fairhavenfreepressonline

Photo by Merilee George

Welcome to the winter quarter 2012 Free Press issue! As my time as a Western student comes to a close, there are many things I am reflecting on as I enter the “real world.” I am entering an economy of 8 percent unemployment, where many of my degree holding peers are moving back into their parents’ basement due to lack of employment. I’m incredibly privileged for having the opportunity to obtain a degree, yet I’m entering a world where I’m told a master’s degree is the new bachelors. One of my professors told me this quarter the average person today out of everyone living on this planet will only earn $5,000 cumulatively during his or her life. My student loans are more than that.

For my last opportunity to write for the Fairhaven Free Press, I chose to explore something that is of utmost importance to our democracy: unrestricted access to information and education. In January, the Tucson Unified School District banned the Mexican-American Studies program—a program that successfully addressed the achievement gap and high dropout rates of Latinos in the public education system. The district also removed several books from the classroom and put strict guidelines on what teachers can say about the history of white oppression in our country. Restricting the history of our country to only tell the dominant narrative, an incredibly narrow perspective, does not serve the needs of the population and helps perpetuate a system of ignorance and racism. I hope my article inspires readers to seek more information about inequality, as well as encourage them to question who controls the histories we have been taught.

Asking questions and staying curious about the world are some of the most important lessons I have learned throughout my 23 years of living. I hope I continue to do this and inspire others to do the same. Oh yeah, and remember to get your news from alternative media sources, like the Fairhaven Free Press. It’s been a great experience to attend Fairhaven College and I hope our readers enjoy this issue of the paper. We have terrific articles, including material from new writers.

Bon Voyage!

Abigail George

Participate in the Fairhaven Free Press

Are you interested in joining the Fairhaven Free Press? Two meetings will be held on April 3 in the Fairhaven Admin building, in room 326. The meetings will begin at noon and 5 p.m. and are an opportunity to learn more about the Fairhaven Free Press. No previous journalism experience is necessary. Please send any questions to fairhavenfreepress@gmail.com.

The paper is the product of a group-oriented independent study project (ISP) for credit, but is open to everyone as an Associated Students club. Students involved with the Free Press can contribute written content, art and multimedia works. Everyone participates in editing and in the final layout and design of the paper. The Fairhaven Free Press is printed and distributed during dead week every fall, winter and spring quarter. Students interested in a Free Press ISP should contact the faculty adviser Dan Larner at: dan.larner@wwu.edu.

Have you written an article you want published? Do you want to share a paper you wrote for a class with the greater Western community? Submissions to the Fairhaven Free Press are encouraged. If you have any articles, stories, art or photos you would like to have published, please send them to fairhavenfreepress@gmail.com. Not all submissions may be published, but all will be considered. The Free Press reserves the right to edit submissions for brevity, clarity and content. Submissions reflect the opinions of the author, not necessarily the views of the Fairhaven Free Press or staff members.

Abigail George

“Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance,” President Lyndon B. Johnson said. However, it is evident with the recent ruling in the Tucson Unified School District—which banned several prominent books and made the Mexican-American Studies program illegal—fighting off intolerance and ignorance is not a top priority.

On Jan. 10, the Tucson Unified School District announced in a resolution that, “All Mexican American courses and teaching activities, regardless of the budget line from which they are funded, will be suspended immediately.” This is despite the prgoram’s astonishing success in graduating 93 percent of its students from high school and obtaining college placement for 82 percent of its alumni, as reported by NBC Latino.

Tucson Unified School District students walked out of classes to protest the elimination of the Mexican-American Studies program. Written with both English and Spanish translations, the sign on the right reads: “You are my other me/ If I do harm to you/ I do harm to myself/ If I love and respect you/ I love and respect myself.” Photo by D.A. Morales, courtesy of Common Dreams.

The program was found to be in violation of the Arizona law A.R.S. § 15-112. This law states that, “A school district or charter school in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following: 1. Promote the overthrow of the U.S. government. 2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people. 3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. 4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

The Mexican-American Studies program violated the last three requirements. In a statement released by the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, John Huppenthal said, “The assertion that TUSD’s Mexican-American Studies program was designed and implemented only to promote cultural diversity and a greater understanding of the role of Mexican-Americans in this nation is inaccurate and incomplete.”

Not only was the Mexican-American Studies program made illegal, but a long list of books has also been banned. However, Tucson Unified School District argues the books are not banned, but they have been pulled from the classrooms and teachers are prohibited from using them in their curriculum. Some of the books that have been removed include: Sherman Alexie’s “Ten Little Indians,” Shakespeare’s “The Tempest,” Bill Bigelow’s “Rethinking Columbus” and Matt de le Pena’s “Mexican White Boy.”

“Teachers are being told to stay away from books and lessons that have themes on race, ethnicity and oppression,” Marri Herraris said in an article for the Tucson Weekly.

The district decided to ban the program after the state informed them they would be withholding $1 million of monthly state funding to the district until they restructured their programs to be in compliance with the law.

“I couldn’t justify seeing $15 million cut from all our students just so less than 1 percent can take the [ethnic studies] class,” Miguel Cuevas, a member of the Tucson Unified School District Board, told FoxNews.com.

About 60 percent of students in the Tucson Unified School District are Latino, and the classes are open for any student who wants to enroll in the Mexican-American Studies program regardless of ethnic background—some facts that are being used to counter Cuevas’s justification for cutting funding to the program.

The decision to ban the program has received extensive criticism throughout the country, including protests being held here on Western’s campus in solidarity with the students and teachers involved with the Mexican-American Studies program.

Ahtziri Iniguez, a high school student who participated in a walkout at Cholla High School in the Tucson Unified School District, said in the Tucson Daily News  she thought it was very unfair that people weren’t allowing her to learn about her culture.

“We did this walkout to prove if you want something, you should fight for what you believe in, because if you don’t do anything, nothing will change,” Iniguez said. “My brother took (Mexican-American Studies) classes his junior year and he would go home and discuss with my mom and interested me in education, so I knew I wanted to take these classes.”

Defenders of the suspension of the Mexican-American Studies program said it didn’t just teach students about culture, but violated the law by teaching ethnic solidarity and promoting resentment toward a race or class of people, specifically Caucasian people.

Huppenthal is a prominent supporter of the ban. According to The New York Times, Huppenthal thought the program was brainwashing children into thinking that Latinos have been victims of white oppression.

“If all you’re teaching these students is one viewpoint, one dimension, we can readily see that it’s not an accurate history; it’s not an education at all,” Huppenthal said. “It’s not teaching these kids to think critically, but instead it’s indoctrination.”

Huppenthal failed to comment on the criticism of how the current U.S. education system only teaches one viewpoint, and programs such as the Mexican-American Studies program are needed in order to expand perspectives.

In an interview with NPR on Jan. 18, Huppenthal further commented on how the Mexican-American Studies program teaches students to criticize the U.S. government.

“To tell young kids that the whole deck—that they can’t get ahead, that they’re victims in, you know, a country in which Barack Obama is president, it defies what we know,” Huppenthal said.

The program was initially created in part to combat the troubling statistics of dropout rates of Latinos in the U.S. public educational system, as well as to provide greater diversity in the education system.

According to saveethnicstudies.org, Latino high school dropout rates hover around 56 percent, and roughly 24 percent of graduating Latinos go on to college. However, the dropout rate for the Mexican-American Studies program is only 2.5 percent, and students in the program significantly out-perform their peers on standardized tests in Arizona.

Teachers in the program are very passionate about their subject, and they understand the importance of students connecting to the information they are learning in order to stay focused in school.

“There’s a human need to connect to your roots,” said Norma Gonzales, a Mexican-American Studies teacher at Tucson High and Rincon High. “And if we don’t connect with our roots then we buy into a manufactured identity and that leads to self-hate. We don’t develop properly emotionally or intellectually.”

Augustine F. Romero, the Director of Student Equity in the Tucson Unified School District, wrote in an article in the Journal of Educational Controversy that the district would prefer if teachers acquiesced to teaching a history that is dominated by white privilege and white acts of oppression.

“Recently, my colleagues and I have been called racist because we encourage our students to ask questions about the impact of race and/or racism upon their social condition,” Romero said. “The irony and hypocrisy are that our racist state, its racist superintendent of public instruction…are saying that my colleagues and I are racist because we illuminate their acts of white privilege, their acts of oppression and their acts of racism.”

Romero goes on to say, “In my mind, what is truly American is the creation of greater levels of inclusion, of greater levels of equality in life chances and life outcomes and of a true appreciation for the diversity of thought. These were some of the fundamental elements that are promoted in the program that my colleagues and I designed in response to our district’s need to close the achievement gap for Latino students.”

Many of the teachers in the district are outraged by the decision and are running into immense difficulties with teaching their subjects effectively with the new guidelines set by the district. Curtis Acosta, a Chicano/Latino Literature teacher from the Tucson District said in his blog, “It has become clear to me that I must abandon nearly everything I used to use in the classroom.”

Curtis was told he had to strike a statement from one of his assignments because it violated the new law. The statement was “Culture can play a significant role within a work of fiction. For generations in this country, the literature studied in English or literature classes rarely represented the lives and history of Mexican-Americans.”

He had to remove this statement because it was leaning too much toward a Mexican-American Studies perspective.

“In plainer terms, (the quote) is illegal and out of compliance. A quote from a great literary figure, Luis Valdez, is now illegal, and a fact about education in our nation’s history is also illegal,” Curits said on his blog.

Some of the books that have been removed from Tucson Unified School District classrooms following the ban of the Mexican-American Studies program. Photo by Kyler Barton

Not only are teachers and students upset, but educators across the country are criticizing the banning of the program.

Barbara Jones, the Director of the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom told CNN, “If (school officials are) listening to their communities, they should understand that to take ethnic diversity out of curriculum in the 21st century is damaging and hateful,” Jones said. “It stifles the conversations we desperately need to have in this country about inclusion, about preparing all people in this country to go in the work force, to go to college, to be successful in life. And to ban discussion about these types of issues is very damaging to our country and our democracy.”

In the wake of the elimination of the Mexican-American Studies program, Republican Rep. Terri Proud of Tucson introduced a bill to create a new elective course for the Tucson Unified School District.

The bill proposes a course called “The Bible and its Influence on Western Culture,” and would be offered as an elective at high schools that choose to offer it. Proud said in an Associated Press report the influence of the Bible on art and literature is immense in our history and deserves to be studied.

“This is such an essential foundation for our kids’ knowledge,” Proud said “We are so engulfed in it.”

According to the same Associated Press report, “the bill stipulates that the course maintain ‘religious neutrality,’ and requires the state Attorney General to review the curriculum to ensure it doesn’t conflict with the U.S. Constitution.”

While one program is banned in Tucson for being designed primarily to study a particular ethnic group, another program is being proposed that supports curriculum based on the dominant religion in this country. The banning of the Mexican-American Studies program exposes the priorities of the Tucson Unified School District, and honoring diversity is not one of them.

Story and Photos by Jennifer Karchmer

This is part I in a series on freedom of the press. Read the next Fairhaven Free Press for an update.

As the Washington State Bureau Correspondent for Reporters Without Borders, a volunteer position I took on in 2010, I monitor freedom of the press issues, helping to protect the rights of journalists. My role is to keep an eye on censorship in Washington state and report my findings to the RWB-USA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

I advocate for my fellow journalists and bring awareness to First Amendment rights in the US. RWB, an international nonprofit organization with headquarters in Paris (known as Reporters Sans Frontières), works to improve the safety of journalists and to help defend those who have been imprisoned or persecuted for doing their jobs. RWB was started in France in 1985 with the intent to expose the mistreatment of reporters and to fight censorship and behaviors that undermine press freedom.

Today, RWB protects not only press freedom and journalists but also the right to inform and be informed. So whether you make your living as a professional journalist or you’re a citizen who uses the Internet to find movie listings, RWB is working in your best interests to protect the free flow of information.

IMMI

To better understand press freedom in my home country, I began researching the concept of press freedom outside the U.S. and came across IMMI, the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a proposed law in Iceland that could have implications around the globe.

Earlier this year, Western Senior Instructor and journalist Jennifer Karchmer was living in capital city Reykjavik, Iceland, which had record amounts of snowfall this season.

Basically, the idea behind IMMI (say “im-mee”) is to preserve and strengthen press freedoms worldwide. The proposal, introduced in 2010, would bring together some of the strongest media protections and free speech laws from other countries to create a progressive protection for journalists internationally.

The concept is explained in a short video on the IMMI website: immi.is/Home (runtime: 3:44). For more, an AP story posted on the WikiLeaks website sheds light on the issue as well: “Iceland court lifts gag order after public outrage,” by Herdis Sigurgisdottir, Aug. 4, 2009.

Apparently, Iceland is looking to position itself as a safe haven for journalists worldwide,

The overall topic has received coverage in the press, but my focus is the behind-the-scenes look at how news actually plays out.

Paying particular attention to how IMMI may have been sparked, I inquire: How was the news staff initially informed of the injunction? How did the decision-making process in the newsroom play out with just 5 minutes before airtime? What tools did the editors rely on to help them come to their decisions? How does the public perceive the journalism profession amid this transparency into the news cycle?

Why Iceland?

Over the past decade, Iceland has consistently ranked high (top ten) on the RWB Freedom of the Press Index. This measure of press freedom, first published in 2002, put Iceland in the top spot eight times (often tied with Finland, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark). In 2009, Iceland was ranked 9th and then in 2010 moved back up to the top spot in a tie with several other countries—this time along with the inclusion of Sweden and Ireland. (For index results per year, click here and scroll down to the “Press Freedom Index” and “Choose a Year” drop down box.)

Another widely-cited press index, Freedom House also listed Iceland as “Free” in its 2010 Map of Press Freedom, noting “despite enduring problems associated with the global financial crisis of late 2008, the Icelandic press is still among the freest in the world.”

This leads to two research questions:

1. How does Iceland interpret, perceive and define freedom of the press?
2. How do Iceland’s culture, geography, politics and customs influence its high press freedom ranking?

Additional inquiries include: is being ranked number 1 on a press freedom index mean that the quality of the news is equally as high? How does the high ranking trickle down to the average population? In other words, do residents find that press freedom affects them in positive ways in their everyday lives, politics and culture?

Meantime, despite these press freedom kudos, there are instances of practical compromises. In a few cases, an Icelandic journalist has been punished for what seems to be ethical, accurate and professional reporting. See the following stories:

1. Iris Erlingsdottir, an Icelandic journalist, writes in the Huffington Post, “Free Speech: Not so free,” Oct. 27, 2011.
2. Anna Andersen, managing editor of the Reykjavik Grapevine, publishes “An Icelandic Modern Media Inferno,” Nov. 7, 2011.

Of course, measuring an abstract concept like freedom of the press is tricky and with these previously mentioned tools come limitations, as suggested by this interesting publication, “Evaluating the Evaluators: Media Freedom Indexes and What They Measure.” The 63-page report, published in 2010, was commissioned by University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication. The author, John Burgess, is seasoned in the news business having worked for 28 years at The Washington Post as a high-ranking editor and reporter.

“Don’t wait to be deprived of news to stand up and fight for it”

In addition to publishing its press freedom index, RWB put out last December this list of the ten most dangerous places for journalists. Among the locations: Homs, Syria, where French journalist Gilles Jacquier was killed Jan. 11; Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt; Veracruz state in Mexico; and the Khuzdar district of Pakistan.

Thankfully, as an American journalist who has worked for 20 years in the United States reporting for both MSM (mainstream media) outlets and small independent community newspapers, I have operated comparatively unrestricted and free of physical threats or attacks because of the words I print or say. However, censorship in the U.S. comes in a different form, more subtle as corporate influence is the foundation of much of the media messages we receive and digest. You can learn more at the Ithaca College Park Center for Independent Media. (Disclosure: Ithaca College is my alma mater.)

RWB’s slogan “Don’t wait to be deprived of news to stand up and fight for it” rings true as I acknowledge and appreciate the relative liberty I enjoy as my fellow journos in Cuba, Mexico, Pakistan and China, among other countries, work and live in repressive states—in some cases requiring reporters to have special training on how to persevere in their profession amid threats.

With freedom comes responsibility

As I continue my research into this enduring topic with in-person interviews on the ground in Reykjavik, Iceland, you won’t see me posting blips to Twitter or feeds on Facebook. Those may be fine tools for the breaking news reporter, but I prefer presenting news in a comprehensive and exacting fashion, work that goes way beyond a 30-second sound bite, 500-word brief or 140-character tweet. One of the most important tools we journalists have lost in this media landscape so very controlled by corporations and conglomerates is time—to immerse and reflect.

Jennifer Karchmer is an independent journalist who monitors and reports on freedom of the press worldwide. She is also a Senior Instructor in the Dept. of Communication at WWU. Read more at www.jenniferkarchmer.com

Jennifer Karchmer visited the Peace Tower located on Viðey Island just off the coast of Reykjavik, Iceland. Yoko Ono designed the Peace Tower in memory of John Lennon. “Imagine Peace” is inscribed in 24 languages on the marble sculpture.

Kyler Barton

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, designed to defend the U.S., contains ominous provisions that could undermine basic freedoms. Two weeks before the President Obama signed the NDAA on Dec. 31, 2011, the ACLU released a statement explaining parts of the legislation “could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison, without charge or trial, civilians anywhere in the world.”

Many opponents of the NDAA are concerned the bill could foster indefinite detention and the practice could be expanded to jail innocent people, instead of suspected terrorists.

The NDAA has been a routine bill the president always signed to grant annual funding to the Department of Defense, according to an article by Robert Johnson for Business Insider. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., sponsored the provisions for the legislation. Though Obama vowed not to approve the NDAA if it included such amendments, he changed course.

Sen. John McCain cosponsored the controversial provisions that were added to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Congress.

Funding for the Department of Defense was about to expire and the provisions were added at the last minute, according to a Washington Post article by David Nakamura. The president decided to act.

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said in a signing statement that accompanied the legislation.

Margaret Stock, an Alaska-based attorney specializing in immigration law and national security issues, explained the NDAA is a huge bill and it is common for senators and representatives to insert provisions that could never pass on their own. Most people are unaware the president can only veto entire bills, not parts of them.

“[Presidents] don’t want to veto the whole bill because it’s going to cause a whole bunch of stuff that they want to be disapproved,” Stock said.

Word play

The Authorization to Use Military Force provided a foundation for some of the language in the NDAA. The AUMF became law on Sept. 18, 2001.

The joint resolution between the House of Representatives and the Senate authorized the president of the United States “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

President George W. Bush speaks to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. Two days before the speech, the House and Senate approved the Authorization to Use Military Force, which allowed Bush to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Photo courtesy of the U.S. National Archives.

Obama’s detention authority statement, documented in a court brief from March 13, 2009, incorporated similar language to the AUMF, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, authored by two legislative attorneys, Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia.

“The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.”

The statement also notes the president has the power to detain persons who supported al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities with the U.S.

The report discussed the conflict about whether Obama’s detention authority statement exceeded the bounds of the AUMF and the power of the executive. For example, how would the military determine if a group or person were an associated force? In a 2009 brief, the government refused to give details about how such a decision would be made, explaining it was not possible or even advisable to speculate about such matters.

According to the government’s brief, the term “associated forces” would become better understood as it was applied to real situations and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Consequences of the NDAA

If U.S. citizens were detained as a result of the NDAA, Obama promised to ensure they would be granted a trial.

“I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” the president wrote in the signing statement.

In order for a person in military detention to be given a trial, the president must send permission in writing to Congress to grant the detained person the ability to receive judicial process.

Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor for The New York Times, described issues he sees with the NDAA. One of his major concerns is the expansion of power the law grants the president.

“I think it’s barely possible that Mr. Obama would sign a waiver of military detention when warranted,” Rosenthal wrote. “But it’s impossible to imagine a Republican successor doing that.”

Rosenthal explained Obama’s approval of the NDAA is a sign he is approaching national security issues the way George W. Bush did after the Sept. 11 attacks. While fear gripped the nation in September 2001, Republicans passed the Patriot Act and the AUMF. By allowing the counterterrorism provisions to become law, Obama is putting civil liberties and human rights at risk.

Although Obama said he would not allow U.S. citizens to be detained without a trial, he can, of course, change his mind. For example, Obama chose to add a signing statement to the NDAA. Signing statements are a way for a president to protest parts of legislation, but they have no legal power whatsoever, Stock said.

During his presidential campaign, Obama criticized Bush for repeatedly adding signing statements to bills.

President Barack Obama smiles during the filming of a campaign video in 2011. He signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, even though he disagreed with provisions about the detention and treatment of suspected terrorists. Photo by Christopher Dilts, courtesy of Fotopedia.

The vague nature of the language in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, such as the mysterious meaning of “associated forces,” is common in legislation that relates to national security, Stock said.

The Congressional Research Service report also noted additional terms in the NDAA that lacked clarification. It is not made clear in the language of the law what is considered “substantially supporting” al Qaeda or the Taliban. The word “hostilities” is similarly indefinite, as no detailed description of it exists in the NDAA.

According to the report, the full meaning of the terms, “may be subject to an evolving interpretation that effectively permits a broadening of the scope of the conflict.”

Stock said the application and development of laws regarding apprehending and prosecuting terrorists and their supporters during the last 10 years has been irregular.

“There hasn’t been a whole lot of consistency in any of this stuff,” she said. “It just depends on the facts of a particular situation and who’s in charge at the time.”

AUMF and war

The conflicts about the expansion of executive powers and the nebulous structure of national security protocol are not new.

“There’s an ongoing, long-standing constitutional debate about who within the federal government is allowed to use force,” Stock said.

According to the Constitution, only Congress is authorized to declare war. Many people accept this idea, but also believe it is necessary for the president to respond to a sudden attack on the U.S., Stock said. The language in the Constitution was intentionally drafted for Congress to be able to “declare war” rather than “make war,” so it was possible for the president to respond to an invasion or attack on the nation.

“The problem with that is over the centuries, presidents have taken that language that originally people thought would only apply if some army attacked the United States suddenly and they have used it to expand presidential authority,” Stock said.

Presidents, such as Lyndon B. Johnson handling the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and Ronald Reagan’s actions in the Gulf of Sidra, have rationalized military aggression toward countries that had not actually attacked the U.S., Stock said. In both cases, the presidents claimed U.S. military strikes were based on retaliation, when in fact U.S. ships were intentionally guided into enemy waters in the first place.

“Wars can get started by presidents just triggering an attack on the U.S.,” she said. “That’s caused a great deal of upset among members of Congress who think that they’re supposed to have the war power and the president’s not supposed to have it.”

The AUMF was an attempt by Congress to authorize and to support the president using force. An official declaration of war has not been made since World War II because doing so would cause tedious and unpopular consequences. For example, it is still required to set up internment camps to hold citizens in the U.S. who are from the nation(s) the U.S. is fighting, Stock said.

“[Congress authorizes] the use of force so it doesn’t trigger all these other laws applying,” she said.

Although the AUMF is more than 10 years old, it still justifies the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Congress is trying to exercise its constitutional duties in a piece of legislation to show it’s supporting the president,” Stock said.

As far as the language of the law is concerned, the U.S. has engaged in hostilities in the Middle East. The controversial provisions in the NDAA seem to reiterate many of the same powers the AUMF authorized to the executive.

Under the NDAA, a person or group considered an “associated force” during “hostilities” may be held indefinitely in military detention for “substantially supporting” terrorists until the end of said “hostilities.” It is up to the judgment of President Obama, and the judgment of all future presidents, to decide what the language of the NDAA really means.

Stock is concerned many U.S. citizens don’t understand the potential ramifications of the NDAA of 2012. Furthermore, she thinks most voters are unaware of the breakdown between the legislative and executive branches, which has increased the president’s power to use force.

“It’s very important for people to be careful who they elect president,” Stock said. “Because whether they end up in jail or not is going to depend on who they elect to be president.”

Story and Photos by Dakota Mackey

The farmers market provides people with easy access to everything from beets to free-range chicken eggs. It also creates a venue for shoppers to meet the farmers who are growing and raising their food.

Across Bellingham, restaurants are catching on to this interest in supporting local farmers and are buying food that has been grown or raised in Whatcom County and neighboring counties. Brandywine Kitchen, Dashi Noodle Bar and The Table are just three of the many restaurants that source locally.

Brandywine Kitchen

Azizi Tookas and Chris Sunde turned their catering company, Brandywine Kitchen into a restaurant last summer. Tookas and Sunde began their business as Brandywine Gardens, growing heirloom tomatoes. This progression from farmers to restaurant owners is one of the main reasons they consider buying local so important.

Tookas said he would love for Brandywine Kitchen to serve only local organic food, but that it is not realistic financially.

Another issue with only buying locally is not everything needed for their menu can be found year-round in Washington. He said DEVine Gardens, a Bellingham-based family farm, uses a greenhouse and is able to provide them with some produce during the winter months.

Tookas said one of the ways he has made buying local food possible is by forming strong relationships with farmers through the years. Often he will use the trade and barter system to negotiate deals with farmers, which drives the cost down somewhat.

In the past Tookas received produce from farmers in exchange for gift certificates to the restaurant. Tookas and Sunde show their support for the people they buy from by displaying a sign of the names of farms and businesses on a wall of their restaurant.

“I will name-drop from time to time to show support for our sources,” Tookas said.

Tookas said he would like to sit down with the farmers he buys from and plan with them before the growing season begins. That way the farmers would know what and how much to grow, and they can order enough seed ahead of time. Also, if Tookas or Sunde find a product from a local source they like, they will create a menu item based around it.

Buying all food items from conventional distributors is tempting, Tookas admitted. Distributors are able to have less-expensive products that have already been processed dropped at the restaurant door, which makes buying from farmers a more challenging choice.

“If farmers could do it, sourcing locally would be a no-brainer,” Tookas said.

Despite the challenges, Tookas and Sunde make sure they continue to support local farmers as much as they can.

The Table 

Katie Hinton, co-owner of The Table, believes keeping money in the community is one of the greatest reasons to source locally for her Italian-style restaurant.

She serves a variety of homemade pastas by The Bellingham Pasta Co., which are prepared in The Table’s kitchen.

The Table also offers drinks made by several Whatcom County companies, such as tea from Spice Hut and coffee from Bellingham Bay Coffee. All of the beers and wines are made exclusively in the Northwest.

At the peak of the growing season, Hinton buys produce from three to six Whatcom and Skagit Valley farmers.

Like Tookas and Sunde, Hinton said one of the biggest challenges of sourcing locally is finding produce in the winter months.

In the fall and winter, squash and beets are brought in by farmers, which Hinton uses for pastas and salads. The Table’s ravioli are filled with mushrooms from Bellingham’s Cascadia Mushrooms, northwest Washington’s only certified organic mushroom farm. Year round, the pork and salmon are sourced locally along with the eggs.

“Buying locally helps with [minimizing] our carbon footprint,” Hinton said. “And our vendors and suppliers are also our customers and neighbors.”

To find sources simply, The Table is a member of Sustainable Connections, a nonprofit network that facilitates sustainable economic development.

Sustainable Connections educates business owners on sustainable practices, holds luncheons and conferences to connect business owners in the community and promotes its members.

Hinton said the first place she looks when she needs a reliable source for a product is the Sustainable Connections member list.

Sustainable Connections provides a way for business owners, like Hinton, to work together with the common goal of keeping money in the community.

The Table’s fried ravioli are filled with ricotta cheese and topped with balsamic reduction, hazelnuts and basil.

Dashi Noodle Bar

Josh Silverman, owner of Dashi Noodle Bar, also sources locally for his restaurant, which opened October 2011. He describes Dashi as a simple and unique approach to representing a mix of Asian flavors.

After closing his high-end restaurant Nimbus, Silverman was looking for a change of pace and thought Bellingham needed a noodle bar. At Nimbus, Silverman made connections with local farmers and learned how to find the right ingredients during specific seasons for a reasonable price. He said sourcing locally has its challenges, but it remains important to him at Dashi.

“I can see the big picture of how food you buy locally keeps the money in the community,” Silverman said.

The higher quality of the food local farmers grow is also a benefit for Silverman–produce that has been harvested that morning tastes better than food that has been sitting on a truck for several days.

Silverman not only appreciates the improved taste of fresh produce from local farmers, but also the relationships he has built and the closer connection he has to the food he serves.

These positive aspects are sometimes challenged by the price changes from farmer to farmer. It is hard to set menu prices because meat and produce fluctuate in price, Silverman said.

One way he combats this is by finding a source and forming a strong partnership with the farmer to ensure he will get the product he needs.

Silverman buys ham hocks from Farmer Ben’s, a Lynden farm that focuses on pasture raised animal products. The ham hocks are cured and smoked at Dashi and are used to flavor the broth as well as served in the soup.

An issue with sourcing locally pertaining to Dashi is many Asian ingredients are not grown in the U.S., Silverman said. Despite this, with effort and time he has found many ingredients he can use from Whatcom County farmers. Silverman uses Terra Verde Garden’s ginger, an ingredient not commonly found in Bellingham.

Dashi allows for a touch of creativity by offering a condiment station filled with varieties of house-made kimchi, pickled vegetables and sauces. Many of the condiments are inspired by what Silverman can get from farmers.

“If I find an abundance of a certain fruit or vegetable locally, I find out how I can pickle or ferment it,” Silverman said.

A bowl of soup with braised pork shoulder, house-made udon noodles and kombu and bonito broth served at Dashi Noodle Bar.