Ruth Stevens offers the McGill community a positive spin on our election:

let’s keep in mind that not all the news was bad. There were really great things about the 2004 U.S. election, like Jon Stewart and Barack Obama. I find that when the rage towards those darn red states gets to be too much, it’s very helpful to just close my eyes and picture the two of them making out. Try it and see! Tell your other angry friends from Toronto! Don’t hate, fantasize!

Last year’s Nobel Peace Prize Laureate calls for robust freedom of expression in this country for authors from other ones:

Since 1979, when I was removed from the judiciary after clerics ruled that women were too “emotional” to be judges, I have been defending women, children and human rights advocates as an independent lawyer. I learned, sometimes in the face of tragedy, that the written word is often the most powerful – and only – tool that we have to protect those who are powerless. Many of my cases have placed me in opposition to hard-liners in our government. I have been harassed, threatened and jailed for defending human rights and pursuing justice for victims of violence: most recently when I led the legal team representing the family of Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist who was killed in July 2003 while in detention in Tehran. (She had been arrested for taking photographs of the families of political prisoners outside the notorious Evin prison.) I cannot publish my memoir in Iran. The book would either be banned altogether or censored to such an extent that it would be rendered useless. Publishing my book in the United States would involve risk and repercussions for me back in Iran. I believe, however, that the message of the book is so important that I will happily accept the risk and its possible consequences. If even people like me – those who advocate peace and dialogue – are denied the right to publish their books in the United States with the assistance of Americans, then people will seriously question the view of the United States as a country that advocates democracy and freedom everywhere. What is the difference between the censorship in Iran and this censorship in the United States? Is it not better to encourage a dialogue between Iranians and the American public?

In a move which surprised no one, Colin Powell is moving on, along with Paige, Abraham, and Veneman:

In his remarks, Mr. Powell said that he intended to remain active in carrying out his diplomatic duties until his last day, noting that “we have to make sure that we continue to pursue the global war against terror, we have to consolidate the very significant gains we’ve seen in Afghanistan, and we have to make sure we defeat this insurgency in Iraq.”…In that letter, Mr. Powell also expressed satisfaction that he had been part of administration efforts that “brought the attention of the world to the problem of proliferation, reaffirmed our alliances, adjusted to the post-cold war world and undertook major initiatives to deal with the problem of poverty and disease in the developing world.”…The secretary further said that the Bush administration needed to continue working on “strengthening our alliances,” particularly in Asia, “to find a solution to the North Korean nuclear program.” And referring to Iran’s nuclear program and the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. Powell also counseled that “we have to work with our European Union friends and with the I.A.E.A. to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear program.” Elsewhere, he went on, “the president also has an active agenda with respect to trade – open trade, with respect to the Millennium Challenge Account, development funding, going after H.I.V./AIDS, building on the partnerships and alliances that we have around the world.”…Later, after meeting with Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Silvan Shalom, Mr. Powell said he would press hard in his remaining days in office for a lasting Middle East peace. “We’re going to keep moving forward,” Mr. Powell said. “It’s the president’s policies that are being pushed and implemented, not Colin Powell’s.”

Of course, it was always the President’s policies that were being pushed, not Colin Powell’s, contrary to the enduring, if unjustified, hopes of some on the left. We’re likely to hear from some over the next few days that the administration’s foreign policy will get really unhinged now that Powell isn’t there to be a voice of reason any longer. To them I’d say: Where have you been the past four years? The sad truth is that every time Powell made a policy statement deviating from the Bush Doctrine, someone else was sent out to retract it soon after. And those occasions were the exceptions. Colin Powell was the friendly face of nasty policy for four years, and unfortunately seems to have had some success selling ideas, like Iraqi WMD, to those who otherwise would have been more skeptical. Either he wrongly believed in that nasty policy, or he didn’t and wrongly stayed on anyway. I suspect it’s closer to the former than many seem to have assumed. Either way, let’s hope Condoleeza Rice, who no one I know on the left has ever imagined secretly agrees with them on anything, is less successul selling four more years on militarism and brinksmanship.

The National Coalition for the Homeless names the meanest cities in America:

This 2004 report finds Little Rock (AR), Atlanta (GA), Cincinnati (OH), Las Vegas (NV), and Gainesville (FL) to be the top five “meanest” cities in the United States for poor and homeless people. California is the “meanest” state, followed by Florida, Hawaii and Texas. Many of these communities have significant histories of violating the civil rights of homeless people and can be considered “repeat offenders.” Michael Stoops, Director of Community Organizing for the National Coalition for the Homeless, said, “There needs to be an end to the patterns of discrimination we have seen repeated in many of these cities, year after year.” In May 2004, Little Rock police implemented a 3-day notice warning in advance to clearing a camp. Police had targeted at least 27 homeless areas to force campers to clear out, and yet, only two months later in July of 2004, police raided a homeless camp during the day without notice, postings, or warrants and arbitrarily threw homeless people’s property into the nearby river. Conducting sweeps of areas where homeless people are living not only extensively opens the City up to potential lawsuits, but also actually does nothing to solve the underlying problems of homelessness. Soon, Little Rock public officials are threatening a massive sweep to remove homeless people as the Clinton Presidential Library opens on November 18.

The city of Fresno, California, authorized the construction of a barbed wire topped public “drunk tank,” where people can be put on public display. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, a homeless person was arrested for “dancing in the street.” Tampa, Florida, arrested individuals for serving food to homeless people. Atlanta’s Ambassador Force, assisted by police, operates a “Wake Up Atlanta” team to roust homeless people from any public or private space and arrest them if there is a delay. And in the past year, the state of Hawaii passed a law that bans homeless individuals from living on all public property.

Matt looks for the positive in the emergence of mandatory creationism in our home state:

It’s kind of refreshing to remember that I’m not one of those elite New England sons-of-bitches…

Me neither…

Raise your hand if this makes you feel safer:

The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources. “The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House,” said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. “Goss was given instructions … to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president’s agenda.”

One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA’s most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss’ chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow. But the former senior CIA official said that the White House “doesn’t want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out.” He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet. Another recently retired top CIA official said he was unsure Kappes had “officially resigned, but I do know he was unhappy.”

Canadian clergy take the Church up on its declared support for the right to organize:

The Canadian Auto Workers union has agreed to help unionize stressed-out United Church of Canada ministers who claim parishioners are mistreating them. The organizing drive began Friday in Ontario, where about 30 per cent of the church’s clergy preach, and will later extend to the other provinces. The church says it doesn’t oppose unionization. Ministers say the pressures and challenges they face on the job can sometimes be considered abusive, and complain that their wages are comparable to sweatshop workers when overtime is figured in. They also believe that the church’s leadership doesn’t deal with problems adequately. A United Church minister’s yearly salary starts at $30,000. David Galston, a United Church minister in Hamilton, Ont., says a lack of support for those who speak out against the abuse is one of the biggest problems. “If I did speak out, I would know that the courts of my church, the United Church of Canada, would not stand behind me. They would leave me alone, dangling in the wind,” he said. “And that’s the situation for several clergy right at the moment. They have nobody to support them.”

The YDN joins the call for progressive financial aid reform:

Yale should not just catch up to its peer institutions when it comes to financial aid, but surpass them. To do so, the University must commit to reducing and eventually eliminating both the family and student contributions from its neediest students. This next step will be an expensive endeavor, but it is one Yale should make a priority. In part, the issue is one of fairness: As it currently stands, the system is inherently inequitable. If your parents can afford a Yale education, congratulations — you can spend your time at Yale however you choose. If not, you must balance your classes and your life outside of school with a job or else take on debt. But reducing the burden on students who receive financial aid does far more than help those recipients. It makes Yale a better place. If ever a student chooses Princeton or Harvard because he believes those schools are more affordable, we all lose. We lose those students who were admitted precisely because they could make a contribution to life on campus that goes well beyond what they could earn in a summer job. We lose the opportunity to create a more diverse campus, one where students from prep schools and underfunded public schools are more equally represented. And we lose the chance to create a University that definitively states that students of modest means will be treated the same as those who grow up amidst privilege. Eliminating required contributions from Yale’s neediest students and their families would be a bold statement. But when it comes to financial aid, it may well be Yale’s turn to be bold.

The YDN records some choice moments from last night’s Open Forum with President Levin:

Yale President Richard Levin held court in an open forum with students and city residents Wednesday evening to discuss issues ranging from the University’s voluntary monetary contribution to the city to Yale’s financial aid policy…Several members of the New Haven Student Fair Share Coalition called on Levin to increase the University’s voluntary contributions to the city as a compensation for the property tax revenue New Haven loses due to the University’s tax-exemption status. Currently, the state legislature compensates the city for part of the lost revenue, leaving a portion unpaid. But the coalition is calling on Yale to donate money to fill this gap. Levin said the coalition’s proposal could influence the state legislature to cut back its current compensation to the city. “We’ve divorced what we’re going to do from property taxes,” Levin said, noting that the assessed value of Yale’s property does not influence the University’s contributions to the city. Levin also mentioned the University’s role in funding projects that benefit New Haven, such as the new police station on Ashmun Street, behind Swing Space, which will contain facilities for community programs.

In response to questioning, Levin defended Yale’s financial aid program. “We have not quite made the aggressive moves that Harvard and Princeton have, but we are significantly more generous than anyone else,” Levin said. Levin said Harvard’s plan to eliminate parental contributions from families with yearly incomes of under $40,000 would only save such families about $500. He called Princeton’s elimination of student loans “a PR move,” because Princeton did not actually change the amount students have to contribute to their financial aid packages. Levin said Yale, on the other hand, actually reduced the amount of student contributions by about one-third several years ago. Another student asked Levin about the lack of gender and ethnic diversity among faculty. While Levin said the University had made considerable strides in improving the faculty gender ratio, he said increasing ethnic and racial diversity is still a difficult task. Levin said it is challenging to attract minorities away from more lucrative non-academic careers. “The number of candidates has been falling for 20 years,” Levin said. “The pool is very small.”

Yasir Arafat’s body reaches Cairo before tomorrow’s funeral as Palestinian leadership shifts:

Hours after the death of Yasir Arafat this morning, the Palestinian leadership quickly filled its top posts. Palestinians contended with the loss of an erratic, iconic figure who led them from a splintered diaspora to the threshold of a state and left them trapped there, divided over the way ahead and in danger of fragmenting once again. Mr. Arafat died at 75 of an undisclosed illness in a Paris hospital, far from the torn land he longed to rule and barred by Israel from the city, Jerusalem, that he envisioned as his capital and burial place…

In a prepared step, the executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization replaced Mr. Arafat as chairman with Mahmoud Abbas, a pragmatic negotiator and, unlike Mr. Arafat, a critic of the armed uprising against Israel, the Intifada. But the ambiguity and uncertainty that are part of Mr. Arafat’s conflicted legacy were on sharp display in scenes of grief, resignation and anger throughout the West Bank and Gaza. As burning tires and garbage cast a bitter pall over Ramallah and an Israeli surveillance drone buzzed overhead, some Palestinians spoke of a yearning for peace and accommodation with Israel. But masked, hatchet-wielding young men also invoked Mr. Arafat as they spray-painted fiery slogans in black on downtown walls.

The time is long overdue not just for new faces, but for new leadership on both sides.