SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 16 2012, 02:24pm EDT
Contact:
Carolyn Eisenberg
Department of History
347-743-8401, hiscze@aol.com
Martin Melkonian
Department of Economics
516-741-4360, Martin.Melkonian@Hofstra.edu
Debra Goodman
Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership
516-505-5062, Debra.goodman@hofstra.edu
Hofstra Faculty and Staff Call for "Real Debate" on Poverty, Peace and Human Rights
Statement by Long Island Teachers and Friends for Human Rights
Hempstead, New York
With the second Presidential Debate scheduled for this evening at Hofstra University, members of its faculty and staff are calling upon the two candidates and moderator Candy Crowley to hold a "real debate over how we can best protect human rights, advance social justice and end unnecessary wars. "
Observing that both campaigns have essentially ignored these concerns, the group emphasized that "with forty-six million people now living in poverty, it is a stunning abdication of responsibility" for the candidates to focus exclusive attention on the middle class.
At a time when worries over the deficit are driving demands for draconian cuts in vital human services, the educators challenged President Obama and Governor Romney to explain why they support a military budget in FY 2013, which is in excess of $600 billion.
Noting that on average one American soldier is committing suicide every day, another 2000 have been killed, and an estimated 15,000 Afghan civilians have perished in the conflict, group spokesman Professor Martin Melkonian asked, "why is the United States government planning to keep its troops in Afghanistan for another two years?"
And why, the Hofstra educators wanted to know, is it acceptable to use Predator drones, over the villages of Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, terrorizing the inhabitants and assassinating alleged "militants" without proof or accountability? "Who will protect our people from the rage such attacks inspire?"
Hofstra Debate Should Focus on Social Justice, Peace and Human Rights!
Statement by Long Island Teachers and Friends for Human Rights
In this election year, we are concerned that neither campaign has addressed vital issues of peace, social justice and human rights.
With forty-six million Americans now in poverty, it is a stunning abdication of responsibility to refer exclusively to problems of the middle class. What shall be done for the 22% of children in the richest country of the world, who lack adequate food, housing and access to quality education?
With states and cities across the United States laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers, firemen, hospital workers and other public employees, why is there no acknowledgement by either candidate that this is not an imagined future but a contemporary reality? And why are there no serious proposals on the table for reversing these losses?
With heightened alarm about the deficit, and the curtailment of essential human services from day care facilities, to senior citizens centers, to repair of our bridges, roads and transportation network, why are candidates from both parties advocating military expenditures for FY 2013 that are in excess of $600 billion?
With one American soldier committing suicide every day, another 2000 killed, an estimated 15,000 Afghan civilians who have perished in violent attacks, $500 billion already spent, why is the United States government planning to remain in Afghanistan for another two years? Can either candidate explain how this will achieve any practical goal? And if there is none, why are we continuing to forfeit money and lives?
With American Predator drones, hovering over foreign territory in Pakistan and Yemen, terrorizing the inhabitants and assassinating individuals for unstated, undocumented reasons, can either candidate explain why this will make our country more secure? Or how this will protect our people from the anger that such attacks inspire?
These urgent questions require forthright answers. And we call upon both candidates and the Town Hall moderator to provide the American public with a real debate over how we can best protect human rights, advance social justice and end unnecessary wars.
Signed:
Faculty, Staff and Friends
Johan Ahr (History)
Iska Alter (English)
Valerie Barr (friend)
Cindy L. Bell (Music)
Robert Brinkman (Geology, Environment and Sustainability)
Ann M. Burlein (Religion)
Jacqueline Grennon Brooks (Education)
John L. Bryant (English)
Chandler Carter (Music)
Sally Charnow (History)
Judy D'Angio (History)
Timothy P. Daniels (Sociology)
Tom DelGudice (Economics)
Neil Donahue (German and Comparative Literature)
Simon Doubleday (History)
Carolyn Eisenberg (History)
Rosebud Elijah (Education)
Brenda Elsey (History)
Anita Feldman (Dance)
Laurie Fendrich (Fine Arts)
Massoud Fazuli (Economics)
Ann Feuerbach (Anthropology)
David Friedkin (Writing Studies)
Esther Fusco (Education)
Ignacio L. Gotz (emeritus)
Debra Goodman (Education)
David Green (Political Science)
Robert Guttmann (Economics)
Russ Harrison (Writing Studies)
Conrad Herold (Economics)
Kari P. Jensen (Global Studies and Geography)
Elena Jurasaite-Harbison (Education)
Jessica Karmen (Sociology)
Sharryn M. Kasmir (Anthropology)
Judy Kaufman (Education)
Louis J. Kern (History)
Stefan Krieger (Law)
James P. Levy (History)
Barbara Lekatsas (Comp Lit and Languages)
Charles F. Levinthal (Psychology)
Andrea Libresco (Education)
Rick Ligouri (Education)
Linda Longmire (Global Studies and Geography)
Michael J. Ludwig (Health Professions)
Greg Maney (Sociology)
Martin Melkonian (Economics)
Cheryl B. Mwaria (Anthropology)
John Munz (History)
Mario Murillo (Radio, Television, Film)
Stefanie E. Nanes (Political Science)
Christopher Niedt (Sociology)
Edward Ostling (Mathematics)
Irene Plonczak (STEM, Science, Technology and Math)
Erica Percorale
Stan Pugliese (History)
Cindy Rosenthal (Drama)
Benita Sampedro (Romance Languages)
Sabina Sawhney (English)
Eileen Simons (Education)
Alan Singer (Education)
Judy Singer (Friend)
Tim Smith (Education)
Sandra L. Stacki (Education)
John Teehan (Religion)
Daniel Martin Varisco (Anthropology)
Sharon Whitton (Education)
Susan Yohn (History)
Lee Zimmerman (English)
Paul Zimmerman (English)
LATEST NEWS
'Sounds a Lot Like a Nuclear Threat': Trump Floats 'Ultimate Alternative' If Iran Talks Collapse
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
Jun 13, 2026
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm Grows Over Vought Plan to Give Trump Cronies Control of Federal Grant Money
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
Jun 13, 2026
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Lawmakers Condemn Trump Effort to 'Tip the Scales' in Colombia Election
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
Jun 13, 2026
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular