Debating the Divine - CAP Event HIGHLIGHTS

Click to Play

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/debating_the_divine.html The iconic public square where Americans of the past used to gather to debate the politics of the day is long gone from most cities and towns, but the spirited conversations that once defi ned these placesboth in myth and factare alive and well today. The topics of our current political and cultural conversations range from the mundane to the profound, but a recurring theme has to do with religion and politicsin particular, whether religion should be a force shaping our public policies and our common civic life. Of course, this is not a new conversation. Contrasting views about the role of religion in public life predate our nations birthfrom the Massachusett s Bay Colony, where officials collected taxes to support the Puritan church and compelled att endance at its services, to the Founders who disestablished religion from the state and drafted the Constitution without mention of God. In recent years, these conversations have been heating up. Invectives fly back and forth as opponents stake out mutually exclusive claims on behalf of truth, fairness, and the American way. Listening to each side, one is hard-pressed to tell whether we are a God-saturated, intolerant, antiintellectual theocracyor a severely secular nation that punishes the practice of religion and banishes God altogether from our laws, policies, and public life. Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy aims to turn down the heat and turn up the light. Because the issue of religion in public life is complex, encompassing theory, history, and practice, we purposely did not set up a narrowly-focused debate in which each side shot at the other, and the side with the fiercest arguments and most adherents won. Instead, we have chosen to examine the many facets of the issue in a thoughtful way, in hopes of finding new insights and, perhaps, common ground.

How to Close Guantanamo - ASK THE EXPERT - CAP's Gude

Click to Play

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/guantanamo.html President George W. Bush is fond of saying that his administration tackles challenges head-on and refuses to leave tough decisions to his successors. No description could be further from the truth when applied to his policy at Guantánamo. Regardless of what happens over these last months of the Bush administration, the next president will inherit a detainee policy in total disarray. Transfers out of Guantánamo have stalled; the easier cases have already been shipped out, leaving a population stabilizing at around 270 detainees. Trials of Guantánamo detainees in Military Commissions are sputtering as the unproven system struggles to get through simple procedural hearings. Future prosecutions have been thrown into doubt as charges were dropped against a detainee once thought to be the 20th hijacker on 9/11 because too much of the evidence against him was obtained through torture. In its third successive decision rebuking the Bush administrations detention policies, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus. This decision will finally allow the detainees to contest the lawfulness of their confinement in a truly impartial hearing before a federal judge, rejecting the Bush administrations contention that Guantánamo existed outside the law. And beyond the prisons walls on the eastern tip of Cuba, serious problems have arisen in Afghanistan as both U.S.- and Afghan-run detention camps are replicating the worst excesses of Guantánamo. One critical conceptual error of the architects of Guantánamo within the Bush administrationan exclusive focus on the threat posed by the detainees themselveshas frustrated the efforts of senior officials like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to overcome the prisons deficiencies. This myopic vision has completely discounted the strategic impact Guantánamo has had on the global security environment. In the Bush administrations paradigm, the risk of transferring or releasing any one detainee is measured only against the potential harm that individual might do if set free, a calculus always tilted in favor of continued detention in cases when doubt exists. In this context, the status quo gives the illusion of perfect security dramatically increasing the burden on those arguing for alternatives to Guantánamo. The reality is that the potential harm from Guantánamo detainees to American interests is not limited to the prospect of violence perpetrated after release. Guantánamo as currently constructed has become a symbol of a rogue American hegemony that disregards the rule of law, even as it uses calls for freedom and democracy as a weapon to assert its influence across the globe. The perpetuation of that symbol does great damage to American interests. Recognizing this new paradigm significantly alters the landscape when considering the future of Guantánamo and strongly favors closing the prison and pursuing alternative regimes for those detainees that require additional imprisonment. Counterintuitively, reaching the threshold decision to close Guantánamo will be the easiest part of cleaning up the catastrophe of U.S. detention policy. The next president will confront numerous obstacles in any effort to make changes at Guantánamo and to all U.S. detention policy, including: overturning the massive current credibility and legitimacy deficit of the United States; satisfying the real security challenges posed by some the detainees and respecting legitimate anxieties and fears about future acts of terrorism; building a far greater level of international cooperation, because even though this is an American problem, the United States cannot solve it on its own; deciding who among the Guantánamo detainees should stand trial, which trial venue is most appropriate, and what evidence can be used in those trials; and finding a new home for those detainees that are not going to be tried.

What is SUSTAINABLE SECURITY? CAP's Gayle Smith

Click to Play

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/sustainable_security.html That much of the world has lost faith in America bodes ill for our national security because our role in the world is secured not simply by our military power or economic clout, but also by our ability to compel other nations to follow our lead. The next president will have the opportunity to craft a modern national security strategy that can equip the United States to lead a majority of capable, democratic states in pursuit of a global common gooda strategy that can guide a secure America that is the worlds champion for all of us. But positioning America to lead in a 21st century world will take more than extending a hand to our allies, fixing a long list of misdirected policies, or crafting a new national security strategy that is tough but also smart. With globalization providing the immutable backdrop to our foreign policy, America is today competing on a global playing field that is more complex, dynamic, and interdependent and thus far less certain than in the past. Leading in this new world will require a fundamental shift from our outdated notion of national security to a more modern concept of sustainable securitythat is, our security as defined by the contours of a world gone global and shaped by our common humanity. Sustainable security combines three approaches: * National security, or the safety of the United States * Human ƒsecurity, or the well-being and safety of people * Collective ƒsecurity, or the shared interests of the entire world Sustainable security, in short, can shape our continued ability to simultaneously prevent or defend against real-time threats to America, reduce the sweeping human insecurity around the world, and manage long term threats to our collective, global security. This new approach takes into account the many (and ongoing) changes that have swept our planet since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union.

Ante Up for Africa - Las Vegas Poker Tournament for Darfur

Click to Play

http://www.anteupforafrica.org/ http://www.enoughproject.org/ The ENOUGH! Project to stop Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity is once again partnering for the 2nd annual Ante Up for Africa, No Limit Texas Hold-Em Tournament in association with the World Series of Poker. Proceeds from the event will once again go to charities that provide aid and assistance to the survivors of the crisis in Darfur, Sudan and support activism dedicated to resolving this crisis. Last year we raised over $700,000 and hope to exceed that this year on July 2nd at 2pm at the WSOP® in the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino. The situation in Darfur, although improved in some ways since our tournament last year, continues to be perilous. Government forces in Sudan embarked upon a campaign of ethnic cleansing that has to date resulted in 400,000 dead and almost 4 million people displaced, living in squalor in refugee camps on the Chad/Sudan border. Deployment of peacekeeping troops has been authorized but helicopters and other supplies are needed to make this a reality. A new U.S. envoy has begun high level talks with the Sudanese government and the International Criminal Court has indicted two top Sudanese officials with more indictments expected to come so pressure is definitely mounting. Last year companies were just beginning to divest themselves of holdings in those entities doing business with Sudan. Now, among others, Berkshire Hathaway and Fidelity have sold all of their holdings in companies that do business there. This is tens of millions of dollars of divestiture. Also 22 states in the U.S. have passed laws barring their pension funds from investing in companies doing business in Sudan. Other states, including Nevada, have initiatives pending to accomplish the same thing. Our hope is that through efforts like Ante Up For Africa, we can continue to keep the issue in the spotlight while providing real funds to support the efforts of peacekeepers and aid workers on the ground.

Conservatives Dominate Talk Radio - CAP's Palmieri on FNC

Click to Play

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html Despite the dramatic expansion of viewing and listening options for consumers today, traditional radio remains one of the most widely used media formats in America. Arbitron, the national radio ratings company, reports that more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet. Although listening hours have declined slightly in recent years, Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006. Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week. Conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format: * Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive. * Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk. * A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago. This dynamic is repeated over and over again no matter how the data is analyzed, whether one looks at the number of stations, number of hours, power of stations, or the number of programs. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast. These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format, but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

Bruce Schneier on Identification & I.D. Security

Click to Play

Bruce Schneier is the chief security technology officer of BT. An internationally renowned security technologist, he is referred to by The Economist as a "security guru." He is the author of eight books, including the best sellers Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World, Secrets and Lies, and Applied Cryptography, as well as hundreds of academic articles and papers, and the influential Blowfish and Twofish encryption algorithms. Best known as a refreshingly candid and lucid security critic and commentator, his influential newsletter "Crypto-Gram," and his blog "Schneier on Security," are read by over 250,000 people. He has testified before Congress on several occasions, and has served on several government technical committees. He is a prolific writer and lecturer, and his essays have been published in national and international publications. He is a frequent guest on television and radio, and is regularly quoted in the press on issues surrounding security and privacy.

Identity & Biometrics - Bruce Schneier at CAP

Click to Play

http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2008/06/progressive.html Security of personal information is also a concern of identification and authentication systems. No ID system can be more secure than the breeder documents used to get that ID, says Bruce Schneier. If a birth certificate is used to obtain an ID card, the ID itself cannot be more reliable than the birth certificate, because that is the breeder document. It was easy for the September 11 terrorists to obtain authentic IDs from the DMV by bribing a DMV clerk. If the issuance procedures have flawsand they all willthat will hurt security.

Domestic Partner Benefits for Federal Employees - HIGHLIGHTS

Click to Play

In 1997 President Bill Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a 20-month politically divisive battle, Secretary Albright swore in Ambassador Hormel. Two years later, in 2001, President Bush nominated Michael Guest to be ambassador to Romania. While there was no battle for confirmation, what both ambassadors had to cope with was an inequitable system that treated them and their committed partners differently under the law. Federal Employees, whether in the foreign service or working in a regional office of HHS, are denied the ability to purchase domestic partner benefits. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 2521 and H.R. 4838) would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for same sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits. By offering health benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, employment practices in the federal government would be in line with those of Americas largest and most successful corporations, including AT&T, General Motors, and Raytheon. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen Gordon Smith, Rep Tammy Baldwin and others appeared at a June 11, 2008 event at the Center for American Progress (CAPAF) to discuss the current policy and the future.

Lationos and the Electorate -- ASK THE EXPERT

Click to Play

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/cardenas_video.html Why do politicians need to start paying attention to Latinos? And what are the biggest issues facing Latino voters right now? Vanessa Cardenas of the Center for American Progress answers these questions in the latest installment of CAP's ASK THE EXPERT series.

The ID Divide - HIGHLIGHTS

Click to Play

http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2008/06/ID_Divide_Release.html This spring, 12 nuns were turned away from voting booths during the Indiana presidential primary because they lacked state identification (none of them drove). This was a stark reminder that the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld Indiana's voter ID law poses lasting consequences for our democracy. This issue of voter identification is just one of the identification issues addressed in a major new report by Cassandra Butts and Peter Swire: "The ID Divide: Addressing Problems of Identification and Authentication in American Society." Much like the "digital divide," the ID Divide is an easily overlooked but vital reality that affects many in our country. Over 20 million adult citizens lack government-issued photo ID, while victims of identity theft and those put on watch lists also fall on the wrong side of the divide. Badly-designed new ID programs, furthermore, may well impose large costs on ordinary citizens, including raising the risk of identity theft. The report stems from the Progressive Identity Project, which included experts in the many areas affected by identification issues: national and homeland security, immigration, voting rights, electronic health records, computer security, and privacy and civil liberties. The report proposes six new Progressive Principles for Identification, and sets forth a comprehensive approach for how the next administration should address issues of identification and authentication. Featured Panelists: Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute Bruce Schneier, Founder and Chief Technology Officer, BT Counterpane Peter P. Swire, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; C. William ONeill Professor at the Moritz College of Law of the Ohio State University Tova A. Wang, Vice President for Research, Common Cause Moderated by: Cassandra Q. Butts, Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy, Center for American Progress

Young People & The Economy - ASK THE EXPERT

Click to Play

How do young people think about the economy? What separates young people's views from those of older generations? What role will young peoples economic views play in the elections? Amanda Logan of the Center for American Progress answers these questions in the latest installment of CAP's ASK THE EXPERT series.