A hard-fought victory, civil rights leaders struggled for decades in the face of racial discrimination. These efforts reached a fever pitch in the 1960’s, culminating in a triad of legislation — the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — which substantially improved the living conditions in the United States.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case from Shelby County, Alabama which challenges Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires certain states and counties with a history of voter disenfranchisement to have any changes to voting procedures approved by the U.S. Attorney General before they are implemented. Though a final decision on the case could be months away, the justices appear to be leaning 5–4 against Section 5.

States currently covered by Section 5 include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Counties in a few other states are also covered, including Monterey County in California. Shelby County asserts that black Alabamians no longer face voting discrimination such as poll taxes and literacy tests and that Section 5 therefore constitutes an unfair intrusion of the federal government into state responsibilities.

The idea of “states’ rights,” cherished by many Republicans both modern and in the past, has sadly become a code word for racism.

The kick-off of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign of 1980 was held in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 with the cooperation of members of Neshoba County’s Sheriff’s Office.

Reagan did not acknowledge the tortured history of this town but instead told the white audience he was a champion of “states’ rights.” Considering that “states’ rights” had formerly allowed the state of Mississippi to disenfranchise almost all black voters, Reagan’s statement can be viewed as thinly veiled race-baiting.

Opponents of Section 5 who argue voter discrimination no longer exists are either naive or making a purposeful attempt at deception.

Voter ID laws — which largely affect people of color, poorer Americans, students and the elderly — exist in 30 states, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. Each of these states have a history of voter disenfranchisement, according to the Section 5 provisions. Each of these states have made their voter ID laws more stringent in the last 10 years.

Arizona, a state covered by Section 5, printed 50 Spanish-language voter registration cards with the wrong election date in Maricopa County — a county that has a long history of issues existing between Hispanic residents and white officials. Officials said the misprint was a mistake.

Five counties in Florida are covered by Section 5. Each of those counties attempted to cut early voting hours in the 2012 election.

In Cleveland, Clear Channel Communications put up 30 billboards reading “Voter fraud is a felony!” These billboards were placed in predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhoods.

Gerrymandering, the process of redrawing district lines to ensure that a particular party has a majority of support in that district, is also a continuing issue.

After the 2010 elections, in which Republicans gained a large measure of power in state legislatures, Republicans led redistricting in seven states. As a result, in 2012, it took over three votes to elect a Democratic House member compared to one for a Republican House member in North Carolina. In Ohio, it took over two and a half votes to elect a Democratic member as compared to one to elect a Republican member.

A major impetus for the passage of the Voting Rights Act was “Bloody Sunday” in 1965, when dozens of young people protesting voter discrimination were beaten by police while attempting to march from Selma, Ala. to Montgomery. March 7 marked the 48-year anniversary of Selma. And yet the Supreme Court is threatening to invalidate these struggles by reversing the legislation they devoted their lives to winning.

If the Supreme Court eliminates one of the most significant provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the civil rights movement will have suffered a major blow. It has been almost half a century since those battles were won. Let’s not allow Shelby County to force us to fight them again.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

How much does an election cost? For the upcoming election the answer looks to be in the millions or higher as both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have raised over a billion dollars for their presidential race. Much of this money is being given by large corporations due to the success of Citizens United in the 2010 Supreme Court case. This case said that corporations are able to give vast amounts of money to whatever political candidate or cause they choose.

But corporations are only part of the problem. It isn’t about who is putting money into politics, but how much is going in. Period.

Enormous sums have been going into politics long before Citizens United, and unless we demand a cap on campaign spending, it will continue into the future.

A current example of political money run amok is California’s Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly foods, to be labeled. Many agricultural businesses that have investments in GMOs have thrown their money against the proposition. The agricultural giant Monsanto has alone given over $7 million to the

committee No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, sponsored by Farmers and Food Producers. Many other food and agriculture corporations like Mars Incorporated, Sunny Delight Beverages Company and the Hershey Company are also generously giving to the committee. But Prop 37 isn’t the only proposition affected by money, and not all of it is coming from corporations.

Campaigns both for and against California’s Proposition 30, which would raise sales tax and income taxes on individuals earning over $250,000 in order to help fund K-12 schools and community colleges, are getting a lot of money from non-corporate sponsors. Campaigns supporting Proposition 30 have received $1.2 million from Laborers’ Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition. Meanwhile the No New Taxes, No on 30 committee, and A Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association received over $93,000 just from non-corporate individuals in California.

This problem is not a new one or unique to the current election. Money has been influencing politics well before Citizen’s United. In 2008, for example, money raised in support of Proposition 8, which prevented same-sex couples from marrying, was over $22 million.

Such vast amounts of money mean that our elections are up for sale to the highest bidder. What power does that leave the people? As citizens and voters, we must demand not only that the Citizens United decision be overturned, but that a national general campaign funding cap be put in place. Massive amounts of money from many different sources have been influencing our government for far too long, and with this presidential campaign already the most expensive in history, it is high time to take a stand.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

It was a night made for politics. Oct. 11, the night the vice-presidential debate aired on TV, was also the night that the College Democrats at UC Santa Cruz held an open forum with the eight candidates for Santa Cruz City Council.

The objective of the forum was to ask the candidates questions that would help the College Democrats decide who to endorse, or support for the four open city council seats, to be voted on Nov. 6.

The candidates in the running for Santa Cruz City Council are: Pamela Comstock, Jake Fusari, Cynthia Mathews, Don Lane, CeCe Pinheiro, Micah Posner, Steve Pleich and Richelle Noroyan. In a group discussion after the meeting, the College Democrats chose to endorse three of the eight candidates — Don Lane, Steve Pleich and Micah Posner.

Questions ranged from topics such as the expansion of UCSC to the new Warriors stadium, which started pouring concrete this week.

The forum talked to four candidates at a time, split between two sessions for about an hour each session.

One issue both groups of candidates spoke to was Measure P, which would guarantee the right for Santa Cruz voters to decide on desalination before the city could authorize such a project.

While all of the candidates were in favor of leaving the ultimate decision on desalination to a public vote, many did not accept Measure P.

“I don’t support Measure P because the city council unanimously voted to allow the measure to go to the ballot,” Noroyan said. “I’m not quite sure why we need it two times. It will cost thousands and thousands of dollars to put this on the ballot, which is money I don’t want the city to spend. I don’t feel cynical enough to think that the city council members will take their word back on that.”

According to San Jose Mercury News, the cost of the city voting on the measure will be around $2 per registered voter, which means the total cost will range from $70,000–90,000.

The growth of UCSC was a topic discussed at length. There were diverging opinions on the expansion of UCSC. Overall, the candidates supported the growth of UCSC provided that the university worked with the city to maintain a balance that will sustain the city and university both.

“I wish that the UC really wouldn’t grow anymore,” said Don Lane, current mayor of Santa Cruz. “It’s important for the city to push back against growth, and we hope a population of 19,000 will be a cap.”

The Long-Range Development Plan, coordinated between the city of Santa Cruz and UCSC provides for a maximum population of 19,500 by 2020.

Don Lane also expressed the concern that the unmonitored growth of UCSC would negatively affect the environment.

Max Perrey, the president of the College Democrats at UCSC explained the decision to endorse Don Lane, Micah Posner and Steve Pleich.

“Don Lane, Micah Posner and Steve Pleich earned our endorsement by demonstrating their deep commitment to the issues important to students,” Perrey said in an e-mail. “Each showed that they are knowledgeable about the big issues facing our campus and in Santa Cruz, and have bold solutions to address them.”

One issue was only briefly discussed before the end of the forum — jobs after graduation. Pleich explained how the city would generate these jobs hand in hand with graduates.

“Graduates aren’t going to be working in retail, they’re not going to be working at the boardwalk, they’re not going to be working in construction, they’re going to be working in high-tech, high-end jobs,” Pleich said. “That’s why we have to have some kind of a platform for them to come down into the city to develop those jobs, to be the entrepreneurs, to basically create their own opportunities. That’s what we need to be supporting, that’s what we need to incentivize. As city council members, we have the power to do that.”

“Grassroots Campaigns is immediately hiring progressive activists in San Francisco to educate the public and identify new supporters to protect reproductive health. We are working right now to: Keep birth affordable; oppose attacks on women’s health; ensure healthcare access for all; and expand global reproductive rights! Earn $400–600 weekly.”

Pulled straight from online classifieds giant Craigslist.org, this ad is meant to attract workers who are excited about a cause and ready to work. With the June primary election upon us and the November general election looming, canvassing organizations and political campaigns are mobilizing.

That means hiring. Lindsay Clarida, Northern California director of the Fund for the Public Interest, Inc., said that while canvasser turnover varies among offices during the academic year, the coming season is the time when most people sign on.

Illustration by Amanda Alten.

To begin, I’d like to congratulate Newt Gingrich on his presidential campaign. Seeing as how the former Speaker of the House just recently called it quits it has become official: Mitt Romney is now the virtually unchallenged face of the Republican Party. The race for the White House is now Obama vs. Romney, the partisan battle of Democrat vs. Republican, and universal healthcare against the free market.

But what has really been keeping me up at night is not the arguments each side seems to be so fond of — what the economy is doing, how great killing Osama Bin Laden was, or how many Cadillacs it takes for Mr. Romney to own to be a true American.

No, I’ve been spending my time during this political race thinking about nothing but women.

If you missed Meet the Press a couple weeks ago, I highly recommend you take the time to watch political talk show host Rachel Maddow and prominent Republican strategist Alex Castellanos duke it out over gender-based wage discrepancies in America.

When host David Gregory asked Maddow how to frame what it is women want with regard to their president, she gave the simple and sensible answer: “policy.”

Then she went and did something dangerous.

Rachel Maddow brought up a fact, based upon and substantiated by real evidence that was not wrongly interpreted, fabricated or altered in any way. That’s not the dangerous part, though — or at least it wouldn’t have been, had one of the top Republican strategists not been sitting next to her.

I’m going to come right out and say it, in the same words that Ms. Maddow did: On average, women make 77 cents for every dollar that men make. This is a fact, meaning it is either true or false — and in this case, true. There is no advanced economics and no special reasoning that can explain away the fact that discrimination based upon gender is still a very real thing in our job market. Women make less than men, and there is no excuse for why that is, especially when women are getting paid less for the same work men are doing.

Castellanos and a portion of the Republican Party seem to disagree with this, claiming that there are reasons for the wage discrepancy. These reasons, Castellanos believes, can be in part attributed to the types of jobs women tend to take, as opposed to higher-paying jobs in math and science that men are more likely to hold. Math and science pay higher than the humanities, it’s true. But to say that the argument around gender discrimination ends and is explained by career disparity is just plain ignorant.

Sure, there are more men in the sciences when you look at national data, and yes, a career in science generally pays well, but Castellanos and those who agree with him have become satisfied with an answer that only emphasizes the problem. Why is it that there are more men than women in higher-paying jobs? Is this fact that Castellanos brought up not indicative of the very discrimination he is trying to explain away?

I’m not satisfied with the answer that women make less because they just happen to be in lower-paying jobs. Castellanos’ reasoning gives us nothing but evidence that women are not as included in America’s higher-earning jobs as men. This is the definition of gender-based discrimination. Women make less than men, and however you want to frame it, women are discriminated against in this country’s job market.

The facts are hard to deny. On Meet the Press that night, Castellanos reacted to Maddow’s statement by wishing that she be as correct as she is passionate.

To respond in kind, I must say: Mr. Castellanos, passion is beside the point. But I do wish that your ability to recognize a fact when it is put in front of you could be more like your steady supply of self-righteousness.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

The National Association of Scholars (NAS), a non-profit organization which looks to foster intellectual freedom, recently released a report entitled  “Crisis of Competence” which details how “left wing” politics have infiltrated the UC classroom. While these are interesting issues to highlight, NAS makes no claims that their vision of the “corrupted UC classroom” being exposed more to their own ideology will be any less political than what they outline.

The report details how the UC “misuses state funds”, prizes “political action over critical analysis”, and “has a lack of openness” for its taxpayers and students. NAS insists that our classes only feature one-sided ideology and indoctrination. This is coming from a group with an “avowed mission to combat ‘liberal bias’ and ‘anti-capitalist aspirations of the left,’” according to the Colorado Springs Independent.

While it’s true that UCSC is a liberal institution, with many humanities classes focused on left wing political causes and professors who may sympathize with these movements, that does not mean dissenting opinions are ignored. The NAS report looks to radically restructure classes in the UC system to fit their own agenda. Even UCSC’s own Politics 72, a course on the war on terrorism, receives criticism for its “extreme ideological prejudgement.”

The NAS report overlooks how politics can be a useful tool in learning. Seeking active political action from the students on behalf of the professor can teach the student about field work. It’s not all one-sided political ideology either — professors propel their students to analyze presented data in any fashion they prefer. There is hardly a group of students who are not allowed to engage academically because their idea is too controversial at UC Santa Cruz.

Professors should have political opinions on their subjects. One hopes these professors would gain perspective on the issue they research, and present their opinion as a matter of their own personal belief for discussion in class. Teaching the controversy surrounding their opinion and acknowledging the other side of the debate can inspire students to learn more about the subject. Our best humanities professors not only inspire a call to action but a call to criticism.

The NAS report believes any criticism generated in political action is not the same as criticism a professor may have. For the NAS, if one’s criticism is not written in some fancy journal, then it is inherently of lesser value.

If we allow NAS to change how professors teach because of perceived biases, than we miss out on stimulating academic debate. Students know their professor is not always correct. In the smartphone era we are all mere clicks away from contrary knowledge.

Academic freedom in the current system is treated with too cynical an eye in the report. The report states that UC’s limit academic freedom by creating departmental mission statements and course descriptions which limit outside input. Moreover, they base much of their arguments on tangential information delivered by the professor in student evaluations. This may not be the least biased form of gaining data on professors.

Students should be trusted to not take their professor’s opinions as pure fact. Students are independent free thinkers who can and do think for themselves. The NAS report has no interest in what students have campaigned years for. Instead of supporting ethnic studies, the NAS has made it clear — their  agenda is to limit courses in feminist studies and to change what we read in core. Politics as usual.

For the UC Classroom, limiting politics is inherently political itself.

The problem is national, statewide and local.

At the national level, women’s issues are the current political fixation, but women are not granted entry into the discourse. Programs geared toward women have seen an unprecedented year of attacks. Planned Parenthood was defunded in multiple states, and restrictions on abortion legislation are becoming more prevalent.

The phrase “war on women” to describe the current state of American politics has been thrown around recently, and in light of attacks not just on Planned Parenthood and abortion rights, but also on insurance-covered birth control and even the Girl Scouts, the description is apt.

The sexism embedded in American politics and national media is not limited to those arenas.

In the UC, the systemic attack on and sexism against women resides in the structure stipulated by Title IX for handling cases of sexual assault at higher institutions. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) recently found the structure Title IX stipulates does not adequately handle sexual assault cases.

A report funded by the Department of Justice found roughly one in five college women will be the victim of a rape or an attempted rape by the time she graduates. A 12-month investigation by the CPI found the official numbers provided by schools did not nearly reflect the actual prevalence of sexual assault on campuses. Furthermore, the process of reporting and the implications of speaking out means the numbers are underrepresented.

“Student victims face a depressing litany of barriers that often either ensure their silence or leave them feeling victimized a second time,” according to the CPI report.

The investigation determined students found “responsible” for sexual assault received minimal punishment, and the student who reported faced more severe repercussions.

University of the Pacific (UOP) student Beckett Brennan suffered from this exact failing of the Title IX structure outlined in the CPI investigation. Brennan was a basketball player at UOP, and in May 2008 was raped by three men from UOP’s Division 1 basketball team at once.

Brennan kept quite about the incident, but when she finally reported the rape, her testimony was met with intense criticism, incessant harassment, and accusations that she made up the incident. Though the men were found guilty of violating the school’s sexual harassment policy, one student, Steffan Johnson, was expelled but received a full scholarship to the University of Idaho three months later. Michael Nunnally was suspended for a year and Michael Kirby was suspended for a semester. Brennan herself was driven out of the university.

Brennan said the board’s questions focused on her accountability for the incident, asking her the degree to which she was flirting with the men and how much she drank.

Incidents like this, sadly, are not rare. Many times women who report cases of sexual assault bear the most burden and are faced with the reality that reporting could actually make it worse.

UC Santa Cruz is no exception. The exact same structure is used on this campus and as such is open to the same failings. The structure that Title IX stipulates is not an isolated failure. It is a microcosm of the larger systemic sexism that permeates nationwide. We are  post-nothing.

In 2011 protesters shut down Wall Street, on March 1 protesters will shut down the university, and on March 5 they will shut down the capitol. It is no surprise to the UC Santa Cruz student body that we are in a class struggle for social and economic equality.

Van Jones spoke on campus on Feb. 21 about the economic crisis and his reformation of the American dream.

Jones is a Yale Law School graduate, former advisor to the Obama administration, bestselling author of “The Green Collar Economy,” award-winning pioneer in human rights and clean energy economy, and was dubbed one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2009 by TIME magazine.

Charismatic and humorous, Jones described the center of America’s struggle as an economic and cultural task. The notion of the American Dream, he said, is a confused and misinterpreted one that should be transformed to better reflect today’s society.

“There is a thing they call the American Dream,” he said. “This is the notion that everyone in American is going to get as rich as they possibly can. This is not the American dream, but it is the American dance. This dream is a dying dream. This dream is dying, and it should be dying.”

Jones is currently working on an organization called Rebuild the Dream, which focuses on community reformation through traditional techniques, like teach-ins and rallies, as well as digital services like online petitions and viral digital projects. The plan is to reestablish the American dream as something that protects and expands jobs for the middle and lower classes.

UCSC students are part of the new generation in this plan, Jones said.

“The diversity you have in your generation is a miracle in history,” he said. “You have every class, every faith, every race, every gender, and you’re even making new genders. You have all of these things, and you get along pretty well. This diversity, through your generation’s social and political movements, can and will restore prosperity.”

First-year Leilani Salvador is a member of the Cultural Arts and Diversity Program board of directors. Salvador helped organize and sponsor the event.

“One of our goals [with bringing Jones to speak] was to get a more politically diverse community,” Salvador said. “The majority of the politically active communities on campus are ethnically white students. For us to have Jones, who is a politically prominent figure, represented by so many ethnically-based groups really encourages ethnic students to participate in the campus’ political opportunities.”

Dr. Marla Wyche-Hall, director of the African American Resource and Cultural Center, one of the event’s sponsors, said Jones spoke well about the challenges and promises facing our diverse, multicultural generation.

“I think one of the purposes of his speech was to cross boundaries,” she said. “We have to acknowledge the differences between our social and ethnic groups, but, despite this ‘rainbow generation,’ we can still come together and make change.”

Read City on a Hill Press’ exclusive Q&A with Van Jones

Illustration by Muriel Gordon.

The story of Kate Middleton was a princess story before Kate Middleton was even a part of it. The excitement over the Royal Wedding (capitalized because it is not merely an event, but the event) on April 29 is hitting a feverish high both overseas and in the States. In the throes of economic turmoil, Middle Eastern unrest and political party division, we have collectively found solace in the brunette from Bucklebury, Berkshire (a real place, devoid of humor or an awareness of alliteration).

As Newsweek bombastically stated on its cover, “in a world gone to hell — thank God, a wedding.”

Thank God for a wedding, indeed. A chance to throw our collective interests and obligations out the window in order to fully immerse ourselves in the future of a government we have no part in. We’ve entered a moment where politics and media have officially collided like never before: movie stars as governors who then become movie stars again; big-business men turned television personalities, running for the presidency during a time where big business is the problem. We can’t differentiate between the real and the constructed, so why wouldn’t our method of escapism be equally as contradictory? A wedding used to shield our current political climate, ignoring the actual politics behind the wedding itself.

Because, regardless of the coverage and interest, the wedding is a political event.

From the minute the engagement was announced and Middleton jumped on the scene in her royal blue Issa dress, the intensity was palpable — a reaction I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies’ nuptials. Within hours of announcing the plans, the press hounded William and Kate with questions of their future and of the family they have no choice but to build together.

The wedding is less plagued with questions of “Will they last?” as much as it is with questions of “Will they be happy?” Because William knows as well as Kate does — as we all do — that divorce is not a possibility, in this future or any nearby one. The reconstruction of the monarchy’s image begins with this wedding. Escapism for some, reestablishment for others. After a messy divorce that bled politics and media together in a way only the mid-1990s could, Diana single-handedly brought the visage of a unified monarchy down with her.

Now, in a moment where we are trying to reexamine the notion of fame, riches and excess, the story of an “ordinary” girl who had posters of Prince William on her dormitory wall becoming his blushing bride-to-be is a testament to a new American Dream: we don’t have to work to get everything — we just have to work enough.

This doesn’t mean Kate Middleton has followed this credo — it just means that everyone else secretly wishes they had. Lost for words and without context, Middleton is the most under-the-radar star to have been on the radar for nearly a decade. Why didn’t we care about her before, even when the wedding was enough of a foregone conclusion that souvenir makers had wedding memorabilia ready to ship out on the day of the announcement — whenever that day might be?

It’s because it’s always secretly been about the wedding. How intensely depoliticized the event has become is itself a fact worthy of acknowledgement. Because although she’s probably going to look more gorgeous than anyone else who’s joined the ranks of her future in-laws (can we just face that she’s the closest thing earthlings have seen to an actual angel?), Middleton could have really been anyone. It’s true: I often imagine her to be me (or me to be her — whichever puts me in a wedding dress).

What the wedding is is a chance to escape the perils of politics by witnessing an event so deeply embedded in politics that it’s almost hilariously impossible to spot. True, William would have to leapfrog his father for a chance at the throne any time soon. And considering the queen’s history with aging (meaning she literally refuses to), William and Kate will remain poster fodder for some time to come.

But the royals understand just as well as we do that such a job is more than enough on its own. Running a party is easy — being the face of a party is hard. Maintaining the beauty of newlywed bliss when a country is finding solace in your newfound happiness is a bizarre dose of reality for a boy who never knew reality to begin with, and a girl who has now completely abandoned it by donning a sapphire ring. With it, she carries the legacy of the mother-in-law she will never know, one whose absence from the festivities is, partially, the direct result of the kind of media hounding with which the wedding itself is infused. The point isn’t to care about the wedding — it’s to stop caring about everything else.

Illustration by Muriel Gordon.

On Friday, the U.S. government narrowly avoided shutting itself down, coming to a consensus on a national budget just shy of the midnight deadline. While the Obama administration praised Congress’ stop-gap measure as being exemplary of bipartisanship, nothing could be further from the truth.

In the midst of waging three wars overseas, one of the harshest recessions in U.S. history and overwhelming unemployment, a near-shutdown underscores the absence of bipartisanship more than anything.

Our system of two-party politics has become so divisive, so fiercely combative, that compromise across the aisle has become the exception rather than the rule. A step in any direction from either party to bridge the gap is pounced upon by the other. If you are in support of teachers’ unions, for example, you must hate students. If you favor healthcare reform, you must be anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid and anti-doctor.

The common response from the public in reaction to a deadlocked Congress is to simply do away with the bad apples. In other words: it is not Congress that is to blame, it is the politicians we’ve elected to it. But this attitude fails to recognize that the problem originates not in our representatives and senators, but in our very institutions.

Divided government is not a problem exclusive to the Obama administration. In fact, the butting of heads between the presidency and Congress extends as far back as the Kennedy era, deadlocking then on domestic issues such as Medicare, federal aid to education and civil rights. Since then, there has not been a presidency that has not had to combat Congress at some point during its administration.

The problem is split-ticket voting. In the United States, voters are allowed to cast separate votes for members of Congress and the president. Additionally, voters are allowed to vote more frequently on members of Congress — one-third of Congress’ senators every two years, the entire House every other year — than on who is president. Add to that the development of high expectations we put upon the presidency, coupled with the disappointment of not being immediately gratified.

The result: two years for a president to not only solve the nation’s problems but produce noticeable and indisputable results as well. That, or we put the other guys in Congress. We are an impatient, insatiable lot.

Split-ticket voting is not a problem in the Westminster parliamentary system. We would not see a government shutdown, for example, in Britain, where a vote of no confidence can undo a legislative body locked in disagreement. Under this system, voters entrust a legislative body to appoint their executive, as opposed to letting the populace do so.

Not even in other presidential systems, such as in Latin America, are there typically provisions for a complete government shutdown. In 2008, Brazil’s government services continued operating despite Congress’ rejection of a budget proposed by the Brazilian president.

Unlike Brazil, the United States has gone out of its way to work failure into its political infrastructure. It is only through the 1884 Anti-Deficiency Act that the United States binds itself to shutting down when Congress fails to appropriate funds. When the government spends more time squabbling than doing its job, we all face the consequences.

Naturally, this has not been the first time the United States has seen a government shutdown, either. Since 1980, we’ve seen the government shut down five times, the last being in 1995. The threat of a government shutdown will only become more and more precarious as the federal government becomes more involved with everything — imagine, for example, our soldiers’ paychecks frozen mid-conflict and a centralized healthcare system closed off to the public.

Our political system has turned the displacement and furlough of hundreds of thousands of government employees and services into a negotiating tactic — one at gunpoint, for that matter.

Change, a value once plastered across so many red and blue Obama campaign posters across America, is what’s needed now in governance. Bipartisanship is not something that can simply be asked for. In politics, “out of the goodness of one’s heart” is either sarcasm, a fantasy or a lie. Be it an institutional, electoral or policy change, without the incentivizing bipartisanship, the nation will run itself into ruin.Truly, “only in America.”

Photo by Nick Paris.

In this series, City on a Hill Press will be interviewing community members who are currently making a mark on UC Santa Cruz’s campus.

Kicking off the series is Daniel Wirls, a professor of politics, who has published two books, “Irrational Security: The Politics of Defense from Reagan to Obama” and “The Invention of the United States Senate.” Currently he is teaching Politics 1, Politics: Power, Principle, Process, and Policy.

City on a Hill Press: What do you think of the level of political activism at UCSC?
Wirls: I’d say that I’m happy that there are a lot of students involved in a lot of things. That sometimes is a problem though — there isn’t so much a movement around a few focal causes, sort of a disadvantage when everybody is standing in the quarry soliciting their own individual causes. So I’d say that you certainly have more students involved in different things than you ever did. What this accomplishes is yet to be seen.

CHP: Teaching politics at UCSC, what are the challenges you face in interpreting the world of politics for your students?
Wirls: Current events sort of overwhelm the class — getting across certain concepts and making sure they relate to what’s going on in the world.

CHP: How would you compare teaching politics at UCSC with other schools?
Wirls: Well this has been really my one and only job teaching politics. I arrived on campus when I was 28, right out of graduate school, so aside from doing a little bit of teaching as a grad student for Cornell, my entire teaching experience has been at UCSC. In effect, I arrived here only seven or so years older than the people I was teaching. And of course I was younger than a few of the people I was teaching.

CHP: Did that factor disadvantage you in any way?
Wirls: No, I just thought it was fun. There were a couple times when the staff on campus would mistake me for a student, but that was just kind of funny.

CHP: You’ve often been described to me by other students as very passionate about what you teach — where does that passion come from?
Wirls: I care deeply about what goes on in the world and the problems within it, but I don’t intend to preach to everyone about how they should care about the world or stand on particular issues. My main goal is really to be passionate about the political process itself. Politics is rather difficult and unsightly, but you have to stick with it and learn how it works to organize your passion as an activist around it, using as a foundation that knowledge of how it works. In politics you’re not just a student, but also a citizen and active participant.

Illustration by Patrick Yeung.

Teachers didn’t cause the financial crisis the United States is facing. Neither did sanitation workers, postal workers or construction workers.

No, the recession was a firmly upper-class disaster. Made possible by the irresponsible and selfish behavior of big banks, wealthy individuals and the government, the state of our economy has little to do with the actions of the middle class.

Yet in Wisconsin and around the country, the middle class is in danger of having to pay for it. Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) announced plans last month to get rid of collective bargaining rights for unions, which led to an immediate uproar. Eliminating bargaining rights means that non-law enforcement union workers could easily lose pensions and benefits, and suffer salary cuts, at the hands of the state. The bill would increase taxation and take away representation for millions of union workers in Wisconsin.

But they aren’t letting this happen without a fight. For weeks, union members and allies have been protesting in Wisconsin, Washington and across the nation, rejecting the step backwards that this bill would represent. Before modern unions like the AFL and CIO (now the AFL-CIO) gained real power in the 1930s, public sector workers had few rights when it came to issues like health care and living wages. The situation in the Badger State threatens to erase all the progress that has been made.

Walker and his supporters claim that this decision is purely financial, and that crippling the unions is the only viable way to restore the state’s economic health. But is an economy really healthy when a state has the power to completely cut a teacher’s pension plan?

In the March 2 article “Teachers Wonder, Why the Scorn?” The New York Times interviewed Erin Parker, a teacher who lives in Madison and will soon move in with her parents in Colorado because she cannot afford to live in Wisconsin after salary cuts. It doesn’t matter how much money a state government saves when children don’t have enough qualified teachers like Parker.

Furthermore, one of the reasons unions exist is job security. If the state can lay off whomever they choose, then even more people join the ranks of the unemployed, meaning more will be paid in unemployment benefits, and it will be harder for anyone to get a job.

And if the move really were all about saving money, there are other ways to go about this. Walker has refused to even entertain the idea of compromising with labor leaders by implementing pay cuts for state workers, who already enjoy higher salaries than most union laborers. That’s not democracy at work — it’s a sign of the growing power of the American plutocracy.

Although Wisconsin is the biggest example of danger to unions, the problem isn’t confined to those state lines. There is currently legislation in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Illinois that would reduce union rights.

Although conservatives often cite unions as a corrupting factor in Washington D.C., in reality it’s lobbyists who have much more power. The lifeblood of Washington, corporate lobbyists represent a precious, rich few, complicating legislation to the point of virtual illegibility. All that complication adds up to millions and billions of dollars for the powerful minority and only more headaches for the working class.

If we as students hope to have a fighting chance to make a difference for the better once we graduate, we should support the protestors in Wisconsin. If we want our younger siblings and children to receive a proper K–12 education, we should support the efforts in Wisconsin. If we reject the idea that those who pulverized the economy should be able to reflect the consequences onto the middle class, we should support the efforts in Wisconsin.

It isn’t only about unions. It’s about the triumph of democracy over plutocracy.

Illustration by Patrick Yeung.

We must have all been in the seventh grade when we learned about fair and equal competition.

Back then, we were taught that no amount of cheats, threats or physical abuse could get us ahead of our classmates on the soccer field, or even ahead of our families in a game of Monopoly. That’s why it should be so astounding to the nation that a woman in her mid-40s could debase herself to those very threat tactics on the political world stage and not be reprimanded for it. Her actions were, and continue to be childish, violent and irresponsible.

Regardless of whether Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” ad, depicting the crosshairs of a gun pointing toward 20 different U.S. district locations where government representatives voted for the health care bill did or did not inspire fanatic Jared Loughner to set out on a killing spree last weekend, murdering UC Santa Cruz alumnus Gabriel Zimmerman and seriously injuring Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), her actions still represent violence in and of themselves. Even without the connection, just the fact that her ad exists puts her at some degree of fault, not for the killing but for igniting the flame of violence, and there should be no room for that violence in politics.

Some conservative factions of the public sphere have taken a particular interest in hounding the second amendment lately — drilling it into the ground, in fact. But it’s not just fanatics on the right that have been fed enough right-left political and media garbage to motivate them to end another person’s life through terrorism.

The political left is at fault as well. The Arizona killer, Jared Loughner, apparently had interests in the books “The Communist Manifesto,” and “Animal Farm,” as discovered on his YouTube channel, and some believe him to be leftist and radical. He is also speculated to be insane, and some of his classmates testified to that after his crime. But he did target a representative in government — how can that not be political? The fact that Giffords is a Democrat points simply to the fact that politics inspires violence in general, especially the factious politics of today, something Sarah Palin champions.

All you have to do is look at the online comments for our very own opinion piece that ran in last week’s issue, about Palin and her identity politics, to realize that people get extremely fired up about politics, and about Palin as a political leader in particular. She has a very devoted following, garnered mostly through her divisive stances on issues and her “with us or against us” rhetoric. It’s exactly this that leads to horrific tragedies like the shooting this past weekend.

Our call for hate-free politics is not new, and perhaps it won’t last long enough to prevent the next tragedy, but we hope, alongside many Americans, that it will — and that this disaster will not be forgotten so quickly.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently came out with a “top 10” list of wasteful government spending. No. 4 on the list was the $615,000 federal grant given to UC Santa Cruz to digitize the library’s Grateful Dead archive. Although it is important to identify unnecessary costs during this recession, Coburn unfairly singled out UCSC and misrepresented the facts about exactly where the money was going.

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) awarded UCSC the federal funds to digitize Grateful Dead “photographs, tickets, backstage passes, flyers, shirts and other memorabilia,” according to Coburn’s list.

This is true, but what Coburn fails to point out is that the digitization that the archives will undergo is an innovative process that earned the title of “National Leadership Project” by the IMLS. This process will also help protect and archive other non-Grateful Dead related texts and literature.

As UCSC librarian Virginia Steel told the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the project received a grant not because of the Grateful Dead but because of the archival digitizing itself.

“The goal is not the digitization of the Grateful Dead Archive but to create a socially constructed archive which allows individuals access to material,” Steel said in the Sentinel. “Then people can help in the identification of materials and also upload their own relevant materials.”

Coburn was wrong to underplay the importance of updating libraries to remain relevant and useful, but there was also a problem with the entire top 10 list: All of the spending projects he identified are discretionary. Discretionary spending goes to different projects every year, which Congress votes on without needing to change any laws.

Non-discretionary spending, on the other hand, includes items like Social Security, Medicare and other expenses that are built into law. The senator undoubtedly created the list in hopes of being seen as a budget hawk — a true fiscal conservative who is serious about reducing spending.

But all of the projects on the list are discretionary spending, which only makes up about a quarter of all government spending.

If Coburn were truly serious about cutting spending, he’d target non-discretionary programs, as well as the huge money suction tubes that are the wars in the Middle East, rather than small library grants. Coburn’s website and political ads bill him as a budget reducer. If he’s serious about that, he should go after substantial amounts of spending, an action which might not be popular in Congress, instead of taking easy shots by demonizing the purportedly wasteful hippies at UCSC. It’s clear the Oklahoma senator cares more about politics than fiscal responsibility.

Illustration by Muriel Gordon.

Some friends and I have been watching “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” lately, because — well, what else is there to do on Sunday nights during the off-season of “Mad Men”? The show is hilarious, ridiculous, infuriating and repetitive — basically any word you can think of to describe Palin also works for her reality program. But there are a few moments of each episode that I can enjoy in a completely un-ironic fashion, and those are the panoramic shots of the snowy mindfuck that is the state of Alaska. All I have to do is shut out Sarah’s grating voice-over explaining for the umpteenth time how nice it is to get the heck away from evil bloggers and enjoy some quality time in the great outdoors with her family and her rifles, to remember what really matters in life, and I can appreciate the unfathomably huge and beautiful mountains and glaciers.

Alaska is a cool place, and I should be able to acknowledge that without the implication that I also admire its former governor. But that’s impossible, because what Palin is attempting to do with her show is associate herself inextricably with Alaska — the title even suggests ownership, as if the state wouldn’t be the same without her — and that worries me. TLC constantly shows the Palin family camping, hunting, dog sledding, rafting and climbing all over the expansive and dangerous terrain, as well as humbly interacting with everyday folks, and the message is clear: Sarah Palin embodies Alaska, and therefore is independent, extraordinary and unique. Never mind her obvious ineptitude and divisiveness — she’s just misunderstood by the lower 48, much like her beloved home state.

The idea of letting origins define politicians is certainly nothing new, and in recent memory the GOP specifically has excelled in this endeavor. “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is basically one long, extended sequel to the clip of former President George W. Bush clearing brush on his Crawford, Texas ranch, which made the rounds during his presidency. And that video was probably inspired by pictures of President Ronald Reagan relaxing on his own ranch, leaning against a white picket fence and wearing a cowboy hat. Reagan and Bush both played at the image of the independent, strong, American cowboy, and it worked well enough to get them each elected for two terms. Palin has a lot going against her for her inevitable 2012 run, but she definitely has the same down-home persona that could help her defeat sterile competition such as fellow Republican Mitt Romney. Her reality show is helping to solidify that image.

While Palin’s show is helping her, politicians can also use a location as a negative issue to poison their enemies. The remarkably low approval ratings of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi probably have something to do with Republican rhetoric constantly linking her to her district in San Francisco. Since we all know the City by the Bay is full of nothing but unscrupulous queers, homeless people and potheads, it isn’t any surprise that Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco were negatively featured in ads for Republican House candidates all across the country during the past midterm elections.

President Barack Obama’s election was historic for racial reasons — and also because he was the first urbanite to be elected president since President John F. Kennedy from Boston took office. As the backlash against Obama grows, led by Republicans and especially the Tea Party, the biggest binary divide in America might turn out to be not black versus white, religious versus secular, or straight versus gay, but urban versus rural. Palin’s Alaska signifies integrity and strength, while Pelosi’s San Francisco means arrogance and strangeness. And often it isn’t even genuine rural values that are being put forth by conservatives. The Tea Party is a facade of excitable citizens being manipulated behind the scenes by businessmen such as the Koch brothers, who want nothing but money, money and more money, as well as politicians seeking personal gain. This concerns me as a liberal city-lover, but it also concerns me as an American, because people with good ideas should be respected in Washington, no matter how many crevasses they’ve climbed over or lattes they’ve sipped.

When choosing whom to vote for, the question shouldn’t be where a person comes from but the direction he or she is looking toward, and despite the incredible landscapes, Sarah Palin isn’t looking toward anywhere I’d like to be.

Illustration by Bela Messex.

Gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, take note: What California needs is innovative leadership, not smear tactics and attack ads.

Entrenched in one of the worst economic recessions since the Great Depression, California — with sliced services and wallet-breaking UC price tags — is desperate for leaders who show they can craft potential solutions. Smear ads that take stabs at competition, rather than explaining how candidates might help with our state problems, are unproductive and distracting.

Despite both candidates’ claims that they have a history of innovation — for Whitman, at eBay, and for Brown, as California governor from 1975 through 1983 — they have each turned to the same old smear tactics and attack ads that plague U.S. politics, in an effort to get a leg-up in the election.

While some have asked the two candidates to refrain from running a negative campaign, there has yet to be an agreement between the two not to do so. This makes Whitman and Brown appear desperate to do everything to reduce each other’s approval ratings, rather than running an honest campaign that would allow for good decision-making.

Furthermore, the candidates this year have shattered political spending records. The L.A. Times politics blog reported on Oct. 21 that Jerry Brown has spent $25.3 million since Jan. 1, and ABC News reported on Oct. 25 that Whitman has spent $141 million of her own money on her campaign thus far. In the midst of 12.5 percent of California’s population being unemployed, these numbers are disgusting.

Spending outrageous sums on campaigning and running attack ads do not strengthen the image of either candidate — they do the exact opposite. Fifty-five percent of likely voters said they were dissatisfied with their choices for governor, according to a recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California. By forcing voters to choose between two candidates they find inadequate, smear campaigns undermine the institution of democracy by reducing people’s faith in their elected leaders.

With the election fast approaching, there is little either candidate can do to rectify the damage they have done to the validity of their campaigns. It is likely that this election will be remembered not for the governor who took office, but for record spending and the attack ad scandals surrounding the race.

As the faintly yellow glow of Thursday’s sunset seeps through the windows, five students sit around a table in a rented room above the Bay Tree Bookstore. One tosses out a topic: the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools. First there is the quiet hum of minds at work, and then the conversation escalates as the students respond, contributing their personal experiences and anecdotes like logs to a fire. One thing is absent from their forum: belief in a higher power.

The Secular Student Alliance (SSA) provides a refuge for UCSC students who identify as atheist, agnostic or secular. Students are welcome to show up anytime, whether their approach is outspoken or tentative, militant or casual.

The SSA is one of 10 national 501(c)3 organizations under the umbrella of the Secular Coalition for America (SCA), a 501(c)4, and it reflects a growing population of young atheists.

Most Americans who describe themselves as atheist are young. 55 percent of them are under 35. Agnostics tend to be older than atheists, although still younger than the general population.

Ultimately, this means secularists and nonbelievers are steadily emerging from the American population by the generation, and, now, they’re identifying in more absolute terms: Younger generations are opting for the “atheist” label, which denotes a concrete disbelief in a god, whereas “agnostics,” who express doubt of divine existence, are becoming less common.

If this trend continues as projected, issues of separation of church and state may be amplified and U.S. legislation will need to adapt to the public view.

With the help of donations from the Secular Humanists of Santa Cruz County and some funding from the SCA, the SSA has brought in guest speakers like well-known atheist blogger P.Z. Myers and SCA executive director Sean Faircloth. Community support endures even if the group hasn’t exactly provoked a whirlwind of participation at UCSC. Its weekly meetings usually feature a motley crew of five to eight members.

But the students keep coming in spite of the low attendance. For them, the SSA is an important resource, politically and socially.

“There’s something political and engaging about being an atheist,” said SSA advisor and former president Nick Conrad, a graduate student and PhD candidate in history. “We’re trying to foster an environment for atheists [and] freethinkers to come together and talk about issues.”

Secular on the UCSC campus

Although there is a wide selection of religious organizations for UCSC students to participate in, there are significantly fewer nonreligious options.

The University Interfaith Council (UIC) collaborates with other universities to coordinate the activities of various on-campus religious groups.

At UCSC, the UIC is home to the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, the Muslim Student Association, Santa Cruz Hillel, and about 20 other religiously affiliated groups. While secular students are welcome to attend, there isn’t a UIC group designated for them.

“The meetings are open to [secular students] but we haven’t had anyone coming of that sort,” said Pamela Urfer, president of the UIC at UCSC. “To join the council, people have to make an application for membership … But we are open to all sorts of groups as long as people are willing to participate.”

Urfer said that “it would be good” to welcome any nonreligious students interested in creating a dialogue, and to “see what dialogue they would like.”

While the university does provide such channels for atheists to express their views and engage in discussion with others, the SSA is the only exclusively secular environment for students on campus.

Accepting the nonbelievers

Since atheists don’t pray, they don’t need a congregation. That doesn’t mean they don’t need a community.

Atheists are often subjected to a double-standard that makes it difficult for them to express their points of view to those of the religious persuasion, said Michael Fantauzzo, a second-year politics and history double major.

“I had a friend who tried to insult me and say, ‘You know what, you’re an evangelical atheist,’” Fantauzzo said. “We’re in the middle of having this discussion about our religious beliefs, and now all of a sudden I’m an evangelical? Like, you can express your belief and I can’t?”

Fortunately for people with experiences like those of Fantauzzo, the issue of discrimination against atheists isn’t an unrecognized one. An international organization called the Out Campaign encourages outspoken atheism with the help of its emblem, a scarlet “A” printed on T-shirts, pins, hats, and other merchandise. Its goal is for the nonreligious to gain respect and visibility in society.

Within the last few decades, debates over atheism have managed to permeate the political sphere. At a 1987 public press conference then vice president and former U.S. president George H.W. Bush, said, “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”

In August 2009, Iowa governor Chet Culver claimed to be “disturbed” by Iowa bus ads with the message, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

He refused to speak to the question of whether atheists are entitled to free speech, instead saying it was “a great question for the attorney general and for legal scholars.”

Kyle Jones, president of the SSA and a fourth-year majoring in ecology and evolution, said that the SSA is an important outlet for atheists to express themselves freely, in response to attitudes like those of Bush and Culver.

“People are not used to … hearing non-believers express their points of view,” Jones said. “And so when they do, it seems like it’s strident, when really they’re not. They’re just expressing what they think. I think a big part of this group is making it OK for us to just be who we are.”

A forum for free thought

At their Thursday 6 p.m. meetings, the SSA discusses topics relevant to the secular community as well as the interests of the individual students. It also hosts special events. In spring quarter of 2010, the organization presented on-campus screenings of short films of talks by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, two prominent atheists.

On May 20, the topic of discussion was Draw Muhammad Day, an unofficial, Facebook-hosted, international holiday intended to counteract the Muslim prohibition against drawing Muhammad. In light of the attacks and death threats against those who created images of Muhammad, the event encouraged free expression as an alternative to religious oppression. It also inspired controversy among the Muslim population and resulted in the Pakistani ban of Facebook.

Countless other issues of social justice are all part of the forum due to their relevance to religion. One of these is gay rights. During a regular discussion at an SSA meeting, one student asked whether religion lay at the root of homophobia.

“There’s really no logical reason to be against gay people unless it comes from religion,” SSA participant Fantauzzo said.

A few seats away at the table, second-year psychology major Anisha Mauze, who manages the SSA’s finances and budget, agreed.

“A lot of these issues about society and how it should be are very influenced by religion,” Mauze said.

A self-described “agnostic in theory, atheist in practice,” Mauze was raised Hindu. Today, she lists comedian George Carlin as one of her favorite atheists.

“I think I was about 14 when I decided … I shouldn’t be going to temple all the time if I don’t actually believe in this stuff,” she said. “It’s like lying to myself, lying to everyone else.”

Education is also a regular topic of discussion at SSA meetings, especially science education in religious schools. SSA event coordinator Mat Furman is a third-year ecology and evolution major, so the matter is of particular relevance to him.

“As a Texan growing up in Houston, I had almost no touching on evolution in the classroom,” Furman said. “They just skimmed over it, mentioned it once. [But] I just think it gives you a much better perspective on life, and it’s a thorough understanding instead of a painted picture that has nothing to do with reality.”

The community conscience

Raised in Georgia and Florida by a fundamentalist Christian family, Sonya Newlyn now lives in Santa Cruz and actively participates in two local secular organizations.

Recently, Newlyn spoke with Mayor Mike Rotkin to change May 6 from the National Day of Prayer to the Day of Reason in the city of Santa Cruz.

“There should not be a National Day of Prayer where people are encouraged to go out and pray,” Newlyn said. “I’m a political person. That [holiday] excludes me.”

Following their discussion, Rotkin issued an official proclamation encouraging “all citizens, residents and visitors to join in observing this day.”

Newlyn participates in both the Secular Humanists of Santa Cruz County (SHSCC) and the Santa Cruz Brights. While these groups only meet monthly, they keep in touch online and the SHSCC provides support for the SSA on campus.

Newlyn said another problem with the enforcement of religion in Santa Cruz’s public sphere takes place during the holidays, when the Downtown Association’s “community tree” and a large menorah provided by Chabad by the Sea are displayed at the end of Pacific Avenue near Water Street.

Although Newlyn has spoken to the organizations responsible for the placement of these religious symbols, there’s no sign that plans will be changed for the 2010 holiday season.

For now, the SHSCC, Santa Cruz Brights, and SSA will be represented on a decorative banner that members of the groups will carry while marching in the downtown holiday parade.

“We’re not trying to be grinches,” Newlyn said. “We’re trying to give our point of view.”

A secular nation

Although Newlyn works locally, the issues she deals with are also present on a national scale.

Advocating for the separation of church and state, the Secular Coalition for America functions like the ACLU for secularists’ civil liberties by lobbying in Washington D.C. and meeting with White House representatives.

Sean Faircloth, executive director of the SCA and a former legislator for the state of Maine, said the intermingling of religion and government has been exacerbated in more recent years.

“There’s always been that strain of religious thinking, no doubt about it,” he said. “What has changed significantly about the nature of government has been over the last 30 to 35 years, because the religious right made a concerted effort to organize.”

Faircloth, who spoke at UCSC on May 17, said that secular Americans need to engage in lobbying in order to keep religion and government in separate spheres.

“There is a reason that secular Americans must unite, must organize, and speak out unless they want to end up in a theocratic society,” Faircloth said. “We need to organize, or we’ll get the short end of the stick.”

The SCA also sends action alerts, political news updates, straight to subscribers’ e-mail inboxes. One of the most recent Action Alerts expresses concern about pharmacists denying birth control prescriptions on the basis of their own religious beliefs. In four U.S. states, pharmacists are entitled to make that very refusal, even if the patient is a rape victim.

Another action alert opposed the potential incorporation of religious material into public school curricula by the Texas State Board of Education, calling the prospective additions “a telling of U.S. history that is based in extremist religious ideology.” However, this idea was challenged when a resolution to support “academically-based social studies curriculum standards” was introduced and referred to the United States House Committee on Education and Labor in late July. This was a small but pertinent victory for the secular cause.

“Now science and history are [deemed] ‘controversial,’” Faircloth sighed. “Things like evolution and Thomas Jefferson — that would never have been so, 40 years ago.”

Constructing the future

Back in the SSA’s meeting room above the Bay Tree Bookstore, in the dimming sunlight of a Thursday evening, students remain concerned about these social action issues and what they see as the threat of theocracy, but they won’t give up without a fight.

“The misperception of human nature, of human essence, by religion is one of the things I certainly fight for all the time,” said SSA’s Conrad.

Jones, the current president of the SSA, references one of the films the group screened last spring.

“Richard Dawkins was talking about how science is corrosive to religion,” Jones said. “I think that was definitely a main factor of why I rejected religion to begin with.”

As the group nods in agreement, Conrad sums up its raison d’être.

“Religion just kind of makes inquiry go dead,” he said. “I mean, if it provides all the answers, we don’t need to look for anything. We just need to save our souls.”

Although some see religion as a source of meaning, Conrad and his peers at the SSA work to deconstruct the influence of religion, focusing on challenges to American civil liberties and isolating the solutions. In the search for meaning, these nonbelievers have found their alternative.

Illustration by Louise Leong.

Bill Monning is a Democrat in the California State Assembly who represents California’s 27th district, which includes Santa Cruz and Monterey. On April 30, after a town hall meeting with UC Santa Cruz students and community members, he spoke to City on a Hill Press and other student media organizations about health care, his role as the chairman of the assembly health committee, candidates in the 2010 governors race, and California’s looming budget crisis.

~~~~~~

City on a Hill Press: What is your goal as the Chairman of the Assembly Health Committee?

Bill Monning: Well, as Chair of the Assembly Health Committee, one of my primary responsibilities will be positioning California to take full advantage of the national healthcare reform.

We have been introducing some bills in the last two weeks to position California to take full advantage of the immediate benefits of the Obama reform, [including] an extension of health benefits to a broader range of children and young people up to age 19.

We are also looking at ways that we can accelerate some of the elements of the Obama reform to take effect more rapidly in California.

CHP: What are you working on specifically to speed up implementation in California?

BM: One that takes effect in 2014, for adults, is the pre-existing condition — that you can’t be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Under the Obama legislation, it will not go in effect until 2014. We are looking at “Can we accelerate that in California to have it happen during this legislative session?”

CHP: What do you think the biggest issue will be in the 2010 California governor’s race?

BM: This governor’s race, it’s huge for the future of the state of California. I think fundamental issues include California’s taxation system, it includes growing inequality between have and have-nots and [candidates] being able to articulate a vision for the future of this state in terms of education, in terms of health care, in terms of environmental integrity.

CHP: What is your opinion of Democratic nominee for governor, Jerry Brown?

BM: Jerry Brown, who is the only formidable Democratic — running virtually unopposed in the Democratic primary, currently serving as Attorney General — talks in his own words about reinventing himself.

I actually knew him when he became governor in 1975 — I was working for a group called the United Farm Workers Union (UFW). We had worked to get the first election law for farm workers in the United States, the Agricultural Labor Relations Act … I was an advocate at that time for the UFW and it was vetoed by then-governor Ronald Reagan. We worked to elect Jerry Brown in 1975, he took office and one of his first acts was to sign the Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

He was somebody who Doonesbury characterized as ‘Governor Moonbean’ back in the ’70s and ’80s and yet I’ve always known him as person with innovative ideas, not kind of blocked into doctrine or dogma. Somebody who generates and looks at problems with a fresh prospective, and quite candidly, I’m not sure where he stands on all of the issues today in 2010, but I am very concerned about the prospective of a Meg Whitman or a [Steve] Poizner governorship because I think it will not ensure the benefit of public education or other social safety net programs that are essential to protect the most vulnerable in the state of California.

CHP: What is the biggest issue facing California right now?

BM: The paramount impediment to good governance in this state is that we don’t have a majority rule. We [the legislature] require a two-thirds vote to pass a budget and two-thirds vote to raise revenues.

It seeds inordinate power to the minority party. We are the only state out of 50 that requires a two-thirds vote on both passing a budget and raising revenues. And if you look up democracy in the dictionary, democracy is majority rule. Since we don’t have democracy rule in California, one could say we don’t live in a democracy.

CHP: How do we fix it?

BM: The only way we can fix it is getting a two-thirds majority in each house to put an initiative before the voters, because only the voters can amend the constitution. We [the legislature] have the power to make the recommendation for constitutional amendments but we need a two-thirds vote to put it in front of the voters. The other way to get there is for voters circulating signature petitions to qualify a constitutional amendment for a ballot measure on the statewide ballot. It takes four to five hundred thousand signatures, if those are paid signatures one to $2 million to qualify.

There has also been a proposal by George Lakoff and the organization called the California Democracy Campaign. Their initiative language says, “the California legislature shall pass a budget and raise taxes, raise revenue by majority vote” — period. Unfortunately, that seems not to have gained the signature support to qualify for the ballot.

I think particularly people interested in higher education or the UC system — I think it should be a focal point for student organizations over the next period of time. A lot of this isn’t going to be happening by the end of 2010 but we need to do the education, we need to connect the dots and we need to give people in California the opportunity to amend the constitution.

CHP: Is ending the two-thirds majority vote for both taxes and the budget the best thing for higher education?

BM: I think it is the most important tool for amended governance that would allow us to prioritize higher education and the UC system in the balancing of our budget in tough economic times.

Illustration by Megan Laird.

After several months of intense debate and name-calling in the House and the Senate, President Barack Obama signed his heavily touted health care reform package into law last Wednesday, marking the biggest overhaul of the United States health care system since Theodore Roosevelt was in office.

The news set off celebrations and sighs of relief amongst many residents in Santa Cruz who have had trouble gaining access to health insurance in the past. Under Obama’s plan, an estimated two-thirds of the 40,000 uninsured people in Santa Cruz County will now be covered.

“Everyone involved in this important debate recognizes that this effort has been a long, tough and often contentious road,” said president and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West Lloyd H. Dean in a statement. The company owns and operates Dominican Hospital, located in mid-county Santa Cruz.

“This legislation addresses the real problems in our healthcare system: too many people without coverage and the high cost of care for all,” he added.

One of the most significant reforms in the health care package is a mandate that requires all Americans to carry health insurance by 2014 or risk being fined. It also includes extended dependent coverage for young adults under their parents’ insurance plans until the age of 26, and a provision that ends health insurance policies that exclude persons with preexisting conditions.

Valerie Diaz works as an instructional aide in special education classrooms in Santa Cruz County and has an autistic daughter. Diaz says she will gain the most benefit from the fact that health insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to adults or children with disabilities or illnesses.

Diaz’s daughter Erica was covered by a state-run program “Healthy Families” until she turned 19, at which point Diaz was forced to look elsewhere for a provider to cover Erica’s health care needs. Necessary medications for her cost $1,000 a month.

However, Diaz’s daughter was denied by health insurance companies who consider autism a preexisting condition and was unable to benefit from MediCal because of the money she makes through Social Security. As a result, Diaz had to sign up for her employer’s health insurance — despite the fact that she was already insured elsewhere — so she could put her daughter under that plan as a dependent. This was the only provider who would accept her.

“Definitely the preexisting condition [is the most important provision] whenever that takes effect, which will hopefully be soon,” Diaz said. “It’ll be huge for me and my daughter because it will save me money in the long run … if I can get her on her own policy that will save me at least $400 a month.”

Bill Tysseling, executive director of the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, says that the health care package as a whole proves beneficial for local small business owners and their employees.

“Their workers now have access to healthcare that is affordable and guaranteed, and it means they can compete with big businesses and the government for the same employees and not have to worry about whether they can pay for health insurance,” Tysseling said. “The overall picture is that for small businesses this is probably a better deal on average.”

Not all small business owners would agree that the bill makes for a better deal. Ted Burke, who is the co-owner of Shadowbrook Restaurant in Capitola and former president of the California Restaurant Association, calls the recently passed health care legislation “a bureaucratic nightmare.”

He believes it will cause a lot more harm than good for small businesses. Burkepoints to a new regulation which requires businesses with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or risk a $2,000 penalty for each uninsured person.

“Overall, I find the legislation extremely harmful to our industry and country,” Burke said. “The number of employees has no relationship to profitability … Shadowbrook has a hundred employees, and we’re only open for dinner, but are we considered a massive business? Hell no. But according to the law we are, and we’re supposed to have the same financial resources as an attorney’s office with a hundred employees, and that’s just plain wrong.”

Burke went on to explain that, unless this new provision is changed or repealed, his business would either be forced to change their current policy or drop health insurance altogether and risk facing the fine, which Burke says would result in “far less bookkeeping and money.”

Larry deGhetaldi, president of the Santa Cruz division of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, also believes that while aspects of the healthcare reform are positive, it left out several key components.

For example, physicians who take Medicare patients will see a 21 percent cut in compensation. It also omits a provision proposed by Congressman Sam Farr that would reclassify counties like San Diego and Santa Cruz as urban counties to modify medicare payments. He called them “two painful omissions.”

Overall, however, deGhetaldi says that much of the criticism that this bill has received lacks merit.

“I think it’s just a manifestation of the political polarization in the country … people assume that this is socialized medicine but this is the furthest thing in the world from that. The criticism is nonsense.”

Meanwhile, Valerie Diaz is hopeful that the health care reform will be beneficial to many Santa Cruz residents like herself and her daughter.

“All these people don’t have any insurance and aren’t being able to get their medication, so if they could get on any kind of a plan it has to be better than what they have now,” she said. “But I hope the politics can get out of it because this is a right, not a privilege.”

Illustration by Kenneth Srivijittakar.

Change is a slow and steady process. And when it comes to changes in our nation’s infrastructure, there is no denying that it is easier said than done.

President Barack Obama has proposed a televised summit to address health care that would bring forth both Democratic and Republican leaders. The meeting, scheduled for Feb. 25, would be the first step in mending the divide between the two parties regarding what has arguably become the greatest challenge the Obama administration has had to face in its first term.

However, in keeping with its long-standing tradition of making things harder than they need to be, the GOP is refusing to heed the request unless Obama and the Democrats are willing to completely scrap the health care legislation currently pending in Congress. This would mean that the two parties would start over again — a major setback for what’s already proven to be a complex and problem-ridden debate.

“Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?” House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor asked in a letter sent Monday to the White House. “If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.”

The request to rethink the health care debate all the way down to the pending legislation may be a solid one — many have been disappointed by the plan’s lack of support for public options. But coming from the GOP, this only furthers the infinite number of roadblocks Obama and his administration have faced thus far.

During the GOP House Issues Conference, Obama proved that he was willing to negotiate properly. There, he took Republican questions and presented the possibility of an open forum between both parties and the American people. And for a debate that affects each and every one of us, yet has remained largely behind closed doors, the chance for a televised conference is particularly important — it furthers Obama’s hopes to extend the visibility of change from Congress’ steps to the everyman.

There is validity to the GOP’s concerns. Obama’s promise to air health care negotiations on C-SPAN has all but deteriorated, and that promise seems to have become another victim of the time-tested practice of cutting deals in the back room. Moreover, the health care debate is far from reaching a desirable end. In order for us to truly develop a worthy bill, there has to be a willingness to view this meeting as a potential starting point, as opposed to a continuation of dated techniques.

But this all begins with the willingness to meet in the first place. For the party that’s been demanding a forum in order to voice their concerns, stating a complete unwillingness to negotiate is hypocritical. This is not a trap set by the Democrats to lure conservatives into a liberal wrestling match. The complexities of this debate can only be hashed out if lawmakers intend to think on behalf of the people. This means putting to rest any long-standing traditions of party taciturnity.

For the sake of the people, the party and, most importantly, the problem, the GOP needs to open itself to negotiation. Whether the bill gets revised or scrapped is moot. Let’s just start by taking a step through the door.

Illustration by Kenneth Srivijittakar.

Those two towers that fell all those years ago — you know the ones — prompted a war, elicited forced patriotism, and have come to be a symbol of an event known as one of the most heinous crimes on American soil. We’ve searched for the potential ‘evil doers’ (a phrase that entered the American lexicon with bloodthirsty repetition) and we now have an opportunity to bring one of them to justice.

The Obama administration stated on Friday, Nov. 11 that it would prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, in a Manhattan federal courtroom, igniting a sharp political debate that has left members of both parties with something to say. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the announcement “a very comprehensively examined decision,” while New York Republican Rep. Peter T. King has stated that the potential for another attack on American soil has been increased.

On a larger scale, the decision to try Mohammed and four accused conspirators on American soil means the furthering of Obama’s vow to close Guantanamo Bay — a promise that, over a year later, has proven to be easier said than done, causing widespread questioning of Obama’s realistic actions. On a more intimate scale, it allows a sense of potential closure for a city that is still hyper-aware from the attacks over nine years ago.

The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., could mean that one of the highest-profile and highest-security terrorism trials in United States history would be set just blocks from Ground Zero, where over 3,000 civilians were killed.

Whether civilian courts are able to provide a bias-free assessment of guilt is, however, still questionable. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia has questioned the logic of the decision, saying that the wound is still too fresh to assume that New Yorkers can separate the emotions from the proceedings.

What the decision really marks is a cementing of Obama’s desire to shift the global image of the U.S. The decision to prosecute under American court proceedings allows for the protections of the American justice system to be enacted. This is a far cry from the Bush administration’s policy, which denied suspected Al-Queda members due process of law and habeas corpus.

This decision allows an attempt to return to America’s preservation of civil liberties and human rights. And with defense attorneys for the hijackers citing illegal CIA torture tactics during confinement, an attempt to grant the liberties of American law is, in a definite way, a step forward. Our federal courts have in the past proven to be a successful way of prosecuting terrorism, as evidenced by the prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, who in 1995 was convicted of plotting an attack on the United Nations headquarters, among other New York structures. He is now serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison, the sanctioned punishment for seditious conspiracy.

What this decision brings forth is progress. Progress toward more civil military tactics, progress toward the closing of Guantanamo Bay, progress toward adhering to U.S. policies and support of civil liberties, and, most importantly, progress toward prosecuting those responsible for one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in U.S. history. Doing so with a willingness to uphold our country’s belief and our trust in our citizens only furthers the potential victory.

Illustration by Joe Lai.

It’s been just over a year since the passing of Proposition 8 in early November 2008, the amendment that restricted the marriage between same-sex couples in California. One long year that has left the gay community questioning the legitimacy of their unions, and the potential for official state recognition.

Although it has only been a year since a major setback in what is being called our generation’s civil rights fight, it seems that gay marriage, no longer the “hot” topic of the day, has faded from the minds of most citizens. Replaced by concerns about the economy, health care and education, most Americans have pushed the question of gay marriage to the back burner.

After a brief period of hope in 2008, when over 18,000 couples were officially married in California between June and November, it seemed that we were finally taking a step forward. However, after the grievous blow of Prop 8, the only meager concession given to the state of California was the upholding of marriages performed that past summer, before the amendment’s passing. A small victory, but by no means satisfactory or acceptable.

While several concessions have been magnanimously imparted to the gay community by our glorious land of opportunity since 2008, it is clear that we are far from winning the war against ignorance and intolerance. In fact, in recent months several states have taken steps backwards in the fight for equality.

On Nov. 3, the state of Maine repealed its same-sex marriage statute. This most recent injustice was the latest in a series of repeals and rejections. Maine marks the 31st state to put gay marriage laws to a popular vote and lose. Presently, only Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa have officially legalized gay marriage. Out of the 50 states in our union, only five allow gay couples the same bonds that heterosexual couples have access to.

The UC, even with the budget crisis and fee increases, is doing more to support gay marriage than many states in the U.S. — a country that is currently undergoing similar financial crises and reassessment of priorities. According to the University of California Human Resources and Benefits Department, any UC employee with a domestic partner, regardless of gender, is eligible to the University of California’s retirement benefits and survivor benefits.

This public entity of California recognizes unions that many states have officially denied as being valid. Although we as a state are making some progress, conservative state statutes such as the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, take a step backwards, claiming same-sex marriage is not only against the laws of the state, but of nature.

We protest libraries closing and fee increases on a bi-weekly basis at UCSC. Why can’t we unite in the same spirit to protest this infringement of our constitutional rights? While Proposition 8 had yet to be voted on, UCSC was up in arms. Do we take defeat so easily? This is not to say that there are not many people still fighting on a daily basis to have these laws repealed all over the country, but what happened to our fire?

On January 11, 2010, the issue of the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will be presented and debated in the federal courts by two lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies. We must show our support and take up our right as citizens of this often great country by letting our lawmakers know that we will not stand for this breach of our social contract any longer. As a country of progress — go Obama! — we need to keep our momentum and not lose the fervor of 2008. This is no trend that will be idly passed by.

While the issue of same-sex marriage may no longer be splashed across every front page, the problem is still undeniably present. Students and non-students alike need to rally to the cause and make sure that this violation of human rights doesn’t goes unnoticed until it is rectified.

Illustration by Kenny Srivijittakar.

As a San Francisco native, I can’t deny my bias towards supporting Gavin Newsom in the 2010 gubernatorial race. From his unwavering support of gay rights — which many consider this generation’s civil rights movement — to his undeniable youthful appeal (he tweeted during his daughter’s birth — seriously), Newsom had me at “state bankruptcy.”

And aside from his over-greased coif, Newsom, 42, seemed like a lock for the governor’s title. Or at least he did until the numbers came in.

By the end of October, Newsom found himself behind California Attorney General Jerry Brown 8-to-1 in campaign fundraising, and 20 points behind him in the polls — all before Brown ever formally announced his candidacy.

Though support for Newsom failed to expand substantially beyond the Bay Area bubble, there has been no denying his appeal to young voters. This was the sector of California Newsom was depending on to donate to his campaign and to dominate the polls.

Unfortunately, we weren’t enough to sustain a healthy campaign, and on Oct. 30, Newsom publicly announced he was withdrawing from the gubernatorial race, citing the demands and responsibilities of having a family and the subsequent impossibility of committing the “time required to complete this effort the way it needs to — and should be — done.”

Our generation may be out of luck when it comes to flexing our Newsom-loving muscle, but this setback in potential political name recognition shouldn’t hinder us from remaining informed and active in state elections.

Fiscal crisis, financial meltdown — there are many “F-words” that could be engaged to describe California’s current state of affairs. From the large-scale bankruptcy we face (really, has there ever been a more literal example of a crisis than the great state-sponsored garage sale this past summer?), to the deterioration of our very own campus and the other campuses within our system.

Losing Newsom shouldn’t mean the end of our political drive. California is in dire need of reassessment, and that begins at the very top.

Over the last 67 years, California has only had three Democratic governors: Pat Brown from 1959-1967, his son Jerry from 1975-1983, and Jerry’s Chief of Staff-turned-Governor, Gray Davis, from 1999-2003.

As many Californians — and history — can attest, the Brown name brings with it dreamy nostalgia for the Golden State of yesteryear. The Browns are just about the closest thing California has to its own Kennedy family, minus the scandal and sex appeal. And while former president Ronald Reagan infamously denied Pat Brown a third term, Jerry has the potential for a second chance, granting California the same.

Brown’s present lead in polls, support and donations are said to be a large intimidation factor for all who dare run against him. Now, as the potential sole Democratic candidate, Brown’s momentum can only grow from here.

Though Newsom is now out of the running, young Californians need to get educated about other candidates, support those who understand our needs, sustain interest in our election, and stand for the state that has the potential for rebirth.

Newsom’s departure from the race takes with it the kind of celebreality association the Obama administration has now become known for, but perhaps his absence will allow for a larger reflection on California’s political infrastructure. And if a return to California’s roots is what we desire, the return of the Jerry Brown may be just what we need.

The young Californians who found renewed interest in state politics when Newsom stepped into the mix should continue that interest and that passion in our state’s future. The future viability of California will depend on the work of whoever is willing and able to take on the necessary reconstruction of our precious state.

Though Newsom may be gone, we can still complete this effort the way it needs to — and should be — done.

Photo courtesy Lewis Watts.

Photo courtesy Lewis Watts.

Curtis Reliford still remembers the story of the man who watched his granddaughter drown.

He recounts the stories that he’s been told, an appropriate feat considering Reliford’s belief that the spirit of New Orleans can be passed down through the tales of its people. But the New Orleans that Reliford knew, the one so brimming with life and known for wearing “its heart and history on its sleeve,” doesn’t exist anymore. As he himself says, New Orleans sank four years ago.

And in those four years, the plight of New Orleans has stayed remarkably stagnant, leading many to wonder if anything’s changed at all — a question that Reliford and others answer with a resounding “no.” Because the most important thing to remember about the drowning of New Orleans is that it was much more than just a natural disaster; it was a cultural disaster, one that Louisiana natives are still feeling the effects of.

Reliford, born and raised in Louisiana, moved to Santa Cruz 24 years ago in hopes of getting clean and starting over. Instead, he found himself drawn back to his homestead with a renewed sense of purpose.

“I didn’t know what I was meant to do,” he explained, tugging on his denim overall straps with vigor, as if to remind himself that they’re still there. “Then the storm hit and changed everything. Everything.”

He began to contact his family, still located in Louisiana, asking about the state of affairs post-storm: “I talked to my sister, and she told me all the problems and how there was no help.”

So Reliford took matters into his own hands, recruiting 10 volunteers to take five trucks and five trailers all the way down to New Orleans. It was the first of 13 visits since 2005.

But in today’s trouble-ridden world, thoughts of “Hurricane Katrina” are akin to hearing the tales and priorities of yesteryear, especially in the midst of financial deterioration and the necessitation of health care reform. However, Reliford is quick to remind that the repercussions of Katrina are still very much present.

“[We] were all volunteers,” he said. “No officials. They think it’s over with. So I guess it’s up to the people here.”

According to The Women of the Storm, an organization formed by the surviving women of Katrina, nearly 80 percent of New Orleans became flooded — the equivalent of seven Manhattan Islands. Over 1,500 deaths were reported, with 60,000-plus citizens homeless, forced to live outside of their homes until temporary housing became available. That’s 87 percent of the African-American population — a number far greater than the 1930s Dust Bowl, which left thousands displaced at the hands of widespread droughts and dust storms.

To this day, tens of thousands of New Orleanians still reside outside of New Orleans. But in the last four years, what the post-Katrina reconstruction has managed to complete is something completely different.

“They just finished a Wal-Mart,” said third-year College Nine student Rachel Doblick. “So I guess that’s something.”

Doblick first visited New Orleans as part of UC Santa Cruz’s Alternative Spring Break program back in March of this past year. She found herself so moved by her visit that she returned during the summer for two and a half weeks, arriving just in time for the fourth anniversary of the storm.

“It’s still so real when you’re down there,” Doblick remembered. “Dealing with the houses, the individuals, just coming back now to try and build their homes. It’s just a very real experience.”

Natalie Colona, a former student at Cabrillo Community College in Aptos, took a year of absence in 2008 in order to go and volunteer in the Lower Nine, a particularly devastated area within New Orleans. Now, over a year later, Colona is contemplating staying for an additional few months, citing the amount of work that still needs to be done as both daunting and inspiring.

“Seeing how much is left to do really does make it difficult to feel good about your work,” Colona said. “You just feel like you’re making such little difference, but then you see a finished house, or a cleaned up area … you realize you’re making a difference. You realize someone has to.”

Photo courtesy Lewis Watts.

The ‘New’ New Orleans

The volunteers in New Orleans have been, more often than not, the only real purveyors of reconstruction that the storm site has seen in the last four years. While an initial evacuation was attempted, many citizens were left behind, waiting for buses, supplies and answers that never came.

“They sent two buses to help evacuate people,” Doblick said. “They’re supposed to have evacuation plans, resources for when they’re moved, but they hadn’t ever created a plan that would accommodate the mass numbers of people that needed help. They could never have predicated a category 5 hurricane.”

Jahnai Eldridge is a College Nine third-year and the former head of Praxis, a College Nine organization centered on social justice. She also attended the Alternate Spring Break trip this past year and helped put together a Katrina and New Orleans workshop at this year’s Practical Activism conference. Eldridge says that the efforts to restore Katrina have evolved remarkably over the years.

“When I first heard about Katrina [in high school], I remember wondering ‘Why aren’t people leaving?’” Eldridge said. “But now I know: they couldn’t. They didn’t have a way to. No one was helping them. No one.”

It was that unavailability of aid from the state government that roused Reliford’s passion to help his home state. Reliford remembers walking past citizens, disheveled, aimless and begging for basic supplies like water and sustenance. The area, as Reliford remembers it, smelled like urine and garbage. The location was unsanitary and the officials were unwilling to do anything about it.

Reliford spoke of meeting people who told him stories of rape, theft, murder and crime, all within hundreds of feet from where officials were supposed to be located.

But this wasn’t a post-Katrina New Orleans street; this was the Louisiana Superdome, the FEMA-sponsored ‘safe zone’ where Katrina survivors were temporarily, albeit unwillingly, ushered. As Reliford remembered it, the Superdome was more terrifying than the world that lay just outside the coliseum doors.

“You’re walking over dead people, building leaking, raining,” Reliford explained, recalling the scene. “All these beds just jammed together, half arm-length [from each other]. Each row was divided by people in various zip codes. It was sad. It was a majority of black people — looked like slave quarters. The handicapped people laying around, begging for help. The kids were just bouncing around, they didn’t know what was going on.”

And as for the government help that had arrived to secure a “safe” environment for the now-homeless New Orleanians?

“[The officials] were just walking around, sitting with their feet cocked up on the tables,” Reliford recalled. “They were just there, not doing their jobs.”

In June 2006, Lt. Gen. Carl Strock of the Army Corps of Engineers accepted responsibility on behalf of his army branch for the failure of the flood protection in New Orleans’ levies, calling it “a system in name only,” and stating that post-storm reports showed that “we missed something in the design.”

Eldridge cites more than just engineering oversight.

“It wasn’t just any levees,” Eldridge said. “It was these levees. Where the levees were going to go, which ones were higher, which levees were getting fixed as often, which weren’t — these policies were initiated and perpetuated because most neighborhoods that didn’t get the top-of-the-line levees were predominantly poor African-American neighborhoods.”

According to Strock, Corps leaders are still in the process of fixing the system that failed when the storm hit. However, rebuilding to include the protection that should have already been implemented before Katrina is a slow process.

“Rebuilding New Orleans levees will still take four more years and billions of dollars more just to protect the city from a 100-year storm,” Strock said.

Photo courtesy Lewis Watts.

Reflections in the Water

The neighborhoods that Eldrige, Reliford and Doblick all remember have hardly changed over the course of the last four years. To Doblick, the lack of progress was all the more evident during her second trip back.

“Nothing had changed over those few months,” she remembers. “Nothing. By the time I got back, a medical clinic had finally opened, as well as a dental clinic. But it was as if everything just stood still.”

Reliford, who has visited New Orleans 13 times, said that “every time, everything looked exactly the same.”

Everything, that is, except for the French Quarter — the notorious tourist attraction of New Orleans that found itself almost fully repaired and fully functional within a year of the storm, while the more financially-challenged areas have yet to dry.

“We went down to [the French Quarter], and you would have never known that a hurricane hit there,” Eldridge said. “But once you cross that bridge, you still see houses with black Xs on the doors; it’s been four fucking years.”

As of now, those who have seen the continued devastation firsthand say the best that can be done is to make certain that New Orleans is never forgotten, either in spirit or strife.

Lewis Watts, a professional photographer and UCSC assistant professor of art, is working alongside American studies associate professor Eric Porter on a book chronicling New Orleans’ overwhelming history. The book acknowledges Katrina’s important role in New Orleans’ story, but is careful to note that the storm by no means defines the city.

First sent to New Orleans on an assignment in the Nineties, Watts became enamored with the locale. Originally slated to complete residency at the Ogden Museum of Southern Art, the storm struck before Watts had a chance to begin.

“I was so interested in the evidence of culture, and was immediately taken by the unique architecture the city had to offer,” Watts said. “When I came back in 2005 [after the storm had hit], I saw that the damage and devastation was much worse that I had seen in any photograph.”

Watts began to photograph the damage firsthand and found himself unable to handle the intensity of the surroundings.

“I had to leave because of disaster fatigue, and I was interested in that,” Watts explained, commenting that he found his emotional reaction to the city staggering. “But I was more interested in how so many people [had] to evacuate and leave this immense culture behind.”

But even through it’s difficulties, and regardless of its current nature, New Orleans still manages to inspire.

“I took homeless people down there, and a year later they told me that they got clean and sober since the trip, went back to school, knew their priorities again,” Reliford said. “The trip changed them. New Orleans changed them.”

Watts hopes that in the future people can continue to view Katrina as just one part of New Orleans’ now infamous history, instead of defining its history as a whole.

“These images will [be] part of a larger continuum of history,” he said. “They reflect some issues, within a political and historical context.”

As for progress, Eldridge remains hopeful but realistic, understanding that the rebuilding of New Orleans may simply come down to the volunteers.

“Some of these people will never be able to come back,” Eldridge said. “They don’t have the means to come back. I want to say that the people of New Orleans will gain enough clout to attempt [to gain] more national attention, but sadly I think that it will be rebuilt solely by volunteers.”

Doblick agrees, already aware of her involvement, and her desire to further it.

“I will graduate college and still be going down to New Orleans,” she said. “I have no doubt in my mind. There will still be things to fix, people to help, and I’ll keep going back. I will continue to tell these stories.”

Photo courtesy Lewis Watts

Last Thursday, Obama spoke at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. about America’s current visage regarding the moral authority surrounding our war on terror and use of torture, and the United States’ Guantanamo Bay detention camp, located in neighboring Cuba, was at the center of the discussion. 

The goal of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was once to strengthen national security by placing suspected terrorists in high-security detainment. What actually came from the camp, however, was a different story entirely. 

Guantanamo is now widely considered a breeding ground for suspected abuse and torture against its prisoners, and controversies consistently arise over human rights violations taking place behind the camp’s doors. 

In 2003, Mohammed Naim Farouq was transferred to Guantanamo.  A January 2009 LA Times article reported that Farouq was stripped naked, put in a line, blindfolded and marched to a station while soldiers yelled and laughed, snapping pictures while prisoners were being issued new clothes, all the while claiming to have no ties to terrorist acts. Eventually, Farouq was found to have no links to the Taliban or to al-Qaeda.

But his case is hardly an isolated incident. 

The same LA Times article cited a Defense Intelligence Agency study, which found that one out of every seven terrorism suspects are suspected or confirmed to have returned to terrorism following a stay at Guantanamo. According to a newly released Pentagon report, one Guantanamo detainee claimed to have simply been a local security leader in Afghanistan when he was arrested. It was only after his detention and time in Guantanamo that he became a radical Islamist, famously stating, “I became a terrorist because of Guantanamo Bay.”

That sentiment, and many others like it, is precisely the reason that our country has been perceived as fighting its toughest battle — moral decay — not in the Middle East, but at home. The election of President Obama was meant to ensure a positive shift in values, with his mantra of change signaling a turn in how our country would be perceived worldwide.

In the battle to close Guantanamo Bay and restore the nation’s global appeal and ideological stability, Obama is out of accord with both parties. Republican patriots have balked against his order to close ‘Gitmo’, calling his plan “unstable and uncoordinated.” 

But it is the opposition he’s faced from his own party in Congress that has many questioning Obama’s decision. In January, at the height of Obama-inauguration fever, support for the proposed closing of Guantanamo was high, with many citing it as a decision that could potentially restore moral authority and strengthen the national security of the United States.

Last Wednesday, however, Congress voted 90-6 to deny the president’s proposal for funding to close the Guantanamo Bay facility until a more detailed plan of action is released, including information about where over 240 detainees currently held at Guantanamo will be transferred. 

In the throes of our current economic crisis, with overpopulation in American prisons already a problem, the request for more information is understandable. If there is anything we’ve learned from our prior administration, it’s that we need to know where our money is going.

$80 million has already been requested by the administration to pay for the relocation of the 240 detainees. In an effort to prevent the prisoners from proclaiming habeas corpus (unlawful detention), which could result in their being released on U.S. soil, the hope is that many of the detainees will end up in overseas prisons run by various U.S. allies. 

While this is a large chunk of money and the political and ethical debates surrounding relocation are heated, Congress should nonetheless be in larger and louder support of the plan in the spirit of making right one of our nation’s greatest wrongs. 

We have elected Obama at the height of our country’s mistakes to make the changes we deem necessary. Now, as the hypothetical becomes reality, our country’s two primary parties seem to have developed a “not in our backyard” mentality.

Yes, Obama needs to reflect the concerns of both Democrats and Republicans — and, for that matter, the people as a whole. A more domestic and fiscally conscious plan is a step in the right direction. But it’s time for Congress to dig up the support they abandoned after those gung-ho days of January.

The mistakes that we have made as a country require assessment and reconstruction, regardless of the price. We need to face the human rights violations committed at Guantanamo Bay. Electing Barack Obama was an election meant to show what we as a nation stand for — or, perhaps more importantly, to show what we refuse to stand for.

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

It’s been just over 100 days since America started breathing again.

In fact, we’ve been holding our breath for a while now. From the moment the towers came crumbling down in 2001, we held our breath in jolted anticipation,wondering what the following months would bring. When the continuing war with Iraq gave way to a further and further end date, we held our breath with unhealthy, yet unwavering, patriotism. 

And when Barack Obama burst onto the scene, invigorating our sense of hope and the possibility for change, we held our breath wondering whether he could meet our expectations and desperation for a new leader. 

On April 29, he passed the 100-day mark that has seen prior presidents either rise to the occasion (claps all around, FDR) or fall into a premature political abyss (here’s looking at you, JFK). And while the American people breathe a sigh of relief, the Obama press machine has been working in hyperdrive, regardless of whether the administration is taking notice. 

Obama has been fulfilling much of what he initially promised. And he’s been doing it with the same overarching ease and contemplative cool that had the public and the press initially write him off as some sort of naïve political hotshot — one trying desperately to stay afloat in the pool of popularity that was Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, seemingly backed with more experience and, most importantly, more money. 

But now here we are, one year after the initial interest and 100 days after the actual inauguration. That those same news outlets are now beside themselves with pride for their country and over-the-top praise for their leader seems to be more a comment on the fading news industry, desperately plugging its primary stock as much as it can. After all, nobody can sell a magazine or newspaper like America’s — scratch that — the world’s — biggest celebrity. 

Even Michelle Obama, whose patriotism was once questioned in the wake of her comments about feeling “proud of [her] country for the first time,” is now seeing higher approval ratings than her own husband. Her intelligence! Her class! Her plastic J-Crew belt! This woman can do no wrong.

(I, however, beg to differ. A see-through belt does no good for anyone.) 

As of now, the most important change Obama has made is restoring our nation’s faith in its politicians and in itself, which in a post-Bush era is no easy feat. His strongest naysayers balk at his bevy of tasks, citing it as too much too soon. 

Yet that ambition, that desire to delve into these disasters immediately, is not only invigorating our country’s spirit, but proving to his greatest skeptics that their concerns about him — he’s too timid, too inexperienced, too wishy-washy — are the hurdles he is least concerned about. 

But even 100 days in, even with a new-wave politician like Obama, the constant flow of praise still seems freakishly premature. From the Middle East to the middle of Wall Street, both locations could damper whatever inspirational high the 100-day celebration is supposed to give us. Both could lead toward ideological and economic annihilation. Obama has yet to gain control of either. 

But most of all, what the 100-day mark has truly punctuated is the collapse of the Republican Party, a juxtaposition that Obama and his administration actually require. We may love Obama, but that doesn’t mean we’ve truly fallen for the Democrats.

Sure, you’d be hard-pressed to find a 20-something in present-day America who doesn’t align himself with at least some componant of liberal ideology, but much of that is probably grounded in an “anything but the Republicans” outlook rather than an actual agreement over Democratic policies.

When our previous administration was in office, committing numerous domestic and global atrocities, it was the Democrats who sat in Congress, twiddling their thumbs until the next “green” bill came in. Maintaining your neutrality in times of moral crisis doesn’t scream innocence. 

Republicans may have once controlled everything, but they seemingly accomplished very little. The Ronald Reagan disciples have seen their party crumble into a bull’s-eye of political discourse, all in an attempt to maintain their three upstanding beliefs: the cementing of a powerful defense, the preservation of traditional values and the belief in economic conservatism. 

But those credos don’t mean the same thing anymore. Not in an era when a “powerful defense” has led to pre-emptive wars and the torturing of innocent civilians. Not when “traditional values” leave no room for same-sex marriage or pro-choice policies. And “economic conservatism” is a comical phrase in the wake of our current financial meltdown. 

Republicans are fully aware that their only hope for political recovery would be Democratic failure, leaving Obama’s dependence on right-wing opposition in a catch-22. So now, as we face the next chapter of his presidency, let’s cease the celebration of his work thus far. We need to focus our attention on not only what has yet to be done, but also what the indirect consequences of his time in office have been so far.

But if the party that so recently ruled Washington can essentially go extinct in 100 days, you know he must be doing something right.