Justin, I couldn't agree with you more. I may even say two years late. In the past, critics may have bashed the College Dems for not focusing on the issues (I among them), but this year is noticeably different.

The first, you hit it right on the head - the joint collaboration between College Republicans and Democrats. What better way to show respect for the fallen than putting are partisan views aside, and planning an event together... and due to the response, I doubt these will be the last joint events.

The second is found in the new initiatives such as the blog, a forum for members to express different views and opinions. The blog has been one of Oliver's top priorities since being elected as chair. So to allude that College Dems have one blank voice would be misleading to say the least.

Currently we will be incorporating issued-based emails, not with the purpose to sway, but educate members on critical issues like the War on Terror, Education, Health Care and the Budget. Furthermore, we are even launching a podcast in the coming weeks... so Justin, you are right - Jack's opinion is years too late.

I would end with a message not for Jack to Take Heed, but view and post on the blog. Let us hear about your views, ideas and comments. You want issues? You should become more active in College Democrats.

No, that title is not in reference to the Jack Garigliano piece that seems to be the talk of the town these days. Just from looking at the title of that second link, I'm inclined to believe that all that may be said about Garigliano's work already has been. I instead refer to the piece in the Badger Herald written by Mattie Duppler of the College Republicans. Particularly disturbing (laughably so?) is this choice nugget midway through the article:

While [Islamic extremists] glorify the use of one’s child as an explosive devise [sic], the hypocritical zealots adhering to the “pull-out” strategy demonize a war that, in light of General Petraeus’ report illuminating successes in Iraq, can still be won.

Where do I begin? First, by law, there is no General Petraeus report. There is a Bush Administration report. Second, Merriam-Webster defines "zealousness" as that which is "marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal." I consider the opinions of 60% of Americans to stand much higher than mere zealous partisanship (redundant, I know), and I wish that our peers across the aisle would as well.

Moving on, Duppler's concessionary passive voice lets the reader know right away that a muse about winning this war was only half-heartedly tacked on to an emotional passage about the inhumanity of our grand enemy — apparently a critical threat to the very existence of our nation. I know plenty about the threats and consequences of Islamic extremism, and a little prescriptive rhetoric would be a welcome addition to the Republican column-writing repertoire apparently exhausted by cliché and hyperbole .

Of course, Duppler keeps the target moving, turning focus in the next paragraph to the sorry state they've gotten Iraq into, while leaving critical readers wondering exactly happens for Iraq to "be won." While the Republican penchant for screaming about the most miniscule of silver linings impresses me greatly, they leave no indication of how this unsustainable escalation is finally putting us on the path toward the Iraq of their dreams. Devoid of ideas, both in philosophy and policy, they've been reduced to ten paragraphs of explaining why we're all in grave danger and how they have absolutely no idea what to do about it. Contrast that tone with the progressive, prescriptive piece penned by Oliver Kiefer, and published alongside Duppler's (albeit, about a different subject).

But as I sat down to write this post, I noticed that, as if waiting for the UW-Madison College Republicans to drop the ball, Anonymous Liberal today wrote about a subject very pertinent to this debate: "who are we fighting in Iraq?"

Unless we have some plan for altering the underlying dynamics in Iraq, the forces behind the chaos and violence will still exist and will exert themselves again as soon as we leave. Unless the various factions of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are all willing to live together under a Shiite-dominated, Iranian-allied central government--and there's absolutely no reason to think they are--then there is no point in establishing order merely for order's sake. Even if we sent in a million troops and stopped all violence in the country, the fighting would just start up again as soon as we began drawing down our forces.

I invite the College Republicans to spend their next column describing exactly what they mean for Iraq to "be won." Do we establish an expressive, liberal democracy grounded in western values and free of undue and harmful outside influence? I mean, that's what we were promised, right? Surely, the College Republicans would not have supported initial military action for anything less. And would anything less truly be a win? In the meantime, leave it to Democrats in Washington to set the tone for constructive foreign policy that will keep us safe at home, and protect our interests abroad.

I have to say that I really enjoyed the column in the Herald today written by Jack Garigliano blasting the College Dems. http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/09/13/college_dems_do_it_d.php#feedback
The problem is that I would have enjoyed it even more a year ago when it would have applied. Speaking in generalities he makes some fairly valid points. A group devoted to issues such as the College Dems should concentrate on the issues and not on the individual. [Going back to last fall however we need to remember there was a great divide on one large issue, and mainly those that shared the opinion of the College Dems were (a) Democrat and (b) not Republican.]

I agree that differing opinions are okay, between parties as well as within the same party, and that listening to others opinions is necessary to come to a constructive solution. This would lead to the idea that senseless bashing or ridiculing of the other political party is useless and counterproductive. A point that I fully agree with.

The problem is that Jack's argument comes a year to late. Anyone who is familiar with the current leadership of the College Dems know that they agree with these ideas as well. The College Dems are currently working hard to advocate issues such as the passing of the state budget and the demise of the alcohol density plan. http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/09/13/alcohol_plan_would_b.php

Also, to all who believe that it will never be possible for the Dems and Republicans to pull their head out of the mud and clearly see there is a bigger picture, I hope you had the opportunity to see the memorial to the victims of 9/11. It was a joint effort of two "rival" groups coming together for a greater cause. I would invite all who want to be a part of "the greater cause" and all those who "must see it to believe it" (it being that Dems and Republicans can work side by side w/o the world exploding) to come to Bascom on September 19th at 6:30 am to see then work together again, this time to memorialize those who have died in Iraq.

For now it appears that Dems are headed in the right direction. Take heed Jack, take heed.

As an Economics major, I've been consistently amused by the displeasure of my student peers when faced with the prospect of taking a class in the subject. So to the reader, if you count yourself among that group and care to minimize your exposure to the dismal science, you've been warned.

Anyway, Oliver Goodenough (isn't that a fun name?), a professor of law at Vermont Law School, has an interesting [economic] perspective on the Iraq war as something that students of the discipline would label an irrational escalation of commitment. An excerpt from the article:

America is long past the possibility of some kind of profitable outcome in Iraq. Neo-con dreams of a quick, cheap victory, delivering democracy and peace and self-financed from Iraq's own oil revenue, got us started on this misadventure. Like the students, the early bidding seemed like a fun adventure to the boys in the Bush administration. "Bring 'em on," the chief boy said about the other bidders. And like the economics class, suddenly we were in the thing up to our necks, with only bad choices available at an ever-escalating cost.

The entire piece is a good read for its perspective of the sunk costs at play in Iraq policy these days. As you read the first few paragraphs, think of them as an allegory to the desperate actions this administration has undertaken since the first days of war. And at some point, policy makers must be willing to find a way out of this irrational escalation:

Senator Barack Obama yesterday presented his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war in Iraq, proposing to withdraw all combat brigades by the end of next year while leaving behind an unspecified smaller force to strike at terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests.

[For more on sunk costs and the Iraq War, see Steven Dubner of Freakonomics fame.]

As usual, it's tough to get a straight answer from these people. We Wisconsinites can remain proud, however, that we've elected a man willing to take people to task over such grave mistakes.



Despite continuing appeals to the observance of the lessons learned on 9/11/01, and the resulting War on Terror, Republicans and their allies seem unable to correctly interpret the true depth of this conflict. New evidence even suggests that they may even be particularly good at ignoring new/conflicting information necessary to realistically interpret our current situation. One can only wonder if said appeals represent a plea for resolution and consensus, or a ploy to keep conservative partisanship and fear-mongering in power over our nation's executive agenda.

Thanks to everyone who came out in the rain to last night's kickoff meeting. We had a great turnout (about 150 students by my estimate, and 2650 Humanities looked pretty packed) of both new and old members. The kickoff was a great setting to preview what the College Democrats and our allies will be working on this fall.

The Critical Badger and Something Verbose, both frequenters of College Dems meetings have already offered their coverage, so I'll try to just briefly recap the evening's agenda.

Awais Khaleel, UW student and Vice President of the College Democrats of America, spoke about the role of College Dems right here in Madison in changing the national conversation. A big theme of his speech was about how the state budget must be settled NOW. He had a moving personal connection to those almost 4000 + students still waiting for their financial aid.

Introduced by Awais, State Representative Mark Pocan lauded the great parties from back in his day as a College Democrat but also stressed the urgency of having students intern or volunteer to help take back our Assembly from those "crazies and really crazies" that have refused to finalize a budget. I was stunned to learn that teachers could be laid off and police officers could be cut from city and county budgets as soon as this month if the Legislature doesn't get its act together.

**side note** Please contact your state legislators! I hope not all of you are lucky enough to have Mike Huebsch (R- West Salem) as your Representative, but still contact him and the other Republican members of the Conference Committee. Tell them that they might still be receiving their paychecks, but so many Wisconsinites are not.

Rep. Pocan, a great friend of the College Democrats, brought to the stage Alder Eli Judge (8th District), a great College Democrat. Eli spoke about his work with campus safety especially through the ASM Neigborhood Watch program. He invited everyone to come visit his office hours and also to pack the upcoming Sept 18 Alcohol Licensing Density Plan meeting to help him fight for downtown and campus issues.

Our Chair, Oliver Kiefer, had a beautiful slideshow that kept the evening's agenda running smoothly, especially since there were many speakers from the College Democrats' allies. This included Shelle Mihalak (sp?) from Planned Parenthood promoting Campus Camp Wellstone!, leaders from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (Jason Stephany and Jamie Gutkowski -- who, by the way, is a College Democrat as well!), Richard Dovere (Roosevelt Institution) Kira Brenner (Chair of the College Democrats of Wisconsin), and the "Students For" groups (Obama, Hillary, and Edwards campaign groups were there).

A packed night, but be on the lookout for more College Democrat meetings and events in the next few weeks! We have a lot to do this semester, and we're focusing on Building the House and working on local issues. Also, on Wednesday the 19th, we are doing a Tribute to the Troops. If you are interested in helping set up for the event, please contact KJ Hansmann, our Volunteer Coordinator (her e-mail address is on the link on the left marked Our Organization).

I speak on behalf of the entire College Democrats of Madison executive board when I say that we are excited to have you on board with us this year, and we anticipate another great year as a Democrat.

As Oliver and Wisconsin say, Forward.

Is anyone interested in play some co-ed flag football? I'm looking to get a College Dems team together (or two, if there's enough interest). First come, first serve - and you can let me know by posting a comment on the blog. We'll need at least five guys and five girls for the team and the games are played on Thursday evenings.

Let me know!

As most of you dutiful news junkies already know, the U.S. Commander in Iraq General Petraeus is testifying this week in Washington about his assessment of the progress we're making in Iraq. It's been the conventional wisdom all summer that if there wasn't "Real Progress" in Iraq by September, Republican Congressmen would get freaked out and immediately back Democrats' timetable for withdrawal proposals, fearing for their own reelections. So it's always been the plan that Petraeus would report just enough progress to give certain Republicans the political cover to continue rubber stamping the president's Iraq policy. After all, surely if we stay in Iraq for just one more Friedman Unit, the Iraqi government will finally get their act together and we'll be able to withdrawal some troops, maybe, sometime, in a year, or two, or three, or ten, but only if Mr. President feels like it.

That being said, I'm interested in examining another piece of conventional wisdom: that even if progress toward political reconciliation has been pretty much non-existent, at least we're making military progress! Forget for a moment the fact that the WHOLE REASON for the surge was to give breathing space for political progress, has there really been significant military progress? There's been so much media ambiguity about the subject, it's hard for any passive observer to tell one way or the other. And obviously statistics out of Iraq are notoriously unreliable. However, it's worth noting that no independent assessment has been able to verify that violence has decreased from a year-to-year basis. In other words, in no month this year have there been fewer attacks, fatalities, etc. Assessments that claim things like "fatalities are down 75% from their peak" are cherry-picking data, conveninently ignoring the fact that violence ALWAYS declines in the summer because, as Tony Snow pointed out, it can get up around 130 degrees during Iraqi summers.

Yes there are potentially good signs from Iraq, like the infamous Sunni tribes in Al-Anbar Province that are turning against Al-Qaeda there. However it's important to note that while these tribes seem to be "with us" now, they were fighting against us just months earlier. Now by arming them, we're essentially arming both sides in a civil war because remember, the government we're ostensibly backing is majority-Shiite. And by empowering tribes outside the context of national reconciliation, we're basically giving up on the idea of any sort of unified Iraqi state.

This is in addition to a lot of other outrageous cooking of the books to allow Petraeus to announce even a modicum of good news. For example, many types of killing in Iraq is not even counted if they're not considered sectarian by the U.S. Military. The report everyone is waiting for on September 15 won't really be written by Petraeus but actually the White House Press Office, according to the L.A. Times. And the military won't release its secret numbers (much less the methodology behind them) claiming violence is down dramatically in August.

The bottom line is there is much reason to distrust pretty much everything General Petraeus has to say as he testifies this week. He may be a super-duper respected general, but he is essentially a political appointee who has an incentive to portray things in Iraq as better than they really are, just like any other Administration official. Unfortunately, chances are Democrats will again be intimidated by accusations of not supporting the troops and will capitulate again to "giving the troops on the ground more time to complete their mission." But what mission? How much more blood and treasure are we going to waste while the Bush Administration tries to save face until it can pass this disaster onto the next president?

Today the New York times published an article regarding the removal of all religious books, videos, tapes and CD's from libraries in federal prisons. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10prison.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin The reason for the removal off these materials, as directed by the Bureau of Prisons, is "justified" by the fear that they will promote extremist behavior, and cause prisons to be a breeding ground for terrorists. The answer that has come to those confused and angered by the removal of these materials has been the creation of lists of "approved materials." These lists contain 150 items (books, videos, etc) for each religious group.

I believe that the removal of these books is a disgusting act. The government has no right to keep books on religion from people who want them. The right to freedom of religion is not a right "bestowed upon us by our benevolent government" in the Bill of Rights, that right is God-given.

I have a problem with the government pre-approving literature. It is just a little too Big Brother fog me. I have always been critical of religious groups that try to ban certain literature as well. Ideas can only be presented on the written page they can not be carried out. Each individual person must make a rational decision to believe what they read or hear each day. Action comes from the individual, and not from the pages of the book. If we feel the need to live in fear so much that we continue to impede civil liberties (see Patriot Act) then God help us....

Professor Paul Krugman, an ever-percipient participant in the New York Times opinion pages, has a bit to say today regarding the state of class division and economic policy in our nation:

[Note: Students with a .edu email address may sign up for TimesSelect for free]

What we’ve had since 2003, however, is an economic expansion that looks good if not great by the usual measures, but which has passed most Americans by.

Guaranteed health insurance, which all of the leading Democratic contenders (but none of the Republicans) are promising, would eliminate one of the reasons for this disconnect. But it should be only the start of a broader range of policies — a new New Deal — designed to turn economic growth into something more than a spectator sport.

Hot on the heels of a bleak economic outlook, as well as our own writings on the subject, the strife of the middle class – one of our nation's greatest institutions – has found its way to the center of our national policy debate. And the lopsided income distribution of our latest expansion now serves as yet another damning indictment of the Reagan-esque fiscal excess and "trickle-down" taxation mentality of the latest administration. While economic theorists do continue to debate the effects of Papa Bush-coined voodoo economics, it always appeared to the well-informed – and continues to remain the case – that such policies are woefully inappropriate for our current economic landscape.

And lest we let ourselves forget the danger of Republican presidential candidates desperately clinging to the ghost of Ronald Reagan's legacy, we may remind ourselves of the current President's position on subsidized health care for children:

The Bush administration reached a deplorable, preordained verdict yesterday [9/7/07] when it denied New York State permission to expand a valuable health insurance program to help cover middle-class children. The administration, which makes no effort to disguise its disdain for government insurance programs, imposed new, excessively stringent requirements last month that not only guaranteed New York’s denial but will make it nearly impossible for any state to expand coverage.

The denial shows the White House at its most ideological and intransigent. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of children in New York — and many more nationally — will end up paying the price.

Perhaps our time does call for a Krugman inspired "new New Deal" that reaches beyond addressing the dangers of economic uncertainty. Ours must combat the dangers of Republican confidence in the infallible nature of their policy ideals – both those antiquated and those merely ill-conceived. We do, of course, know who is truly fighting for the middle class in this latest debate.