RADICAL RUSH
"Another world is possible"

Radical Rush will be a week long tabling event by progressive campus organizations. Its purpose is to raise the visibility of activism by bringing students and activists on campus together. It is a way to creatively connect people to ideas and access to movements for social change. Radical Rush will be held on Monday, Sept. 12 through Friday, Sept. 16 in the NCSU Brickyard.
Week of Events:

9/12: Celebrate Human Rights:
-Join ACLU, Codepink, Public Assembly and Campus Greens to discuss & learn about your rights!
(topics include: the patriot act, war, occupation, and social justice!)
-Memorial Umbrellas and other displays will be located @ the Brickyard

9/13: Sustainability:
-Join Students for Sustainable Energy, SPARC and Campus greens to discover sustainable lifestyle choices!
(topics include: alternative energy!, nutrition, transportation, and more!)

9/14: Women & Gender Issues Day:
-Join wolfpackNOW, NARAL, and BGLA for information on feminism & gender issues, and to celebrate Margaret Sanger's birthday!
(topics include: birth control, feminism, the supreme court, and gay, lesbian, bi, and trans
issues)

9/15: Activism & Organization Information:
-Join Campus Greens in the brickyard to read books from the activist library, and play games!
(games include: The Wheel of Wealth distribution, Imperialism Twister, and Social Welfare
Monopoly!!)
- Camp Casey Bus Tour: Cindy Sheehan will be joined by other Camp Casey Tour members to discuss "How Do We Get Out of Iraq?"
(8:00-9:30pm "An Evening With Cindy," @ The McKimmon Center, NC State University,
1101 Gorman Street, Raleigh, NC; sponsored by the NC Peace & Justice Coalition, hosted by
NCSU Campus Greens)
9/16: RAD FEST!!
-Celebrating the possibility of another world.
(more food, fun, games and a really really free market!)
-3pm Bike Ride, meet in the brickyard!


**Every day there will be a place in the brickyard to bring donated
supplies for Katrina Relief. (Needed supplies include, but are not
limited to: baby food/formula, feminine products, toiletries, diapers,
etc.)

*Each night around 9pm, if weather permits, join us in the brickyard for
film screenings!

9/11/2005 3:54:09 PM

CAN THE FIRST MOVIE BE A MICHAEL MOORE FLICK???

9/11/2005 3:55:04 PM

Quote :

"and to celebrate Margaret Sanger's birthday!"

Yaaay! Let's celebrate her birthday by "exterminating the Negro population"!!!!

9/11/2005 3:55:08 PM

^ Sounds like something the Republican Party of Georgia would approve of. Don't forget to propose that at your next meeting.

9/11/2005 3:56:44 PM

^^OMG she is so evil because she had a sex collumn and was for the availability of birth control

Fucking die asshole.

9/11/2005 3:58:35 PM

Um no, she was evil because she was a racist and advocated exterminating the Negro population and was a eugenicist. Why are you so biased that you cannot even listen honestly to what another person is saying without drawing dishonest and unwarranted conclusions?

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 4:00 PM. Reason : why]

9/11/2005 4:00:06 PM

Anachronism.

9/11/2005 4:00:59 PM

You need to start being honest. Until you can start being honest a discussion with you can go no further.

9/11/2005 4:02:06 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:05:33 PM

Seriously, I hate to agree with Wolfpack2k, but as I understand it she was very much in favor of the mandatory sterilization or segregation of blacks and asians. She did a lot of good for women's health in general, but she did some really rotten stuff as well.

9/11/2005 4:06:16 PM

yes, but that is anachronistic. We are placing our morals on a time when eugenics was the status quo. shit, the state of north carolina partook in eugenics until the 1970s

9/11/2005 4:08:30 PM

"everyone else was doing it..."

9/11/2005 4:09:07 PM

anachronisms. You need to really read up on historical research.

9/11/2005 4:09:57 PM

On May 5, 1997, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial piece titled "The Repackaging of Margaret Sanger," by Steven Mosher, vice president for international affairs of Human Life International, an anti-abortion group based in Front Royal, Virginia. Mosher objected to a Planned Parenthood award named for Margaret Sanger that was given to "The Dying Rooms," a BBC documentary on China's state-run orphanages. While Mosher praised the documentary (in which he appeared), he was "personally offended" that the award bore the name Margaret Sanger, someone he claimed had "contempt for the Asiatic races." He went on to attack Sanger for what he called her "bigotry," "racist views," and her associations with eugenicists. In doing so, he misappropriated several Sanger quotations, highlighted seemingly inflammatory Sanger comments without providing any context, and indicted her for the words and deeds of several prominent eugenicists who supported birth control.

The Mosher piece is typical of many anti-Sanger letters-to-the-editor written by representatives of anti-choice groups that have appeared over the past few years whenever Sanger is mentioned in the context of an article on Planned Parenthood or contraception. In fact, the Mosher piece and many others like it borrow freely from anti-Sanger materials that have been in circulation for at least twenty years, including an offensive little pamphlet entitled Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society written by Elasah Drogin, a Catholic nun. The pamphlet, written in 1979, "exposes" Sanger as a eugenicist, racist and war-monger, but is most intent on proving her a sexual maniac with insatiable desires. It displays a portrait of Sanger on its cover, her head rising up above a modern metropolis, war planes swirling above her and a Nazi prison camp in the foreground. While this is one of the more absurd examples of anti-Sanger material in circulation, the Drogin pamphlet and most other attacks from anti-choice groups rely on the same small group of Sanger documents over and over again, including letters she wrote in the late 1930s to birth control movement contributors and black leaders expressing her concern that blacks living in the South would view her "Negro Project" as an attempt to limit their race. For instance she wrote to philanthropist Clarence Gamble in 1939: The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the [Birth Control] Federation [of America] as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. (MS to Clarence Gamble, MSM S17:574). Anti-choice groups attempting to discredit Sanger frequently extract the line "we don't want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" without offering context or intelligent explanation.

Such written attacks on Sanger often fail to divulge the author's identity and real agenda. In the case of the Wall Street Journal piece readers are not told that Mosher is part of an extremely conservative Roman Catholic organization that not only opposes abortion and the work of PPFA, but strongly opposes contraception as well. Human Life International accepts only "natural" family planning, the "one [method] worthy of the dignity of man," according to an article on the organization's web page (see http://www.hli.org). It is clear from this Internet site that HLI's goal is to undermine the PPFA and international family planning, by attacking Sanger, who it portrays as the ideological foundation of the pro-choice and family planning movements.

The Margaret Sanger Papers Project has chosen not to respond to most such attacks against Sanger, even when they misuse or ignore the documentary record, as it is nearly impossible to offer point-by-point corrections and clarifications to the countless misquotations and misrepresentations of the historical record that appear in newspaper articles around the country.

In this instance, MSPP editor and director Esther Katz thought it necessary to respond to the Wall Street Journal because of the prestige and large circulation of the paper. She based her response on a close reading of the documents in question, offering more complete extractions of Sanger's writings. "The textual evidence reveals," she wrote, "that Sanger did not rationalize her support for birth control on racist grounds, that she never advocated genocidal policies aimed at racial, ethnic or religious groups, and that she, in fact, believed access to birth control would benefit, not eliminate minority populations."

Alexander Sanger, the president of Planned Parenthood of New York City, Sanger's grandson and member of the MSPP advisory board, also sent a reply to the Journal, emphasizing Sanger's commitment to helping all women "regardless of race or nationality," and highlighting her egalitarian language and phrases such as "Let every child be a wanted child."

The frequent misuse of historical resources on Sanger is further evidence for the need to provide a complete, accurate and accessible edition of her papers. There is certainly a credible, well-researched body of scholarship that argues persuasively that Sanger naively or carelessly accepted too much of the racist and nativist rhetoric that characterized early twentieth century eugenics. These writings are the product of good faith efforts that rely on the proper use of historical resources and a comprehensive understanding of Sanger's life. They further a valuable ongoing discussion about a highly controversial figure. Sanger's writings should be the subject of intelligent debate rather than an opportunity for preconceived distortion.

As Dr. Katz noted in her published response, "I certainly do not challenge Mr. Mosher's right to hold any view he wants on the issue of abortion or population control, but as a historian I take issue with his gross misuse of historical sources to support those views."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_margaret_sanger.htm

9/11/2005 4:10:24 PM

and you need to start behing honest. Especially if you want people to pay any attention to you or respond to anything you have to say.

9/11/2005 4:10:26 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:11:17 PM

It wasn't a discussion, it was an admonition. Pay attention.

9/11/2005 4:13:37 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:14:06 PM

oh, and wolfpack, you might want to check this out on thursday:

STILL MARCHING FOR WOMEN'S LIVES: ATTACKS ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

At the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Hitchcock Multipurpose Room
Sept. 15th, 2005, 6:00 pm

Panelists and talks:
Loretta J. Ross, National Coordinator of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective

"History of Women of Color and Reproductive Rights"

Carole Joffe, Professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis

"Is The Right Overreaching? Current Attacks on Reproductive Health"

Co-sponsors:
Feminist Students United (FSU), UNC, Chapel Hill; Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History, UNC, Chapel Hill; Department of Sociology, UNC, Chapel Hill; Curriculum in Women's Studies, UNC, Chapel Hill; Choice USA, UNC, Chapel Hill; Women's and Gender Studies Program,
North Carolina State University; Africana Women's Studies Program, Bennett College for Women; African and African American Studies Program, Duke University; Sociologists for Women in Society; Ipas; NARAL Pro-choice North Carolina; Latina Advocacy Network of North Carolina; and El Pueblo.

***********
Loretta J. Ross is the National Coordinator of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective. In 2004, she was National Co-Director of the April 25, 2004 March for Women's Lives in Washington D.C., the largest protest march in U.S. history. From 1996-2004, she was the Founder and Executive Director of the National Center for Human Rights Education in Atlanta, Georgia. Ms. Ross was one of the first African American women to direct the first rape crisis center in the United States in the 1970s. From 1985 to 1989, she served as the Director of Women of
Color Programs for the National Organization for Women, organizing the first national conference on Women of Color and Reproductive Rights in 1987. In addition to her articles, she is the co-author of the book Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organizing for Reproductive Justice, published by South End Press in 2004. She is currently writing a book on reproductive rights entitled Black Abortion.

Carole Joffe is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis, and a Visiting Professor at the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at the University of California, San Francisco. She is the author of the books Doctors of Conscience: the struggle to provide abortion before Roe v Wade, and The Regulation of Sexuality: Experiences of Family Planning Workers, as well as numerous articles on reproductive health and reproductive rights in academic and popular journals. She won the 2004 Excellence in Education Award, presented by the California Chapter of the National organization for Women (NOW) and the 2005 Feminist Activist Award presented by Sociologists for Women in Society.

9/11/2005 4:20:02 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:20:29 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:21:28 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:22:25 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:23:26 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:24:30 PM

Quote :

"I do not engage in discussions with people who are name calling. Sorry, I can't help you."

9/11/2005 4:28:47 PM

Quote :

"yes, but that is anachronistic. We are placing our morals on a time when eugenics was the status quo. shit, the state of north carolina partook in eugenics until the 1970s"

What?!?

Back in the day everyone did it so it was OK then but it isn't now unless we all start doing it because then it will be OK again?

Moral relativism = a great steaming pile of ass

9/11/2005 6:01:14 PM

Quote :

"STILL MARCHING FOR WOMEN'S LIVES: ATTACKS ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS"

what about the reproductive rights of those murdered unborn children?

9/11/2005 6:03:48 PM

They can have abortions too, they'll just need to submit a written request and have it mailed out of the womb

9/11/2005 6:11:29 PM

^^i dont know. ask them.

9/11/2005 10:15:33 PM

Quote :

"9/12: Celebrate Human Rights:"

I'm enjoying my private property rights just fine, thank you.

9/11/2005 10:23:43 PM

property rights != human rights

9/12/2005 12:58:00 PM

lonesnark supports indentured servitude and cruel and unusual punishment (ie: the rack and starvation)

9/12/2005 1:18:37 PM

more evidence that we're going to hell in this country...

are you aware that code pink donated money to help IRAQI civilians, who in turn let the money slip into the hands of TERRORISTS?

I bet you wouldnt protest radical Islam, BUT YOULL SURE AS HELL PROTEST CHRISTIANS

9/12/2005 1:31:26 PM

i cut out the middleman and just buy gas

9/12/2005 1:40:35 PM

This is why I don't give money to the University, they represent none of my ideals especially by having Cindy Sheehan come to this campus. Phil Donahue speaking at my graduation fuck that.

9/12/2005 2:47:01 PM

DID YOU NO THAT THE LEFTWATCHDIECHRISTIAN.ORG FOUNDER BOUGHT FOOD FROM A ISMAIC BAKESALE AND COOKIES WERE MADE BY THE GREAT AUNT OF THE FRIEND OF ONE OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS AND HE ONCE GAVE THE HIJACKER $5 FOR A TAXI SEVEN YEARS AGO?!?!?

9/12/2005 2:49:48 PM

I swung by and learned several interesting things:

1) The ACLU's membership includes primarily elementary school students who were asked to complete a sentence very much like this one:

"When I hear about civilian and military authorities allowing the use of torture and saying that the Geneva Conventions it makes me feel _____________"

My two favorite responses were:

"Affraid" (sic)
"I feel sad" (as in, "it makes me feel I feel sad")

2) The United States has been supporting the Geneva Conventions for about half a century longer than they've been around.

3) The ACLU loves all 9 ammendments to the Bill of Rights, which are apparently numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. (Wait for it...)

9/12/2005 4:05:45 PM

wait... this rad rush thing is real??? ahaha i thought it was posted as a joke....

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 4:12 PM. Reason : er]

9/12/2005 4:11:49 PM

1) You'll have to forgive my Russian friend. He is not the best speller of English.

2) i'm sorry i was not there to straighten it out, especially considering the topic. who told you that we supported the GC since 1814?

3) "IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 "
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

according to them, gun control is not against the constitution; which leads them to believe that the gov't is NOT infringing upon the 2nd amendment.

Damn, i wish i was out there instead of doing fucking homework.

PS: you should come to our meeting tonight at 6:00 in Talley.

9/12/2005 4:18:11 PM

1) I WILL FORGIVE NOTHING!

2) Actually, I'm sorry, I should've been more specific. The specific reference had to do with the distinction between combatant/noncombatant. That was the one that a sign at y'all's little stand proclaimed had been around for "a century," which apparently now means 56 years.

3) Uh...I guess I appreciate that you're reinforcing my point, which is that the ACLU loves the whole Bill of Rights, except for that one that you guys try to hide like the identity of an ugly girl you once hooked up with.

9/12/2005 4:25:16 PM

1. so it's you who runs the parole system!

2. i'll educate him personally, if that makes you feel any better (which i know it doesn't)

3. WELL IF YOU'D SEEN HER, YOU WOULD TOO.

I don't see how the fact that the ACLU doesn't interpret gun registration a violation of civil liberties means they don't care about the 2nd amendment at all.

9/12/2005 4:50:04 PM

i have a question for the ACLU and these other "kids" groups:

Why is it that you are so ready to attack "radical" christianity here in the us, but you feel no need to attack radical ISLAM? WHY ARENT YOU PROTESTING RADICAL ISLAM INSTEAD OF CHRISTIANITY?

9/12/2005 5:40:01 PM

because they're the AMERICAN civil liberties union, and radical islam doesn't really have much of a domestic foothold


i'm not saying that they don't have a political agenda well beyond the scope of being a watchdog group, but my point stands.

9/12/2005 5:43:34 PM

ok, maybe not the ACLU, but liberal groups in general that dislike christianity but are so willing to stand up for islam?

9/12/2005 5:57:47 PM

Because there aren't Islamic politicians trying to insert Islamic law into our government.

Nor are they trying to impede our civil liberties.

And how exactly should the ACLU go about suing terrorists?


Not to mention that the ACLU defends all groups.

9/12/2005 6:29:57 PM

Quote :

"yes, but that is anachronistic. We are placing our morals on a time when eugenics was the status quo."

Oh bullshit. Morality changes, sure, but it's never set in stone and are always many views out there. You're insulting the voices of the past by assuming they're all saying the same thing. Then, as now, folks disagreed about basically everything.

Assuming everyone was cool with eugenics in Sanger is time is silly. After WWII, for example, eugenics took a huge hit in popularity...

9/12/2005 6:54:17 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how the fact that the ACLU doesn't interpret gun registration a violation of civil liberties means they don't care about the 2nd amendment at all."

Well, all I'm saying is, they don't seem to mind any gun legislation out there, nor do they mind "interpreting" several other ammendments as they personally see fit.

9/12/2005 7:29:18 PM

9/12/2005 7:36:42 PM

^ Partisan lines aside, I thought that pic was hilarious!

P.S. The text on the side of the pic reads "HUSTLER Parody. Not a real ad. Here's what Rush really said about illicit drug use on October 5, 1995: 'Too many whites are getting away with drug use... the answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river too.' We completely agree!"

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 10:41 AM. Reason : Side of pic text]

9/13/2005 10:37:01 AM

Sup dogfucker.

9/13/2005 11:31:37 AM