Is privatizing Social Security a win for Republicans politically even if they fail to get the policy enacted? The Baltimore Sun explores that question, with a focus on young people.

One more reason to volunteer: Its good for your love life....

The Washington Times picks up on our upcoming Rock the Vote Awards event... Get your tickets to the dinner and/or the after party today!

MTV and Youth Venture Announce New Grant Program for Young People

Deadline: Rolling, through December 31, 2005

MTV: Music Television ( http://www.mtv.com/ ) has announced the launch of
its new pro-social initiative,  think MTV, which is designed to inform and
empower young  people to take action on social issues.

As part of its effort to encourage its audience to become  more proactive
in their communities, MTV has teamed up  with Youth Venture (
http://www.youthventure.org/ ), a movement of youth social entrepreneurs,
to offer think  Venture Grants to young people who are making a difference
by creating and leading organizations, clubs, or businesses  that address a
need in their communities. Grants of up to  $1,000 each will be offered each
week to a group of young  people with the most compelling and sustainable
community  service project concept in one of the five primary  think MTV
issue areas: discrimination, education, the  environment, global issues, and
sexual health.

Dream team for 2008? If John McCain and Hillary Clinton won their party nominations to run for president, that would be pretty much a dream scenario as far as getting young people engaged. What other (realistic) matchups would be good?

P.S., of course, this is not an endorsement of any candidate.

Partisan politics loom large in the Social Security debate. For example, you hear a lot about how Republicans have a "we win even if we lose" approach to Social Security.

The idea is that Republicans assume that even if they lose older voters and their plan goes down in flames, they will win back young voters and, more importantly, change perceptions among young people about the Democratic party as locked in old ways and defending old ideas.

Its a reasonable theory, and I would presume it is based largely on polls that show when you ask young people if they want to invest their own Social Security money, a decent share will say "yes." Of course after they find out about the debt, cuts and safety net risks that come with privatization, support plunges.

In any event, at some point the theory has to be put to the test. In my view, the "do you want to invest" polling factoids are a lot less important than "do you support the President's plan" type questions. If their strategy is going to work, it has to start showing up in the polls soon. So far, I'm not seeing it. Below is the latest CBS poll by age. Only 32% of young people approve of the President's handling of Social Security.

BUSH’S HANDLING OF SOCIAL SECURITY – DEMOGRAPHICS:

Approve Disapprove
All 26% 62

Age 18-29 32% 55
Age 30-44 28% 58
Age 45-64 25% 67
65 and older 18% 68

Is the youth vote trending liberal or conservative? According to an op-ed in the Detroit News, the Democrats are losing ground to the Republicans. What do you think?

States Short Change Students

There is a new report out today that says the states increased their spending on student aid by six percent. Sounds good until you have to go pay your tuition bill, which was rougly 10% higher for public colleges and universities or you figure that the increase will barely cover the increased number of students. Also, the Congress has kept a lid on the size of the Pell Grant for the last three years so no relief there.

Basic math here is higher costs plus no additional aid equals more debt.

P.S. Kudos to Rock The Vote, New Voters Project, Declare Yourslef, MTV, Citizen Change, WWE and all the tens of thousands of people who helped to contribute to the historic increase in youth turnout mentioned in Hans' post.

Pat Tillman: In Memoriam

To write this post, I first wanted to refresh the Pat Tillman story in mind. I went back and reread the December 2004 piece (here and here) in the Washington Post.

After getting halfway through the article I had to stop. As tears streamed down my face, I fell in love with Pat Tillman all over again. His passion not only to be the best, but to also find the best answer (often by questioning mainstream thought) will live on long after his death. Pat had the courage to do what he thought in his heart to be right. He turned down a $3.6 million contract and joined the Army after September 11th. He picked the Army's most elite and challenging branch, and excelled as a ranger. There is no doubt in my mind that if he wanted, he could have left the Army and gone back to the rock star life he had been promised prior to joining, but he didn't, he soldiered on. He ended up in a war zone and watched his friend die in a firefight, yet he never asked to leave. He stuck it out, and though the end result was tragic, his legacy of bravery will live on.

Since his family learned of his death, there have been many contradicting stories as to what really happened. The Army tried to cover up its mistake, giving a man who was already a hero a falsified death that was parallel to his life: fearless, brave and righteous. The deceit was exposed by those who were righteous and brave in their own right, not settling for the mainstream media push and finding the true story. To honor his memory, I would urge everyone not to settle by accepting things at face value. Question the answers and when things don't add up keep pressing them, just like Pat Tillman.

Welcome Abbie Pickett!

I want to introduce our newest addition to the Rock the Vote blog: Abbie Pickett.

A member of the Army National Guard, Abbie served with the 229th Combat Support Equipment Company. She now lives in Madison, WI. Abbie is devoted to increasing awareness of women's issues within the military. Abbie has been working with the Wisconsin VA on the Returning Women Veterans Appreciation Gift Project along with former First Lady of Wisconsin and Founder & President of the Wisconsin Women's Health Foundation, Sue Ann Thompson. She has also worked as an intern in External Affairs for Governor Jim Doyle. Currently, Abbie is working with OpTruth, America's largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans' group.

Abbie will be posting periodically with her point of view on military issues at home and abroad.

More on the 2004 youth vote surge

The Census Data is out! It provides more scientific depth or confirmation to what we've been saying all along: young people totally rocked the vote in 2004.

The youth voter research institute CIRCLE has the goods, focusing on the 18-24 age group.

Bottom line: youth voter turnout surged more than ANY other age group. The increase also was really driven by the surge in voting among young African Americans and Latinos, who caused the overall age group to swing to Kerry.

Update: Great article from the Rocky Mountain News....

How to increase the vote on campus. Just one example here among dozens if not hundreds across the country, but a good one: Students at UC Davis, in California, increased the voter turnout tenfold over a period of two and a half years. The key was bringing a polling place onto campus.

Rock the Vote has been pushing for campus polling places as part of our campus voting campaign.

Going Nuclear?

What's going on with the filibuster issue that’s exploding in the Senate right now?

Here’s the deal. You already know that the President nominates judges for the federal courts and the Senate votes on them. What you might not realize is that, if the judge is controversial, it basically takes 60 votes for the nomination to pass, instead of 50. This is because of special rules (the filibuster and cloture).

Bonus History Lesson:
Since the 1850s, both parties in the Senate have used filibusters to make it harder for the majority party to have its way. Typically, a vote cannot be taken if a Senator wants to debate the issue or introduce motions or amendments. A filibuster involves strategic use of debate to allow Senators to block or delay a measure even if they are in the minority and do not have enough votes to defeat it. The debate and procedural moves can only be stopped by invoking cloture, which requires 60 votes and forces a vote, or by withdrawing the measure.

During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor, reciting Shakespeare and reading recipes to his fellow senators. Southern senators later used filibusters to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57-day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. To see the filibuster in action, check out Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Democrats in Congress have recently used filibusters to block a lot of federal judge nominations. They argue that some of them would, for example, tear down the barrier between church and state, rollback environmental laws or get rid of the minimum wage.

Frustrated, Republicans in the Senate want to change the rules so that they only need 50 votes – rather than the 60 necessary for cloture – to approve the President’s nominations. Under this plan, which is being called the “nuclear option,” the Vice President would step in and cast the tiebreaker.

Republicans call the Democrats’ use of the filibuster a “judicial tyranny to people of faith” since so much of the dispute is about the separation of church and state.

Democrats have threatened to slow Senate business to a crawl if the nuclear option passes, insisting that Republicans are trying to do away with a fundamental protection afforded to the minority party, which safeguards against a “tyranny of the majority,” a concern addressed by the writers of the Constitution in the creation of a three-branch government.

Remember, whoever wins this fight gets the advantage when members of the Supreme Court need to be replaced.

What do you think? Is democracy on the march, or about to blow up? How do you want your government to be run?

Two Great Deals For Students

Two great deals for students that are in the news these days. One where you may be able to save yourself a ton of money on your student loans. The other is a bill in Congress that uses a more efficient loan program to increase student aid without costing tax payers a penny.

Here’s a quick tip – if you know someone in school with student loans, or out of school who is struggling with student loans, send them this information. According to this AP story a typical borrower could be saving $2,100.

#1. The Department of Education announced that they are doing more to allow students to consolidate their loans by allowing all students to consolidate their loans and lock in the current low interest rate – even if they are still in school. This is significant news for students because interest rates on student loans are going to go up significantly on July 1^st. The increase is expected to be a big jump, and only get bigger in future years according to the government green eye-shade folks.

You can check out the AP story on it, and learn more about consolidation at the Department of Education web site

From the AP Story: “The College Loan Corp. estimates the average borrower with $20,500 in debt - the average amount consolidated last year - would save more than $2,100 over a 10-year loan by consolidating now, based on the most recent interest rate estimates.”

#2. A report from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and the Student PIRGs backs up a bipartisan bill in Congress that would use efficiencies in the loan program to put more money in to student aid. i.e., no cost to tax payers, just $17 billion of help for more people go to college. The headline in the University of California Santa Barbara is “Students eligible for more financial aid: Plan to rebalance federal loans would cost taxpayers nothing”.

Check out the report, and the bill too. According to the article, “The STAR Act was introduced in Congress with bipartisan support in March by state Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Thomas Petri (R-Wis.). That’s two Ds and two Rs for anyone who is counting.

Also, for more background on just how much money we waste on inefficiencies in the loan program and the political fight behind it, you can check out www.studentloanwatch.org. Sign up for their list and you will be outraged by what you learn.

You think Sallie Mae needs the money more than you?

"Students oppose private accounts”    
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/18/05    

More than 150 student body presidents from college campuses all over the country, including four from Georgia, have signed a petition calling for a commitment from Congress and the White House to protect Social Security.   

The coalition, called "Students For a Secure Future," opposes the president's plan to change the program to allow workers to divert earnings into private accounts.    

Adam Sparks, who served as last year's Student Government Association president at the University of Georgia, said the petition will show politicians that students are serious about the issue.   

"The perspective of young people has been mostly overlooked," said Sparks, who graduated last week. "What it means for the next generation hasn't been seriously looked at."
   
In addition to Sparks, other Georgia signers include Southern Polytechnic State University SGA President Marvin Linwood Broaddus; Charisse Perkins from Georgia Southern University; and Thomas Cotton from Kennesaw State University.
   
Mark Kresowik, president of student government at the University of Iowa, said Bush's approach will saddle young people of today with billions of dollars in debt in the future.
   
See the full story at the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

THEY ARE SURGE VOTERS. That was our mantra throughout 2004 when people asked us what we thought young people were going to do on Election Day.

Man were we right about that.

Today we are reporting some news that is frankly...shocking. While overall youth voter turnout jumped 10 percentage points from 2000, for African Americans and Latinos, it shot through the roof.

According to a new analysis by CIRCLE, the youth voter research institute at the University of Maryland, young African American voter turnout surged 15 points from 2000. And young Latino turnout surged 21 points from 2000.

In fact, young voter turnout for African Americans and Latinos actually exceeded white voters. CIRCLE estimates that 53% of under 30 African Americans and 53% of Latinos voted, while 52% of young white, non-Latinos voted.

This is nothing short of an earthquake. Now, the data is not perfect---it is based on an exit survey. But it is the most reliable data that exists and these are the best estimates that can be made at this time.

CIRCLE also points out that these young people of color account for the large Kerry margin. Young white voters actually favored Bush by 9 points, but young African Americans chose Kerry by 77 points and young Latinos chose Kerry by 18 points.

The underlying demographic trend should cause the political consultants to run for their calculators: The youth electorate has become dramatically more diverse. In 1992, 84% of young voters were white. In 2004, this share declined to 68%. Young Latinos went from 3% of the voting population in 1992 to 13% in 2004. And, to put it bluntly, more minorities means more progressive voters.

What accounted for the dramatic surge among young people of color? We don't really have a scientific answer, but I would put heightened concerns about the war and a possibility of a new military draft at the top of the list---support for the war was always much lower among that group in the first place.

I would also bet that the large national voter registration drives among non-profit and 527 organizations had a huge impact. I heard reports that as much as half of all the voter registrations generated by these groups, many of which focused primarily in minority communities, were from young people. All those millions of dollars had an impact.

But there are more reasons---tell us what you think.

Clearly, the hip hop generation is coming into its own. The politicians had better catch up or they're going to get caught out.

Student leaders taking a stand on Social Security

Social Security is catching on at the campus level. Today, more than 150 student leaders from all 50 states, the student body presidents of colleges and universities across the country, joined together to make a statement about the importance of Social Security and to take a stand against the large increases in debt and deficits, benefit cuts, and safety-net risks that come with privatization.

As one of the student leaders said in releasing the statement, "We're sick of being marginalized and we're sick of people not listening to us."

The students are distributing the statement and the list of signers in Congress today at hearings; students are also meeting with their own representatives back home later this summer.

The student's efforts were supported by the Student PIRGs and the US Student Association.

Props to all these student leaders for taking a stand. You guys rock.

MTV Getting Inside Your Head on Going to College

MTV and the National Association of Governators have been trying to get inside your head about how you have been trying to get to college.

I got a sneak peak over the weekend at a poll being released on Tuesday by the unlikely partners of MTV and the National Governor’s Association. They have teamed up with boy genius Bill Gates to figure out why more young people can’t or don’t attend college.

(You can check out the poll sometime on Tuesday at Think MTV. It will be posted there as soon as it goes public.)

The big focus of the poll is the frustration that so many young people want to go to college yet a big number of those don’t make it for one reason or another. Two big theories on why: 1) That schools could be doing a lot more to prepare potential college students, 2) Good intentions are not enough if the cash isn’t there to pay for it.

The MTV folks and the Governors are calling this the “Ambition Gap.”

What was not surprising in the poll was that the cost of going to college – or lack of money to pay for it – was cited as a big big problem. Specifically, the poll says that of those young people not planning on or not in college, “lack of financial means” is the top reason. 28% volunteered that as the reason, with the next highest answer given being military service (much further down the list at 6%).

Schools seem to be doing okay in the poll, but according to their report, “About one-third cite ‘courses that prepare you for the real world’ as the top item that would most help make their education better.” Makes sense. Its not just money, it knowledge.

On the money side, don’t take your own word for it though. What I mean is, polls are polls and while they can tell us a lot, they shouldn’t become a sole substitute for fact. In this case the two line up.

The number crunchers at The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (an independent advisory group to Congress) did some math at the Department of Education and found that “On average, the very lowest income students face $3,200 of unmet need at two-year public institutions and $3,800 at four-year public institutions.”

By unmet need, they mean that even with good help from family and from financial aid sources, low income students can’t do it. i.e., Access Denied! (the name of the report, which can also be found on their web site). I don’t think things have gotten any better since they first checked this out a few years ago, and I wish they would put the new numbers up on their web site.

So check out the poll at MTV. It is on a new part of their web site dedicated to issues that young people think a lot about. The poll is really big (1,600 young people) with over-samples done for minority youth who tend to be most at risk in between HS and college.

Most importantly though, do something. Congress is battling over whether or not to increase money for student aid. Senator Kennedy (D-MA) won an important amendment to increase funding for Pell Grants, but the Leadership in Congress undid it in a conference committee with the House of Representatives. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Kennedy, and others are leading the fight to get the money back, but your members of congress need to here from you.

You can find out more about this at www.studentaidaction.com. They have some online videos, a goofy cartoon about student debt, and some simple ways to take action. Check it out.

Ivan the Great

I'm quite delighted to announce that we'll have some new contributions to this blog from Ivan Frishberg. I've known Ivan for about as long as I've been involved in politics at the national level. Ivan was the driving force behind the youth vote coalition prior to 2004 and then the highly successful New Voters Project in 2004.

He did all that seemingly in his spare time while fighting for higher education funding at U.S. PIRG as one of the country's top lobbyists for student interests. (I'm sure there's a bunch of things missing from this quick introduction that Ivan will put in his bio when we roll-out our fancy new blog in the coming weeks.)

Ivan's done more than almost anyone I can think of to wield the power of nonprofit political organizations to create public policy solutions for the issues facing young people.

Welcome, Ivan!

Medved Meltdown, Part III

Well, the transcript of the Medved Meltdown is now available, thanks to Media Matters, a media watchdog group. You can listen to the audio file on their website; I'm swiping the transcript and republishing it here. Thanks guys.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention, you can listen to an MP3 of the Medved Meltdown directly by clicking here, courtesy of Media Matters.

I hope you enjoy---I sure did.

-------

From the May 11 edition of The Michael Medved Show:



MEDVED: Fourty-four minutes past the hour on The Michael Medved Show. My question for our guest Hans Riemer. He is with the "I Heart Social Security" campaign of Rock the Vote. It's sort of an alliance of slackers and geezers to try to make sure that we continue bankrupting the country to pay very high and continually rising Social Security benefits. Given the fact that in really a couple years -- we're talking about seven years, it could be that soon -- we will be paying out more in benefits than we are taking in in payroll taxes, where is -- how are you going to continue paying people these promised benefits without either raising the payroll tax or taking more money out of general revenues?

RIEMER: Let me answer that question. But I'd like to just go back to something earlier -- you said that I offered a lie on something. I wanted to read you a quote from the president of the United States. It was reported in ABC News on October 30, 2002: "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace." Now, you accused me of lying for calling that privatization. I don't think that's fair.

MEDVED: No, no, I accused you of lying by saying -- now, if you want to bring it back up again, this doesn't make you look good, sir. What you wrote is: "There are some politicians who want to phase Social Security out." President Bush -- let us acknowledge this, please -- he has never said "I want to get rid of Social Security." He has never said they don't think we should have a Social Security program at all --

RIEMER: But he favors privatization. Would you agree with that?

MEDVED: No! Absolutely not!

RIEMER: Alright, so the quote --

MEDVED: This is a bloody lie! What he was doing is he was not saying --

RIEMER: No -- I am lying now, okay.

MEDVED: Hold on. Hold on.

RIEMER: So even though the president of the United States said, "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace," when I call that privatization, I'm lying?

MEDVED: No -- first of all, you said he favors privatization. He was simply defining privatization there.

RIEMER: Which he favors.

MEDVED: He -- where does he ever say that "I favor privatization"?

RIEMER: His plan allows the individual worker --

MEDVED: What we are talking about, personal, voluntary personal --

RIEMER: -- his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace. That's the definition of his plan.

MEDVED: You know, words sometimes mean something, sir. Private -- managed voluntary personal accounts, optional personal accounts, is not what people call privatization.

RIEMER: That's what the president called privatization.

MEDVED: Well, it's unclear with what you just read.

RIEMER: I think it's crystal clear! "What privatization does is allows the individual worker his or her choice to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace." What could be clearer than that?

MEDVED: All right, first of all, it is clearly not privatization if what you are doing is allowing people to take one-third of the total money they put in. Privatization usually means that, okay, all of a sudden the government doesn't owe you anything anymore, you're going to take care of yourself. And that's not -- that what they -- for instance, like the system they have in Chile. That is not the system that President Bush has proposed, and there is not a single American politician -- and you wouldn't even dare try to name one -- there's not even one politician who has said, "We want to get rid of Social Security."

RIEMER: Well, here's one politician who said this: "Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized."

MEDVED: And who said --

RIEMER: That was Chris Chocola.

MEDVED: Who?

RIEMER: Chris Chocola.

MEDVED: Who is that?

RIEMER: Member of Congress from Indiana.

MEDVED: Chris what?

RIEMER: Chocola, C-O -- C-H-O-C-O-L-A.

MEDVED: Okay, I don't know that particular member of Congress, I'm not even sure he is a member of Congress.

RIEMER: Oh, gosh, give me a break, Michael.

MEDVED: If that's the best you can do --

RIEMER: You're going to dispute that this guy is a member of Congress? I mean, what kind of stuff are you pushing here?

MEDVED: Okay, if that's the best you can do --

RIEMER: That was just exactly what you asked me to do! I'm just coming back to you with a fact.

MEDVED: Okay.

Choco-Who? Choco-What?

Josh Marshall is offering a free PRIVATIZE THIS T-shirt to whoever can get an audio file or a transcript of the Medved Meltdown.

I'll throw in two free tickets to our June 8 after-party!

Update! Jeremy Cluchey is the winner of the afterparty tickets. Nice job Jeremy.

Michael Medved Meltdown, Part II

Michael Medved has to be pretty upset about what happened to him on his own radio show yesterday. Talkingpointsmemo calls it The Medved Meltdown.

My favorite comments here at this blog:

* "Who is this "Medved" that you speak of. I don't believe there's a radio host named 'Medved.'"

* "Hmmm Are you sure it was Medved ? It doesn't sound like one of his shows. He mainly harps on Gay issues"

* "I'm a Republican, and a fan of Michael Medved, and I must say regretfully that I agree with you. Not on social security, as I am for the president's plan; but Michael completely lost it. He is normally a excellent debater, but he completely lost it with you. I don't know if he was ill prepared, or what. I only caught the part of the debate you describe in your blog, but that was all I need."

I'm sure you can come up with something very clever to say to Michael Medved today. Send a little email to Medved and offer to take him out to lunch with Congressman Chris Chocola or something.

UPDATE: I've got a better idea.... call Congressman Chocola's office and leave a message, ask him to call you back---and leave Michael Medved's number.

Chocola: 202 225-3195 CORRECTION 202 225-3915
Medved: 800 955 1776

I'll be trolling the comments for better suggestions... CORRECTION As has been noted, I won't be trolling, rather lurking.... see I'm still getting the hang of this :-)

Michael Medved, twisting in the wind

Today, I went on the Michael Medved radio show for an hour. What a riot.

I'm talking on the show and explaining why I don't think privatization would help young people---He starts hollering about how it is an outright lie that anyone supports "privatization."

This one really gets me going. I don't care what they want to call it. But I just can't stand to hear people yell and accuse me of lying because I refer to private accounts/personal accounts/personal-property accounts/if-you-can't-tell-we-are-messing-with-your-head-by-now-then-you-are-a-complete-idiot accounts as privatization. I mean really.

So anyway, Medved is like, and this is a paraphrase, "you are a liar, you are a liar, President Bush's plan would not privatize Social Security."

So, I read this quote from George W. Bush as reported by ABC News on October 30, 2002: "What privatization does is allows the individual worker - his or her choice - to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace."

I had to read it about 5 times before it sunk in. That is Mr. Bush, describing his own plan, calling in privatization.

So then he starts calling me a liar for saying that there are politicians who want to get rid of Social Security entirely (an accusation that has been made here in the comments at this blog, and where I suspect Medved got the question). He's like, I dare you to name one politician who supports phasing out Social Security. My reaction was, I don't want to get into naming names. But he kept harping on me so I had to dig into my files.

So I read him this quote from Congressman Chris Chocola: "Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized."

At that point, Medved just lost it and started saying that Chocola was not a real Congressman.

Repeat: When confronted with the facts once again he accused me of lying and said he doubted that there was really a member of Congress named Chris Chocola.

Wow.

Store Wars

From our friends at Free Range Graphics:

Meet the heroes of the Organic Rebellion: Cuke Skywalker, Ham Solo and Chewbroccoli. With guidance from wise old Obi Wan Cannoli, this small band of vegetable puppets (yes, vegetable puppets) is battling against Darth Tader, evil lord of the Dark Side of The Farm.

Can Cuke rescue Princess Lettuce and destroy the Death Melon in time? Or will he be seduced by the Dark Side, an empire of pollution and pesticides that has taken over the market with its arsenal of genetic engineering, irradiation and toxic chemicals?

Turn on your speakers and find out at StoreWars.org.

Unlike Star Wars, this battle isn't being fought in galaxy far, far away. It's happening right here, in our local grocery stores, every time we choose between organic and non-organic foods. You can learn more about why organics are better at StoreWars.org.

In the meantime, the Rebellion needs new recruits. So once you’ve watched the movie, please pass it along to your friends!

Where was your voice?

Today we are going to publish a poem sent to us by Maggie Holtz, a tenth grade student at Vincentian Academy-Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Maggie, you are a rockstar.


WHERE WAS YOUR VOICE
By Maggie Holtz

You came to me with desires and dreams
Dreams for your country, the land of the free.
But why did you leave them unspoken?

You spoke to me of injustices and ideas
Ideas on jobs and war, education and taxes.
But why were you silent about all these things that
made up your world?

You told me of your wishes and goals
Goals for your country, the home of the brave.
But why did you let only the brave speak up?

Now you come to me with anger and frustration
Frustration with your country, frustration with yourself.
But now I have just one question for you
Where was your voice?

Prioritize safe return

To follow yesterday's "The real meaning of 'Support the Troops'," it appears basic that young Americans should not be put in harms way unless absolutely necessary and once sent, our troops should be protected as best possible. Their safety should be a priority.

Rock the Vote has been adamant in our support of prioritizing our national spending to meet the needs of young Americans. The point? Hey Pentagon: prioritize shifting some of your funding to armored Humvees and other such life-saving measures.

-- posted by Miles Granderson

The real meaning of "Support the Troops"

Although there are legitimate fears of draft reinstatement, the fact of the matter is that we presently have an all-volunteer armed services. But, what exactly does “all-volunteer” mean?

Clearly, it means everyone in the armed forces signed up for their service. Sure, the young men and women soldiers are disproportionately from lower socioeconomic brackets and are less likely to have college and parental economic support as options. But they all signed up nonetheless.

So, regardless of the circumstances leading to their enlistment, it is undeniable that they put their own John Hancock on the dotted line. Okay, but what is exactly that they were signing up (volunteering) for?

Well, to defend the country of course. To defend all of us against whatever evil forces there may be – and potentially even to defend innocent peoples of other nations who face insurmountable evils. This we know.

But is it also the case that in volunteering, what they are putting their John Hancock on is not just a contract of service, but also a form of implicit social contract as well? The young volunteers of our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are as bright and idealistic as they are brave. They gave their bravery and themselves to the United States of America. That was their end of the contract.

Our end of the contract is to send them in harms way only when necessary (always a difficult term to use in matters of life and death) and only in a manner of utmost responsibility and respect for human life. Although we have had our failings, as a nation we have usually done a good job at holding up our part of the deal. However, it is not so easy in times of such as these when we find ourselves in the aftershock of a terrorist attack, with our armed forces operating at or near capacity in two theatres of war (Iraq and Afghanistan).

According to a New York Times article, Army recruiters are under pressure to loosen the qualifications for enlistment and falsify recruit records to meet the recruitment needs of the wartime force. The article details one recruit who was accepted fresh out of a three-week commitment to a mental hospital. Other recruits have reportedly been instructed on how to hide narcotics from Army eligibility drug tests.

It also appears to be the case that we are not fully upholding our end of the bargain once our troops have been deployed. Dozens (at least) of the more than 1,500 American soldier deaths could have been prevented with better armor on their vehicles.

The bottom line is that the young men and women of the American armed forces are the best in the world. No doubt. They have more than fulfilled their obligation to us, we owe it to them to make sure - that we never overlook the fact that we as a nation have an obligation to them as well – to only send them to war when we have to, to give them what they need to do the job right, and to make damn sure they come back home when their job is done.

--posted by Miles Granderson