Lose The Battle And Still Win The War: An Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate in New Hampshire on September 26
By Jesse M. Switzer
Presidential Primary Debate. Is there any combination of words quite as thrilling to the human soul? Perhaps. But not to folks like you and me who spend so many waking hours pondering, “…just who came out triumphant in the most recent Democratic Presidential Primary Debate in New Hampshire.” The answer, as you may have guessed, is complicated, as is anything of importance and consequence.
Undoubtedly the biggest news to come out this debate was Sen. Clinton’s reversal on previously stated positions regarding the use of torture. Prior to that fateful evening, Sen. Clinton had suggested in interviews with the press that torture may be used under certain circumstances as long it was done “within the rule of law”. On Wednesday’s night’s debate she flatly stated, “As a matter of policy it [torture] cannot be American policy, period.”. This was in response to being given a hypothetical scenario in which the White House had in its custody a terrorist with knowledge of a massive attack on U.S. soil and has just three days to thwart it. Tim Russert, who hosted the debate, sought to add drama to the moment and subsequently informed Sen. Clinton that this was indeed her husband’s hypothetical and at the time he thought torture would be one possible avenue they could explore. Oh schmack, Ms. Clinton! …But, as usual, Sen. Clinton was able to turn lemons into lemonade and sharply responded, “Well he’s not up on stage here right now.” But Russert didn’t want to let her get away that easy, pointing out that her husband still disagrees with her. Touché, but again Hillary has never been one to back down from a challenge, which was evident as she cleverly retorted, “Well, I’ll talk to him later.” Now not only did she inspire laughter and admiration from a white male such as myself, but she probably had every woman in the country thinkin’ “Yea! You go girl!” She is a polished master and she certainly succeeded in what should be her number one goal as front-runner in this race, namely: be competent, fly low and avoid the radar.
More eyes were probably fixated on the Democratic Party’s charismatic new wunderkind, Sen. Barack Obama, as his performance has been surprisingly weak at previous debates and time is running out to fully capitalize on the meteoric rise he has enjoyed since his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. Unfortunately, one could easily argue (and I will) that he left much to be desired in this latest showdown. But this is not to say that his performance wasn’t comparable to Sen. Clinton’s, in fact it was entirely too similar. Sen. Obama needs to address the public as a bold visionary – and one that actually has said vision. His harshest critics claim he is inexperienced and lacks the skills necessary to lead the country. The only way to dispel that notion is to come out with concrete ideas that at the same time show that he is radically different from the status quo. Obama is caught in a catch-22. His campaign touts that he appeals to a broad cross-sector of society, including Republicans, which judging by his fundraising efforts is very true; however, specific details and introducing revolutionary ways of doing things poses exceedingly difficult obstacles to keeping that coalition intact. Be that as it may, Obama cannot continue down this path of showing up to debates with centrist ideas like including additional nuclear power plants as part of his energy plan, while neglecting to work as hard as he possibly can to demonstrate that he can and is willing to propose ideas that are radically different as to define himself as his own breed of candidate, which he most certainly is.
Sen. Edwards did a much better job defining himself as the anti-Hillary on stage, blasting the Senator’s vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group by stating, “I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step to war with Iran.” But the former Senator from North Carolina fell short on his answer to a question on whether or not he regretted some rather extravagant campaign expenditures and contributions, especially considering his campaign platform has been largely based around fighting poverty. Edwards got a bit whiney and defensive as he kept repeating the phrase, “…but look at what I have done,” as if to say “…well, yeah but I’ve also done good things too and I’ve corrected some of my mistakes.” In Edwards’ defense subjects like $400 haircuts, extravagant and morally dubious as they might be, are non-issues relatively speaking and epitomize the kind of superficial nitpicking which have contributed to the death of thoughtful politicking. And Sen. Edwards pointed out some solid examples of how his deeds speak for themselves as far as his dedication to fighting economic injustice. But take a lesson from Hillary, my friend, if you’ve made a mistake own up and move on, and in doing so try to capitalize on the lesson you’ve learned. Edwards used this strategy so well with his Iraq War vote, why can’t he do it with something comparatively moronic like this? Edwards on the whole inched toward the winner’s seat, besting Obama in his performance, but at this point he’s really got bolt to catch up with Sen. Clinton.
Gov. Richards had a few shining moments, not the least of which came at the start of the debate when he was able differentiate himself from the other leading candidates by speaking with some authority on the issue of removing all our troops from Iraq without sounding like a pie-in-the-sky ultra liberal. Generally speaking, however, Gov. Richardson blended in with the other second tier candidates, who sadly became filler for the rest of the debate. None of the second tier candidates were able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the fray in way that would be appealing to a wide section of voters…although, Kucinich and Gravel certainly received some applause from the university heavy crowd when they revealed they would be inclined to lower the drinking age. Thus is it is safe to say that while not total losers, the second tiers were the closest to being labeled as such.
I contend that none of these fine individuals are losers seeing as our dynamic and diverse lineup of candidates outshines the Republican roster any day!
Can You Really Lose The Battle And Still Win The War: An Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate in New Hampshire on September 26
By Jesse M. Switzer
Presidential Primary Debate. Is there any combination of words quite as thrilling to the human soul? Perhaps. But not to folks like you and me who spend so many waking hours pondering, “…just who came out triumphant in the most recent Democratic Presidential Primary Debate in New Hampshire.” The answer, as you may have guessed, is complicated, as is anything of importance and consequence.
Undoubtedly the biggest news to come out this debate was Sen. Clinton’s reversal on previously stated positions regarding the use of torture. Prior to that fateful evening, Sen. Clinton had suggested in interviews with the press that torture may be used under certain circumstances as long it was done “within the rule of law”. On Wednesday’s night’s debate she flatly stated, “As a matter of policy it [torture] cannot be American policy, period.”. This was in response to being given a hypothetical scenario in which the White House had in its custody a terrorist with knowledge of a massive attack on U.S. soil and has just three days to thwart it. Tim Russert, who hosted the debate, sought to add drama to the moment and subsequently informed Sen. Clinton that this was indeed her husband’s hypothetical and at the time he thought torture would be one possible avenue they could explore. Oh schmack, Ms. Clinton! …But, as usual, Sen. Clinton was able to turn lemons into lemonade and sharply responded, “Well he’s not up on stage here right now.” But Russert didn’t want to let her get away that easy, pointing out that her husband still disagrees with her. Touché, but again Hillary has never been one to back down from a challenge, which was evident as she cleverly retorted, “Well, I’ll talk to him later.” Now not only did she inspire laughter and admiration from a white male such as myself, but she probably had every woman in the country thinkin’ “Yea! You go girl!” She is a polished master and she certainly succeeded in what should be her number one goal as front-runner in this race, namely: be competent, fly low and avoid the radar.
More eyes were probably fixated on the Democratic Party’s charismatic new wunderkind, Sen. Barack Obama, as his performance has been surprisingly weak at previous debates and time is running out to fully capitalize on the meteoric rise he has enjoyed since his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. Unfortunately, one could easily argue (and I will) that he left much to be desired in this latest showdown. But this is not to say that his performance wasn’t comparable to Sen. Clinton’s, in fact it was entirely too similar. Sen. Obama needs to address the public as a bold visionary – and one that actually has said vision. His harshest critics claim he is inexperienced and lacks the skills necessary to lead the country. The only way to dispel that notion is to come out with concrete ideas that at the same time show that he is radically different from the status quo. Obama is caught in a catch-22. His campaign touts that he appeals to a broad cross-sector of society, including Republicans, which judging by his fundraising efforts is very true; however, specific details and introducing revolutionary ways of doing things poses exceedingly difficult obstacles to keeping that coalition intact. Be that as it may, Obama cannot continue down this path of showing up to debates with centrist ideas like including additional nuclear power plants as part of his energy plan, while neglecting to work as hard as he possibly can to demonstrate that he can and is willing to propose ideas that are radically different as to define himself as his own breed of candidate, which he most certainly is.
Sen. Edwards did a much better job defining himself as the anti-Hillary on stage, blasting the Senator’s vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group by stating, “I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step to war with Iran.” But the former Senator from North Carolina fell short on his answer to a question on whether or not he regretted some rather extravagant campaign expenditures and contributions, especially considering his campaign platform has been largely based around fighting poverty. Edwards got a bit whiney and defensive as he kept repeating the phrase, “…but look at what I have done,” as if to say “…well, yeah but I’ve also done good things too and I’ve corrected some of my mistakes.” In Edwards’ defense subjects like $400 haircuts, extravagant and morally dubious as they might be, are non-issues relatively speaking and epitomize the kind of superficial nitpicking which have contributed to the death of thoughtful politicking. And Sen. Edwards pointed out some solid examples of how his deeds speak for themselves as far as his dedication to fighting economic injustice. But take a lesson from Hillary, my friend, if you’ve made a mistake own up and move on, and in doing so try to capitalize on the lesson you’ve learned. Edwards used this strategy so well with his Iraq War vote, why can’t he do it with something comparatively moronic like this? Edwards on the whole inched toward the winner’s seat, besting Obama in his performance, but at this point he’s really got bolt to catch up with Sen. Clinton.
Gov. Richards had a few shining moments, not the least of which came at the start of the debate when he was able differentiate himself from the other leading candidates by speaking with some authority on the issue of removing all our troops from Iraq without sounding like a pie-in-the-sky ultra liberal. Generally speaking, however, Gov. Richardson blended in with the other second tier candidates, who sadly became filler for the rest of the debate. None of the second tier candidates were able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the fray in way that would be appealing to a wide section of voters…although, Kucinich and Gravel certainly received some applause from the university heavy crowd when they revealed they would be inclined to lower the drinking age. Thus is it is safe to say that while not total losers, the second tiers were the closest to being labeled as such.
I contend that none of these fine individuals are losers seeing as our dynamic and diverse lineup of candidates outshines the Republican roster any day!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
E-Board Retreat Plans A Big Year
SFVYD's E-board: Eli Lipmen, Gerrard Panahon, Patty Salazar, Jesse Switzer, David Phelps, Greg Girvan, Damian Carroll, Miguel Santiago. Not pictured: Angelica Ayala, Becca Doten, Adrin Nazarian
SFVYD's E-board met last weekend in Oxnard to plan the upcoming year's budget, calendar of events, and goals. After many hours of discussion and brainstorming, we've set an ambitious agenda for '07-'08 that includes recruiting and engaging a diverse and active membership, bringing further transparency to club activities, endorsements and debate, and channeling the energy of young voters inspired by the Presidential election.
Some of our additional goals for the coming year:
- Working to defeat a planned initiative for the June '08 election that would split California's electoral votes, essentially handing the next Presidency to a Republican.
- Mentoring local college and high school activists to develop Democratic clubs on campus.
- Utilizing web and print advertising to promote SFVYD events to a larger audience.
- Continuing to educate our membership on the leading political and policy issues of the day.
- Expanding our successful SFVYD Grants program, helping YD clubs in "red" areas to take root and grow.
- Sending SFVYD members to the CDP State and DNC National Conventions.
- Endorsing a full slate of federal, state and local candidates, state propositions and judicial races, and backing up those endorsements with slate mailers, phone banking and precinct walking.
- Continuing to work with other YD clubs in the LA area through a series of YD Leadership Summits.
These are just a few of the broad goals we've set for our organization. You can see we've set an ambitious agenda, and to succeed we'll need the combined energy of all our members and supporters. We hope we can count on you to volunteer your time and effort to make this SFVYD's best year ever.
ALSO... There are still positions open on our Executive Board! This is a great opportunity to take your role in SFVYD to the next level. Open positions include an all-important Membership Director, Director of Diversity, Director of Technology, and Volunteer Director. If you are interested in serving (don't worry about experience - we'll show you the ropes) please contact Eli at elipmen@sfvyd.org.
Thanks and please keep checking in for updates and new events!
Monday, July 23, 2007
Join the Lake Balboa Park Clean-Up
Lake Balboa Park Clean-Up Hosted by the Democratic National Committee
Come join the California Democratic Party and SFVYD on July 28 in support of our National Community Service Day! We are encouraging volunteers and community members to come together for a park clean up (10am-12pm), followed by a picnic for the rest of the gathering.Sign-in will be availiable near the entrance to Lake Balboa (accessible from Balboa Blvd.)
For the location of the picnic area, refer to the link below:
http://www.laparks.org/dos
Saturday, July 28 at 10:00 AM
Duration: 4 hours
Contact Phone: 818-645-0143
Lake Balboa Park
6300 Balboa Blvd
Encino, CA 91406
Duration: 4 hours
Contact Phone: 818-645-0143
Lake Balboa Park
6300 Balboa Blvd
Encino, CA 91406
View Map:
Google Maps
Directions: Park patrons must enter through the Balboa Boulevard entrance and park in designated parking slots. Overflow parking on the dirt field to the northwest of the park is available during periods of heavy usage.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Save Student Financial Aid - Act Right Now
For the first time in a decade, we have a real chance in Congress to make college more affordable and accessible. But special interests are threatening to halt this progress.
Tomorrow, we anticipate that the Senate will vote on S.1762, The Higher Education Access Act of 2007, which increases grant aid for low income students and helps make student loan debt more manageable by cutting $16 billion dollars from subsidies to lenders. Unfortunately, Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Richard Burr are planning an amendment that would let lenders keep billions of dollars that should be going to students.
Senator Dianne Feinstein: (202) 224-3841 or email.
Senator Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553 or email.
Last week, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed HR 2339, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, 273 to 143. This bill delivers a similar set of higher education reforms for college students and their families struggling to pay for a college degree.
A college degree is more necessary than ever these days. But over 100,000 college eligible students drop out of applying to college due to cost. And more and more students graduate with deep debt to pay for it. In the early nineties, less than one third of college graduates had loan debt to repay; now, over two thirds do. This debt squeezes graduates out of going into lower paying, but socially valuable degrees like social work and teaching.
To find out more information, go to the Debt Hits Hard campaign run by the organization Campus Progress, as well as the Campaign to Make College Affordable. Also check out Young Democrats for America for further information on how to get involved.
We need your help right now. Please call your Senator today!
Tomorrow, we anticipate that the Senate will vote on S.1762, The Higher Education Access Act of 2007, which increases grant aid for low income students and helps make student loan debt more manageable by cutting $16 billion dollars from subsidies to lenders. Unfortunately, Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Richard Burr are planning an amendment that would let lenders keep billions of dollars that should be going to students.
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY AND URGE THEM TO VOTE YES FOR S. 1762, AND NO ON THE NELSON-BURR AMENDMENT.
Senator Dianne Feinstein: (202) 224-3841 or email.
Senator Barbara Boxer: (202) 224-3553 or email.
Last week, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed HR 2339, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, 273 to 143. This bill delivers a similar set of higher education reforms for college students and their families struggling to pay for a college degree.
A college degree is more necessary than ever these days. But over 100,000 college eligible students drop out of applying to college due to cost. And more and more students graduate with deep debt to pay for it. In the early nineties, less than one third of college graduates had loan debt to repay; now, over two thirds do. This debt squeezes graduates out of going into lower paying, but socially valuable degrees like social work and teaching.
To find out more information, go to the Debt Hits Hard campaign run by the organization Campus Progress, as well as the Campaign to Make College Affordable. Also check out Young Democrats for America for further information on how to get involved.
PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATOR RIGHT NOW!!!!!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Act Now to Make Sure the Valley Counts
We know that the San Fernando Valley has something 'special' we all love. Don't let the Census Bureau take our uniqueness away - call the number below to ensure that the Valley is counted as a separate region. Show some Valley pride!
Read this editorial by the LA Daily News to find out why they might dump the Valley from the Census. Take action by contacting Census Bureau Director Charles Kincannon. His information is at the bottom of the post.
Read this editorial by the LA Daily News to find out why they might dump the Valley from the Census. Take action by contacting Census Bureau Director Charles Kincannon. His information is at the bottom of the post.
Up until last year, the U.S. Census Bureau never treated the Valley as its own region, but dumped it in with the rest of L.A. when crunching data. So when the feds doled out money, the Valley's portion was based on L.A.'s needs, not its own.
And that's a big part of why the Valley has historically been so shortchanged.
Finally, after five years of intense local lobbying, Washington gave the Valley its own Census County Division, or CCD.
But now we stand to lose it. Citing a lack of interest, the U.S. Census Bureau wants to stop breaking down data by CCDs - which means the Valley would again be lumped with the rest of L.A., and short-changed all the more.
Kincannon needs to hear from the rest of us, to let him know how much is at stake for our region on what might otherwise seem like a boring, wonky decision.
Let him know how you feel.
Give him a call at (301) 763-2135. Send him an e-mail at charles.louis.kincannon@census.gov. Or, if you're using snail mail, drop a note to his office, in care of the U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H001, Mail Stop 0100, Washington, D.C. 20233-0001.
Want the Democratic Presidential Candidates to Come to You? Vote on It!
Tired of watching the Presidential candidates on TV as they hold rallies in Iowa or New Hampshire? Don't want to drive downtown to see Senator Obama or Senator Clinton?
It is very easy to get the Presidential candidates come to you - here in the San Fernando Valley.
Last month, Senator John Edwards, one of the Democratic Presidential candidate (if you didn't already know he was running since 2004!) did something no presidential candidate has ever done -- commit to visit the city or town that creates the most demand on Eventful.com. Senator Edwards will also answer at least ten questions from the "demanders" in the winning city.
The competition ends on July 18th so you only have a few days left to place your demand. Go to Eventful.com/johnedwards to cast your vote.
And if Edwards is not your candidate, you can join the groups for the other candidates to start getting involved with their campaign.
For Senator Barak Obama, go here.
For Senator Hillary Clinton, go here.
To see all the political candidates and political events across the country, click here.
It is very easy to get the Presidential candidates come to you - here in the San Fernando Valley.
Last month, Senator John Edwards, one of the Democratic Presidential candidate (if you didn't already know he was running since 2004!) did something no presidential candidate has ever done -- commit to visit the city or town that creates the most demand on Eventful.com. Senator Edwards will also answer at least ten questions from the "demanders" in the winning city.
The competition ends on July 18th so you only have a few days left to place your demand. Go to Eventful.com/johnedwards to cast your vote.
And if Edwards is not your candidate, you can join the groups for the other candidates to start getting involved with their campaign.
For Senator Barak Obama, go here.
For Senator Hillary Clinton, go here.
To see all the political candidates and political events across the country, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)