As you already know, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Bill is close to my heart. (Yesterday, I chose to read the Congressional Record in order to see what the stated opposition to the bill was. Other than the tax on foreign companies, there was concern that money would go to illegal immigrants. Of course, I took exception to that. The heroes of 9/11 didn't ask the people they saved if they were legal or not; we should not do the same to them.) That is why I was concerned yesterday when I heard that the President will be staying on vacation in Hawaii until January 2nd.
Once a bill is passed by both Houses of Congress, the President has 10 days to sign, veto, or do nothing to the bill. If he does nothing, after 10 days, the bill automatically becomes a law. However, if a session of Congress expires before those 10 days expire and the President fails to take any action, the bill does not become law. This is called a "Pocket Veto."
The Zadroga Bill passed Congress on December 22. The 111th Congress expires at the beginning of the new year. Thus, I was concerned when and where the President would sign the bill.
Thankfully, this morning, I read this tweet by White House New Media Director (and one of my idols, in full disclosure) Macon Phillips:
@PressSec When will President Obama sign the Zadroga Bill (because he only has 7 days to do so and he's in Hawaii until 1/2/11)?less than a minute ago via webSeamus Campbell
SeamusCampbell
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded:
Remember Jimmy McMillian (aka the "Rent Is Too DAMN High Guy")? Well, he's back.
Last night, he announced on Revolution Radio that he will announce in January or February that he will run for the Presidency of the United States. Furthermore, he has switched his party registration to Republican. (Interesting factoid: though he founded the Rent Is 2 Damn High Party and ran on it's line, he was a registered Democrat. The Rent Is 2 Damn High Party actually had only 3 registered party members.)
Below is the video of his announcement. McMillan begins his announcement at the 49-minute mark. Enjoy.
The other day, on Facebook, friend of mine asked a mutual friend "How is it that the Daily Show is now beating out respectable news outlets in their investigative reporting?" This was in response to this video from Monday night that I posted on my Facebook on Tuesday morning:
I truly do not understand why anyone would oppose a bill that helps those who helped us on September 11th. This bill is the least that we, as a country, can do to help those men and women who went down to Ground Zero and worked day and night to save lives and bring closure to the friends and families of the men and women who died that day. Oh, and guess how much this will cost you and me? Nothing. The bill will be paid for by increasing taxes on foreign companies. Yet, some fiscal watchdogs in Congress think $0 is too high a price for the American People.
On October 17, 2008, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America, or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that." While doing research for this post, I looked at the House vote for the Zadroga Bill. Guess who was in the "Nay" column? You guessed it: Rep. Michele Bachmann. I am not calling her "anti-American" and I understand that she is very fiscally conservative. But this is helping some of the most pro-American people that have ever lived in the country with funding from sources outside this nation's borders.
Last night, during dinner with my parents, we discussed the Zadroga Bill. My mother asked why the 9/11 first responders were not getting worker's compensation. I proceeded to go to my bedroom to get my laptop and load up an episode of The Daily Show.
This past Thursday night, Jon Stewart continued his crusade for the passage of the Zadroga Bill.
Part 1
Part 2
Like Stewart, I, for no certain reason, want to apologize to those first responders for how this bill has not yet passed.
As a side note, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) also agreed with Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that it is wrong to have to consider so many bills just around the Holidays. "You can't jam a major arms control treaty right before Christmas. What's going on here is just wrong. This is the most sacred holiday for Christians. They did the same thing last year - they kept everybody here until [Christmas Eve] to force something down everybody's throat. I think Americans are sick of this." Notice how he called Christmas "the most sacred holiday for Christians." I'm guessing, then, Easter and that whole Jesus resurrecting from the dead thing has no importance to Christians. Oh wait. It is the foundation of the whole belief structure for Christians.
I do have good news. Two pieces of it, actually. The media is starting to pick the story (as I am typing, ABC's World News Tonight is reporting on the story). Also, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Zadroga bill will come to a vote next week. Still, there is some opposition. Senator John McCain said on the Senate floor, while debating the New START Treaty (my emphasis added), "This is one of the really seminal aspects of whether the United States Senate is going to ratify this treaty or not. To have a time agreement after all of the fooling around that we've been doing on DREAM Act, on New York City, on all of these other issues that's taken up our time." I guess time will tell.
It's 5:42 AM as I begin writing this post. I'm watching last night's Daily Show. Jon Stewart just went over the criticism over a new food safety bill that just passed the Senate. I cannot help but literally shake my head. I just do not understand why there is so much objection to us having safe food to eat.
In September Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) objected to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that said Americans were not eating enough fruits and vegetables. He said
Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta said people in America are not eating enough fruits and vegetables. They want all the power of the federal government to force you to eat more fruits and vegetables. This is what the federal, CDC, they going to be calling people and finding out how many fruits and vegetables you eat (sic) today. This is socialism of the highest order! (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvpCIjFuwXE)
I guess the Congressman does not understand the need for a healthy diet and how it directly correlates to disease control. The saying "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" is not for mere amusement. The CDC's role is to find the sources of viruses and prevent them (look at the name!).
Last week, Sarah Palin attacked First Lady Michelle Obama for her anti-obesity campaign on Laura Ingraham's radio show:
I think she has got a different worldview and she is not hesitant at all to share what her worldview is. And I will take heat again for saying it on your show Laura but she encapsulated what her view of America is, I believe, unless she has evolved and things have changed in the last two years, but she said it on the campaign trail twice that it was the first time that she had been proud of her country when finally people were paying attention to Barack Obama. I think that's appalling. We can think of this infinite number of reasons to be proud of American exceptionalism and it baffles me that anybody would have that view and then allow that view to bleed over into policy.
Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.
Now there is this food safety bill. All it is saying is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has more power to inspect our food and force recalls when necessary.
I realize that Rep. Gohmert and Gov. Palin are talking about telling us what foods we can and cannot eat. My question is how do they feel about the banning of Four Loko in many states? Actually, let's take it up a notch. Do they still want mercury to be present in our medicine? We have the FDA and the CDC in order to make sure that we stay healthy and the treatments for any illness (whether it be an aspirin or chicken broth) is safe to ingest.
I understand the belief that inspecting our food is big government. However, how many parents are going to actually trace the entire history of every piece the food they eat? Unless that food is home grown or made in-house, I will guess not many parents will.
First Lady Obama's campaign regarding anti-obesity is related to other pieces of health. Obese people are more susceptible to heart disease, cancer, and high blood pressure to name a few. It is not her saying that the average American is dumb. It is her trying to prevent a health crisis!
If Gov. Palin and Rep. Gohmert are so strung up on this anti-big-government-that-is-taking-over-our-food-supply mantra, why did they not protest New York City's ban on trans fats in foods? Actually, I will go one further: why have they not called for the dissimulation of the Food and Drug Administration? It makes one wonder.
I realize this post has been all over the place. But it all ties in together. If you eat healthy and exercise, you will be in better shape and be more able to ward off a plethora of diseases.
Remember kids: eat your fruits and vegetables! I leave you with Mr. Jon Stewart's take on this:
As a reminder, the views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the College Democrats of Fordham University, Fordham University, the College Democrats of New York, the College Democrats of America, or the Democratic National Committee.
Wikileaks is at it again. They published a series of internal wires with State Department officials. Obama Administration officials fear that the 250,000 documents released will irreparably harm U.S. foreign policy and relations. They also had the same belief about a series of documents released about the War in Afghanistan.
I posted the paragraph at the top for a reason. What I am going to say is not a popular opinion. It is my own and I take full responsibility for it.
I don't think these leaks are necessarily a bad thing.
There, I said it. You can start sending the angry letters now.
Now, I have to defend my stance, don't I?
I will begin by saying that there are many documents that I will be the first to say should NOT be put into the public eye. I will also say that there are many documents that really won't harm us that much.
With both the Afghanistan and the State Department leaked documents, you have to ask yourself: what real harm has come from these documents? In my opinion, not much. The most damning part of the Afghan ones was how Pakistan wasn't as close an ally in defeating Al Qaeda as we once thought (big surprise there). The new ones do more of the same with our foreign allies while also using some less-than-appropriate terms for many of their leaders (of which, I am certain, are nicer than what many bloggers have said of the same foreign leaders).
Also, all that these documents really do is solidify things we already believed to be true. (Warning, I am about to go computer nerd on you all.) The best example I can give you is the report that China hacked Google for their codes. (Most techies already knew for months now.) I will give you the story of Google and China in short-form.
Google sets-up base in China. China says Google must comply with censorship rules. Google agrees. In early 2010, Google says they will no longer censor their search results in China. In retaliation, China hacks into Google's systems. Google sees this breach and then installs a program that "shadows" each of the users that accesses it's servers. (Think of it as a private investigator program. A user accesses a Google server and the PI sees it and then follows the user's activity. It literally is a computerized PI.) Guess where the results of the hack went to? If you guessed "China," you are right.
Guess where and when I learned of all of this? If you answered Wikileaks, you are wrong. If you answered "Computer Security Systems" taught by Dr. David Chen in the Spring Semester of 2010, you are right.
Get this through you: I knew the facts of a story that was leaked Wikileaks ALMOST A YEAR BEFORE IT WAS LEAKED.
Coming back to point, why are leaks bad? I have never gotten that. Does the government think that they are smarter than us? Do they think that we cannot 'handle the truth?' What is so wrong about knowing the activities of our tax-payer dollars?
People think that releasing classified documents is treasonous. Frankly, I have never understood why. The public has the right and the responsibility to know what is happening on their behalf as a nation. If the government is refusing to do so, they will take the "democracy" out of our political process. Many people have ridiculed me for saying (half-jokingly) that were I to be elected President, the first thing I would do is declassify all information regarding Area 51 and extraterrestrials. (This is neither the time nor the place to have a discussion on other forms of life in the Universe, so, please don't comment below about it; it's just off topic.) Why would I do this? It's not because I think there are aliens out there but because a responsible government would be as open as possible.
I tell people that I hate both Fox News and MSNBC, not because of the political message, but because they have commentators work as reporters. That is why I prefer ABC and CNN because they report the news first and primarily. They only add commentary when it helps supplement a story. They let US come to our own opinions.
People say that the health care debate was by no means transparent. That is false. These past two years have been the most transparent in American History. What was not transparent were the discussions that happened in congressional offices. But, almost all of the floor debates and committee hearings were public. Furthermore, the White House has taken proactive steps to make government data open to the public. The White House, in particular, has posted all visitors to on its website as well as open-sourcing many modules it built to power the website.
Transparency is accountability. I am not saying that I condone or endorse the leaking of classified information, personal correspondences, or personal opinions to parties that have no business in knowing that information. What I am saying is that why does government have to be so secretive? Why does information have to be kept so secret? I do believe that the American Public is intelligent enough to come to opinions by themselves. But they cannot even come to an opinion without facts. An informed public is essential in keeping a responsible government. If we know our foreign policy and we do not agree with it, we can express our feelings and make our government change. But we cannot change government to fit the vision we want unless we know what is in need of fixing in the government.
How many people thought the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" was meant to be a political rally just to find out that it was a comedy show?
In truth, I found it to be a play that depicted the struggle between reason and emotion in our political discourse in the form of comedy.
Well, last night, Jon Stewart was at it again. This time, he went after Glenn Beck for his conspiracy theories that George Soros wants to take over the country. How did he do it? He became Glenn Beck.
The controversy of the week this time is the firing of Juan Williams from NPR after he said on the O'Reilly Factor:
Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts. But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it's not a war against Islam.
Sarah Palin and her crew are saying that it is proof of how the 'liberal media' is trying to stay politically correct. House Minority Leader John Boehner has called on Congress to stop funding the National Public Radio. I do understand their argument, but the opponents of the firing seem to forget one thing: NPR is a brand first and foremost.
NPR is a company with an image to maintain, if one of their commentators says something that can endanger the image they worked to build, I agree that they have the right (and need) to fire the employee in order to maintain the image. Just because NPR is publicly funded does not mean that it is not indifferent from any other company. Just like most employers, NPR expects its employees to say things that would not reflect poorly on NPR. Yes, Williams' words were his own opinion, but as the saying goes "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." NPR, I assume, wants to keep a pro-Islam image; if an employee says something publicly like what Williams did, it endangers that image.
In social media, there is an adage: "it takes hundreds of posts to build a reputation, but just one to ruin it."
Carl Paladino's Campaign Manager Michael Caputo reportedly said that Jimmy McMillian (Rent Is Too Damn High) won tonight's gubernatorial debate. I would say it was a tie between all of the 3rd-party candidates. By no means am I endorsing any of the candidates, but if anyone watched the debate, all of the 3rd-party candidates provided great one-liners and gave innovative, new ideas. For example, Kristen Davis (Anti-Prohibition) thinks the state's fiscal crisis will be solved by legalizing marijuana and casinos; Charles Barron (Freedom) wants the Governor to control the MTA; Warren Redlich (Libertarian) wants the MTA to be made a private corporation.
I watched the debate recap by NY1 and WABC and the overwhelming response is that the 3rd party candidates won. I have to agree. The debate rules provided that each of the 7 candidates had equal time to state their cases. Paladino and Cuomo have dominated the airwaves and chose to hold their lines. The other candidates, I felt, said the things and the ideas, no one else wanted to say. Since they suddenly had the free airtime to promote their ideas, they put in the one-liners people would remember.
However, as each person responded to questions, the Cuomo campaign actually tweeted responses to all attacks and supplemented all ideas said during the debate in real time. In terms of new media, then, Andrew Cuomo won the debate.
Every candidate, I will admit, had good ideas. Each of them would pursue their plans in different fashions. Frankly, I like the fact that the debate wasn't limited to being just Cuomo vs. Paladino because political campaigns are supposed to be about the exchange of ideas and when candidates hear minority opinions, they have no choice but to answer to the public about the issues affecting the average Joe or Jane. Having open debates, I feel, keeps our democracy open and accountable to us in that no issue is off the table and every opinion is available to be discussed, debated, and scrutinized.
On a semi-un-related note: I was watching the debate with my parents. The camera came to Paladino and my mom saw how he was wearing a few plastic bracelets and asked about it. My father responded, jokingly, "He is out on parole." I found the line funny and I tweeted it (I have since deleted the tweet). After the debate, I saw this @ reply to me from Caputo "@seamuscampbell Paladino's bracelets were made by his daughter to remind him of her and his late son who died last year. Thanks, tho. #cuomo." I gotta admit, Caputo put me in my place and I do apologize for my insensitivity.
President Obama and Vice-President Biden took it upon themselves this week to fight voter apathy in the Democratic Party, encouraging liberals to stop "sitting on their hands" and buck up. Their message, essentially, is "we need your support right now, so do what we need you to do." They're taking on their own party, because apparently a hostile Republican minority in Congress, energetic Tea Party candidates across the country with very real chances to win, the challenge of selling the virtues of unpopular legislation to a mildly depressed populace, and fixing the economy while fighting a couple of wars don't quite present enough challenges.
The President and Vice-President seemed to suggest that waning liberal enthusiasm was nothing more than the product of sheer laziness and an unwillingness to look at the results. That's where I have to draw the line. As someone brought into politics by Aaron Sorkin's "The West Wing," I consider myself a fairly liberal voter. If I had been old enough, I would certainly have voted for Barack Obama, and even though I wasn't, I drove 4 hours to Nevada on my dime to campaign on his behalf. I'm glad I did, because I think given the polarization of our national discourse in the past couple of years and the gradual closing of the political center, I believe the country would be much worse off in the hands of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
But that said, Mr. President, there's more to how we feel than just sloth. I can't speak for everyone else, but I follow the news closely. During the first year of your term - when you had the Presidency, a supermajority in the Senate, and a firm grip on the House, the only major legislation you signed was the stimulus bill. Admittedly, the ban on federal funding for stem cell research was lifted, you instituted Fair Pay, and you brought our economy back from the brink. You put Sotomayor on the bench, not to mention receiving a Nobel Peace Prize and restoring our relationships with foreign countries across the world. And in your second year, you brought health care back from the grave - no one thought it had a chance after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. But you brought it back, and because of that, millions more Americans will be insured in the years to come. All while managing two wars and fixing Wall Street. None of that is easy, and all of it was productive.
But sir, no one elected you because we thought the job would be easy. We supported you because you told us that if we did, you would usher in a transformative era in American politics. You told us that you would push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because it doesn't make sense to discharge qualified and patriotic soldiers at a time when our military needs all the help it can get. You told us you would close Guantanamo Bay, and told the world in your inaugural address that "we reject as false the choice between our security and our ideals," promising to end wiretapping. You advocated fierce reform for public schools in our country, not just $4 billion in more funding without addressing the key issue we face. Most importantly to me, you promised environmental protection and a push for greener, cleaner energy to wean us off of foreign oil. Instead, you lifted a ban on offshore drilling and put off a fight on climate change legislation, despite the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham was willing and eager to help.
I'm 19 and I don't see the policy briefs or the data that you see, nor do I have entire buildings full of incredibly qualified advisors, so I'm sure there are some technical problems with that analysis. Moreover, you're the smartest person in the room - that's why I campaigned for you, and why I'll continue to support you. But please don't tell me the reason I don't feel enthusiastic right now is that I'm sitting on my hands.
You had one full year - a whole year with our allies in the White House and Congress. In 2008, even Alaskans elected a Democrat to the Senate. You had a full year, and all you could come up with was a stimulus bill? I know it's hard to handle the economy, but was it really that paralyzingly difficult, so unimaginably constrictive that you could not mentally handle anything else? I don't work there, but you could have told some aides to spend a week, maybe, figuring out how to push forward on cap-and-trade, or on repealing DADT, or on meaningful education reform. You had a whole year, sir, with our allies. A golden opportunity that Bill Clinton and I both know doesn't come around that often, and what do we have to show for it? The fact that our unemployment rate isn't quite as high as it would have been otherwise?
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if you actually disagree with me on any of this. I think you truly believe that there is something to be gained from offshore drilling, and I think you believe there is a legitimate enemy in Afghanistan. I trust your judgment, and I support your decisions. What I can't stomach is the fact that you're not willing to fight about the other stuff - the stuff we do agree on. That's what I elected you to do! I heard you say last week that your legislative accomplishments were mild thus far because, and I'm paraphrasing, "it's hard getting stuff through Congress." Did you really not know that going in, sir? Because if so, I should have worked harder for Governor Richardson. Where are you on education reform, on energy policy, on civil rights? We need you to lead, sir.
Here's why I think you haven't, so far. With all due respect, I think you don't want to start the discussion on any of these issues because you think you're going to lose the debate. And frankly, I'd be scared of that if I were you too. If I didn't know any better, and took my cues from the way your communications staff runs the message, I would think we were all socialist, godless, and amoral. I, too, would think we were trying to set up death panels and destroy the private sector, guided by a deep-rooted, anti-colonial, non-American-born ideology. Because when Republicans come out with their ridiculous scare tactics to scare voters into opposing legislation, you usually come out with some variation of "well, to be fair..." instead of slamming them for embracing a deceitful campaign of propaganda in lieu of actually debating the facts.
My point, sir, is pick your battles - you have too many as it is. I'll vote on November 2nd, and I'll line up and vote for the Democrats, because I think they're a lot better than the alternative. But that's why I'm not inspired, because that's my motivation for voting Democratic on election day - they're better than the alternative, not because I believe strongly in our capacity for the progress you promised.
If you want my enthusiasm, sir, and I think you're going to need it when you run against Mitt Romney, I suggest you hire a new communications team, tell them to stop making our party look like a bunch of clowns, and most of all, gear up for the policy fights I expected you to fight.
The tool detects where you are, automatically brings up contacts in your area, and takes you straight to a script. And you don't even have to create a new username -- you can sign in using either your Facebook or my.barackobama.com accounts
In other words, if you're like me and hate canvassing, but don't mind phone-banking and have any sort of free time, you can help ensure a Democratic victory this November. I tested the program and it is very easy-to-use and straight forward. You bring up the website, a person information is listed (name, address, age, sex, and phone number); a script is provided; you call the person and record the results with the online form (this is all on a single web page). And you can do as many or as few calls as you wish.
However, if any of you have been following any of the other improvements OFA and the DNC have been developing, you know that this tool is the tip of the iceberg.
Currently, both the DNC and OFA have iPhone and iPad apps. They allow for you to read recent blog posts, get discussion points, find events, and contact members of Congress.
On the OFA app, you have an option to "Go Canvass." The app will determine your location and provide you with a listing of residences in the neighborhood to persuade to vote for the Democratic candidates. Once you get to the house, you can bring up your canvassing script. Instructions are provided on what questions to ask and when to stop. Once you're done, you reply back with the result and that gets sent back to OFA. As an incentive, with the more people you contact, the more awards you receive (like FourSquare badges).
Of course, none of the phonebanking or canvassing really matter if the people aren't registered to vote. So, the Technology Department at the Democratic National Committee created a website widget called "Raise Your Vote." Simply, it is an online form that you can add to any website. Users open up the form, enter their information, and a PDF which the user has to print and mail in is generated. We currently have it on our website (http://www.fordham.edu/democrats), if you choose the "Register to Vote" link on the left navigation.
Finally, as proof that the Democratic Party is the Party of open government and politics, they open sourced much of their codes on Open.Democrats.org. Of course, they do not have their core codes listed (that would lead to users finding possible security lapses), but the source codes for the peripheral programs and widgets are freely available for anyone to download.
I don't know any other way to put it, but the work by the DNC's new media and technology teams is nothing short of awe-inspiring.
As some of you may know, we have a blog (http://fordhamdems.blogspot.com/). However, we don't have that many contributors (currently, I am the only regular writer for the blog).
The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of ideas and bringing together people from all different walks of life and have them exchange their ideas in order to create the best decisions possible for the people. Having one writer for our blog is the antithesis of the ideals of our party.
If you have any sort of opinion about the political process (which, considering you all are reading this, you all MUST have), I urge you to contribute to our blog. There are no right or wrong answers or discussions. But it is imperative that the College Democrats of Fordham University hold true to the spirit of the Democratic Party and the democratic process.
If any of you are interested in writing for our blog, please email us at fordhamdems@gmail.com and we'll add you as a contributor.
The rumors are true. Rick Lazio will be dropping out of the race for Governor today. However, he may still appear on the ballot in November.
According to election law in the State of New York, there are three ways for his name to be removed as the Conservative Party's nominee for Governor: he dies, he moves out of New York State, or he gets nominated for a judgeship (the deadline, for which, I should add, is today).
Provided that Lazio's name was removed from the Conservative Party line today, Paladino has 1 day (deadline: tomorrow 9/28/2010) to get the Conservative Party's nomination (source: http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/law/2010OfficialPoliticalCalendar.pdf). I mention this because no Republican has won any statewide office without the endorsement of the Conservative Party of New York.
To all of you, I suggest you follow the news closely for the next 36 hours to see if there will be any political game changers.
Update (12:29 PM): The Bronx County Republican Chairman Jay Savino has announced that Rick Lazio will be nominated for a judgeship tonight. In other words, Lazio will be out of the race for Governor following tonight's proceedings.
Update (12:37 PM): Rick Lazio has announced that he will not endorse Carl Paladino for Governor
Update (1:08 PM): Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long has said he will recommend to party leaders that Carl Paladino receive the party's nomination.
We all heard about how Carl Paladino is a mere 6 percentage points behind Andrew Cuomo in the race to be the next Governor of New York. Well, that was just one poll. Cuomo said that Paladino was up because of the media coverage regarding his from-behind win to becoming the the Republican nominee for Governor. Well, that was one poll.
Since the first one, by Quinnipiac University, two more have come out. One by SurveyUSA and another from Siena College. I don't know how the polling for SurveyUSA was conducted, but I do for the other two. The Quinnipiac poll surveyed "likely voters" and only gave two options (Andrew Cuomo or Carl Paladino). The Siena poll surveyed "registered voters" and gave three options (Cuomo, Paladino and Rick Lazio). What is the difference between "likely voters" and "registered voters?" Likely voters do not include first-time voters (and, may, exclude voters that did not vote in recent elections).
Below is a break-down of the results of the polling data for all of the state-wide races:
Editor's Note: The times, percentage points, and number of precincts listed are estimates based on the writer's recollection of the evening.
What an insane night it was last night. Here is my story.
My evening did not get interesting until 9pm last night when my class was dismissed. I took the Ram Van down to Lincoln Center. I was told the night before that the Eric Schneiderman and Carolyn Maloney parties would both be at the Grand Hyatt.
On the ride down to Lincoln Center, I was anxiously checking my Twitter feeds for results (Twitter, I find, is one of the best and fastest source available for breaking news). The first surprise of the night came in: Christine O'Donnell, a Tea Party and Sarah Palin-backed Republican, beat moderate Republican Congressman Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican primary. For a candidate of whom I didn't even know until two weeks ago, I was amazed. It was obvious to everyone that the Democrats had just won the Senate seat previously held by Joe Biden. Within minutes, the story on Twitter changed to how Delaware Attorney General, Beau Biden (son of the Vice President) must have been feeling at that moment since he chose not to run for that Senate seat.
I asked a friend for confirmation that the Schneiderman party would be at the Hyatt. I was told it would be, but my friend said that she was at the primary election night party for Assemblyman Jonathan Bing. I responded that I wanted to be at the party with all of the cool kids.
After getting to Lincoln Center, I hailed a cab and I was taken cross-town
The races we all were watching were the 14th Congressional District (Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney versus Reshma Saujani -we cared about the margin of victory; Maloney won with 81% of the vote), the 33rd State Senate District (Gustavo Rivera versus Pedro Espada), and the 39th Assembly District (Francisco Moya versus Hiram Monserrate).
With the early sets of returns, Rivera was leading Espada by about 30 points. Still, there were allegations of dirty tacits by the Espada camp (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/09/gustavo-rivera-accuses-team-pe.html). Meanwhile, Monserrate, in the course of 20 minutes, at one point in the evening, went from being 30 points down, to up 30, and down 30 again over Moya.
Of course, the race we all were watching was Attorney General. Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice was taking an early lead of about 10 points over Manhattan State Senator Eric Schniderman with Sean Coffey in 3rd place by only a few percentage points.
By 10:30, it was becoming obvious that Carl Paladino was about to win the Republican Party nomination for Governor. A few minutes later, NY1 announced that Espada had conceded the race. At 11pm, the Associated Press called it for Paladino. That left just one race: Attorney General.
A little after 12am, my group of friends and I decided that we would head to the Schneiderman party. By this point, Schneiderman was up by 3% points over Rice with about 70% of the preciencts reporting. We hailed a cab and headed over the the Grand Hyatt. In attendance at the Schneiderman party were many notable local politicians including Governor David Paterson, Congressman Jerold Nadler, State Senators Daniel Squadron and Eric Adams, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.
As the minutes passed, the number of precincts reporting steadily rose. A rumor began to spread that once 90% of the precincts were reporting and Schneiderman was still in the lead, the Senator was going to declare victory. The projector in the ballroom where the party was being held was tuned to Fox5 and then, later, NY1. One of the networks (I can't remember which one) showed the Rice election night party in Carle Place, Long Island. It was completely bare. Not a sole was there. It was empty. The room became very optimistic.
By 1am, my BlackBerry's battery was on its last legs. I grabbed my backpack and sat on the floor in the hallway at an outlet to let it charge. Around 1:10, I heard a chanting coming from the ballroom of "Er-ic! Er-ic! Er-ic!" I knew that either the Senator was up at least one more percentage point, we had reached the magin 90% number, or, maybe, just maybe, someone was ready to declare a victor. I pulled my charger out of the wall socket, shoved it and my BlackBerry into my pants' front right pocket, hoisted my backpack onto a shoulder and dashed into the ballroom.
I arrived exactly when the President of NARAL Pro-Choice NY, Kelli Conlin, began to speak. I didn't have to look at any screen or ask anyone what had happened. The energy of the room said it all. Eric Schneiderman was officially the Democratic Nominee to be the next Attorney General of the State of New York. At the end of his speech, the Senator introduced the next senator from the 33rd Senate District: Gustavo Rivera. Two great winners of the night together. Words cannot describe the feeling we all had/
I didn't get home until 3:00am this morning. I didn't fall asleep until about 4:15 and, even then, it seemed more like dozing than anything else. My voice, as of this writing, still has not recovered. The energy and enthusiasm you get when your candidate wins makes up for it all. If you all want to remember how I felt last night, recall November 4, 2008.
25 years ago, half of all 18-24 year olds voted. Today it's 25%. 18-24 year olds represent 33% of the population but only account for 7% of the voters. Think government isn't about you?
How many of you have student loans to pay? How many of you have credit card debt? How many want clean air and clean water and civil liberties? How many want jobs? How many want kids? How many want their kids to go to good schools and walk on safe streets?
Decisions are made by those who show up. You gotta Rock the Vote!
-CJ Cregg (The West Wing, "College Kids")
It's here! It's here! Primary Election Day is here. Today is the day where we pick our parties nominees for office. It is also the formal debut of the new voting machines in New York.
Being a good voter, I was at my polling place bright and early today. I felt that I was well-prepared with the new voting machines since I had been to a demonstration over the summer and I would be in and out in a few minutes. I was wrong. So, I have a few tips for all of you. This is not meant to be a reference on how to use the new machines, for that, please go to the Board of Elections website. This is just some helpful hints based on my experience this morning.
After you get your ballot, take a moment to look over each of the offices listed. Since the paper ballot has to be a fixed size, the offices are no longer limited to single columns. You may have multiple offices grouped into one column. The grouping is not as intuitive as you may think.
Read the instructions! Under each office, it will say how many votes you may cast for a single office. For example, my ballot said, under Delegate for Judicial Convention, to vote for any 11 candidates and for Attorney General, to vote for any 1 candidate.
DO NOT FOLD YOUR BALLOT! You may think that you are protecting your private vote, but if you fold it, your ballot will be ruled invalid. If you want to keep it secret use the "privacy sleeve" (a manila envelope). When I picked up my ballot after I signed in, I was told that they did not have any privacy sleeves available. I said I wouldn't mind taking and casting my ballot without it. The poll worker, while handed it to me, began to fold it over. I nearly screamed at the poll worker not to fold it since I knew it would be invalidated if she did.
Flip it over. Candidates are listed on both sides of the paper ballot.
When in doubt, ask for help. Since this is the first time most of us have used the new voting machines and used the new ballots, you may not know how it all works. If you need help, ask a poll worker.
Make sure you get out an vote today. If you care about the air you breathe, the water you drink, the streets on which you drive, you have to do your duty and had to the polls, otherwise your voice is silenced.
Last week, the National Republican Trust PAC produced an ad that denounced the mosque's construction. CBS and NBC refused to air it.
Later in the week, Sarah Palin endorsed New York Assistant Attorney General Ann Marie Buerkle who is running against freshman Democratic Congressman Dan Maffei for Congress in NY's 25th Congressional District which consists of the Syracuse area. Buerkle is a Tea Party favorite already. It has been hinted that Palin, then to up the ante of her endorsement, then decided to discuss what she felt to be a local issue. On Sunday, she tweeted "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate." However, as many people pointed out, "refuidate" is not a word in the English language. Palin later deleted that post and replaced it with "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in the interest of healing." I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't find anything provoking about the Islamic center (nor can I figure out whom it is provoking since "provoke" means to provide a stimulus for a response typically of a confrontational manner). As for healing, I, for one was never hurt. Maybe it is the New York spirit in me, but what doesn't kill me makes me stronger. Was 9/11 a tragedy? Yes. But terrorism aims to invoke terror, if we need time to heal, the terrorists have won.
Later, the former governor humorously tweeted "'Refudiate', 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.'" English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!"
To go off on a small tangent, to be honest, Sarah Palin is no William Shakespeare. Though, I am not an expert in English linguistics, I doubt that there are a dozen writers alive today that match his skill. The brilliance of Shakespeare are the number of ententes he could make in a single sentence, how prop-use and stage direction could be determined from the text, and how his texts were written in such a way that (with a few obvious exceptions like Julius Caesar) the story lines could be used in any time period. The words that Shakespeare invented were used for these causes. It should also be noted that the words were being coined during the early development stages of the Modern English Language; so, of course, the ability to add words would be much simpler. An interesting factoid that I leaned from my English teacher in my senior year in high school is that there are roughly 100,000 words in the English language; the average college graduate knows 10,000; William Shakespeare coined 1,000 words. 1% of the English language versus the "word" "refudiate," and Sarah Palin thinks she has earned the right to compare herself to Shakespeare? Whatever.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has endorsed the proposed Islamic Center, which, I did not learn until this morning is more of a YMCA (complete with community rooms, meeting rooms, a gym, ad a pool). The center's only "mosque" element is a Muslim prayer room.
Following the tweets by Sarah Palin, Bloomberg staffer Andrea Batista Schlesigner took to Twitter herself saying "@SarahPalinUSA whose hearts? Racist hearts?" And, later "@SarahPalinUSA mind your own business." The tweets were later deleted. However, Schlesinger explained herself "Deleted post bc I regretted curt response. But the fact is, I believe this city belongs to everyone - and no one more than another."
Her next tweet said "Unlike @SarahPalinUSA, I was born here and grew up here. Was showing off to a visitor today - look how beautiful and diverse my city is." That tweet personally speaks to how I feel about New York City as well. Once, I had to take an out-of-towner around the city. On an A train, there was a cross-gendered man, I thought nothing of it. My guest, however asked me "Is that a tranny?" I matter-of-factly replied in the affirmative. My guest, however, remained uneasy for the rest of the train ride.
Schlesinger's final response to the former governor read "I felt the pain of 9/11, the trauma. I got through it by believing in my city. Not through fear and hate." That is the New York spirit. I see crazy people on the subway singing randomly "Adam at a party, Adam at a party, Adam at a party, Adam at a cel-e-brat-ion" (as was the case with my commute yesterday morning) and I think to myself "I love New York." We realize that there are much bigger things with which to concern ourselves than petty disagreements, divisions, and judgments.
Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser told Politico's Maggie Haberman, in response to Schlesinger's tweets "Andrea was only speaking for herself, she has the right to her own opinions." Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg said "In terms of her [Schlesinger] comments about Sarah Palin, I don't agree at all. I don't think Sarah Palin is remotely racist." Then, the mayor came to Schlesinger's defense saying that as to Palin's comments about the Islamic Center, he "couldn't disagree more."
Republican NY gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio lately has been attacking his Democratic New York opponent Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for not investigating the funding of the Islamic Center. Cuomo has claimed that he would not investigate based on mere here-say out of respect for freedom of religion. However, Cuomo spokesman Rich Bamberger said "Anyone who has evidence of wrongdoing [as per the funding sources] should send it to us [the Attorney General's Office] and we will review it." Still Lazio is calling the center Cuomo's "trophy mosque"
Interestingly, NY1 did an interview with the Islamic Center's developer, Sharif El-Gamal, and he said that the reason for building the center was, in fact, to spite the terrorists that attacked while highlighting New York's diversity and community. "What happened that day affected me personally, affected my city. I was one of the first people that was down there at 9/11 and for 48 hours I was there helping my heroes, helping the firefighters, the policemen and I was giving water to everyone. What happened that day was a personal attack on me as a New Yorker. Something that I will never forget, never forgive those terrorists for what they did. And those terrorists did not act in the name of Islam. [my emphasis added]" The reason for the Islamic Center, from what I can read from that quote, is to denounce radical Islam and how Islam is a mainstream religion that does not wish to do harm against others. What place better than New York City, two blocks from the World Trade Center, to give the middle-finger to the terrorists by personifying in a building what we believe in as a nation, a city, and a society?
I reiterate, if just because it will irk the terrorists to end because us Americans live in a pluralistic and diverse society and the Islamic Center will be proof-positive of that, I support the project.
I'm sure we have all heard the uproar about the building of a mosque just blocks from Ground Zero and how it has become a national issue. My issue with the mosque is that it is an issue. The debate about the discussion didn't become an uproar until the National Republican Trust PAC created a television ad denouncing the creation of the mosque and the networks of NBC and CBS refused to air it.
This morning, the New York City local ABC affiliate aired the Democratic Attorney General Debate, which the video of is embedded below. If you fast-forward to the 9:15 mark, the question is asked of the candidates on their views on the building of the mosque and if the funding for its creation should be investigated (the bracketed comments I include are for clarification only). I have the candidates' comments written and/or summarized below the player.
Westchester County Assemblyman Richard Brodsky responded,
The, uh, mosque being built in that area is offensive to me as a matter of my role as a citizen. Uh, it seems to me that a certain degree of human understanding and sensitivity would say that there are things that may be legal which are not what we want to do in treating each other like citizens. As to whether it is legal or not, that is a much different question. And the law will be applied to those folks as it would to any other group as to the legality of the mosque. As to the funding sources, we will investigate any funding of any organizations which violate the law, threaten to violate the law, or whose activities are illegal and we will do that without fear or favor.
Eric Dinallo, a former NYS Superintendent of Insurance and Assistant Attorney General, said
I understand the issues of the emotions around this. I was at the Attorney General's office [located at 120 Broadway - three blocks from Ground Zero] when the World Trade Center was attacked. Outside of my window, you could see the destruction and time it took to come back from that. And, [at] the Insurance Department [which I was head of], I settled the case that moved $2 billion from the insurers to the redevelopment for downtown. But I think that people still have to maintain the concept in their hearts and minds [that] this state -this society- is built on Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Worship, Freedom of Congregation, and that I think that it needs to be looked at the funding source; but, just because it was a mosque, it is not a reason to put in such a deep investigation. For that purpose alone.
Nassau County District Attorney, Kathleen Rice, answered,
You know, I understand the sensitivities surrounding this particular issue. But I think one of the most fundamental bedrocks of our great country is the ability to allow each and every individual to worship the religion of their choice. And I think that in the absence of any evidence of any wrongdoing or breaking of any law, that that bedrock needs to be preserved. But, of course, if there is evidence [of improper funding sources], as Attorney General, I would investigate it.
State Senator Eric Schneiderman said,
I, uh, I think that the mosque should be built. I think that religious freedom is what this country is all about. Arguably, one of the reasons we were attacked on September 11th is because we have a pluralistic, open society where everyone is free to worship and, uh, interact. I have proposed already looking at issues related to funding sources of banks that are based in New York and other companies that move money around that may or may not be going to terrorist groups - particularly: money going into Iran. But that has nothing to do with the religious freedom issue. The local Community Board that represents that community approved the mosque. I'm not going to second-guess them.
Then, when asked if he would investigate the funding, Schneiderman said that he would investigate the funding as well as any funds that are transferred through New York that are related to terrorist activities.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sean Coffey as well agreed to investigate the funding to ensure it came from legitimate sources.
Well, I, uh, would also purse investigating the funding to make sure that it is coming from legitimate sources. This is a very tough issue. I mean, there is a lot of emotion around Ground Zero. As a young 17-year-old, 16-year-old, I helped build the World Trade Center when I was an apprentice in the Carpenter's Union - I helped lay sheet-rock there. And I lost some friends that day. I completely the pain that the families are feeling. But, we're special. We're Americans. We're tolerant. We strive for a more tolerant society. I served 30 years in uniform [in the Navy] defending those ideals and, as painful as it is for some folks, I think that we're better than our worst - as people would put us - in the worst light. And so, uh, I would go ahead and permit it to be built.
He too said he would investigate the funding.
In retort, Brodsky, said that the next Attorney General would have to apply the laws equally, but each person should be allowed to have opinions on the issue because of the memories 9/11 instilled in us. Coffey retorted that what we have to do is reach past the divides that the anger from 9/11 brought us.
Before I continue, I think I should explain some New York City politics. When a development project is proposed and would require the amendment of current zoning laws, the developer must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The stages are simple enough, but take years to go through. First, the developer fills out the proper paperwork; if just one "i" is not dotted properly, it gets sent back. Next, the development project is reviewed by that community's Community Board. The Community Board consists of City Council members from that area and local representatives that are chosen by the Borough President. The Community Board has a public hearing so local residents can weigh-in. The Community Board's approval only serves as a recommendation and holds no weight in law. Next, the proposal is brought to the Borough Board, which is another advisory board that is chaired by the Borough President and mainly deals with the effect the project would have on the borough as a whole. Then, the proposal is brought to the City Planning Commission; if this board, which is chaired by a mayoral appointee, does not approve the measure, it dies (unless the City Council intervenes). Next, the City Council decides to approve it; the City Council looks at the impact the project could have on the city as a whole. If the City Council rejects the plan, it is dead. If approved, however, the plan is sent to the Mayor for his signature or veto. Notice the way ULURP happens: discussions on the project by the community, then discussions by the borough, and the discussions by the City as a whole. Look at what is noticeably absent: the State and the Nation.
Of the five Democratic Attorney General Candidates, only two live within the 5 boroughs of New York. Sean Coffey and Assemblyman Brodsky live in Westchester County. District Attorney Kathleen Rice lives in Nassau County on Long Island. Senator Eric Schneiderman and Superintendent Eric Dinallo both live in Manhattan. After moving from Long Island to the City, I saw how much of a difference there is when it comes to living in a place from living near a place and hearing about a place. There is a certain je ne cest que about a tragedy's impact radius and the level of understanding that people that are further away from it have from those that are right there. A good friend of mine from high school lives in TriBeca, only blocks from Ground Zero; his problem is the amount of people that are moving away from the neighborhood to other parts of the city. I live one block from the Brooklyn Bridge and that issue is foreign to me. If I, someone who lives 30 minutes by foot, cannot understand the emotional impact of the residents, how can someone from Westchester County, or Albany, or Washington or, for that matter, Alaska? 9/11 was a national tragedy, but each person and each community has to deal with it in the manner that they know best and outsiders should not be involved. The further away from the impact zone, I find, the less say you should have.
My issue with the mosque is that it is an issue. Gound Zero is in New York. New York was hit. New York should choose how to deal with it. Yes, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC were hit and both tourists and commuters from the Greater New York area were killed. I do sympathize, but just like any national tragedy, it may affect people that weren't there, but that impact is different from those that were.
I think Senator Schneiderman was the most correct when he said that we were attacked because we are a pluralistic society. The people that attacked us hate us because we allow for multiple opinions. They see the connection between our pluralism and our prosperity and denounce us because they want that prosperity while not losing power.
In the weeks following 9/11, there as a small Internet meme that depicted what the Ground Zero redevelopment project should look like. The photoshopped picture was an extend middle finger made from images of the World Trade Center.
Now, personally, I like the idea of the mosque. I can understand the issues surrounding it and the images that reminds us all of and I am completely sympathetic. I too have moments of shock when watching the scenes of the buildings falling or the people under the rubble. But I also want to look forward. President Bush, that night, said "America was targeted because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." I think the mosque should be built because for those reasons. We can tell the rest of the world, Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11, but we are a beacon for freedom and we will not let any attack on us silence our core values. I think that building a mosque simply blocks from Ground Zero is the ultimate way of giving the middle finger to the Islamic Extremists that attacked us. We can say to the rest of the world that we have a mosque and a synagogue and a church all in blocks of where you tried to attack us; your aims to destroy the fundamental values of the United States failed.
Part of the reason why the saying "turn the other cheek" is such a great comeback is the history behind it. 2,000 years ago, the left hand was considered unclean and not used since it was used for wiping oneself. Also, an open-handed palm face slap was considered a sign of embrace (a back-handed slap was for beating). So, when the rule was made to turn the other cheek, it was less of sign of personal integrity and more of a sign of putting someone in their place. I think the 'Ground Zero Mosque' would do just that.
Let me leave you with a clip from "The West Wing" that I find to be on target:
Just when you think you have heard it all, something new appears. Last week, I found a rather peculiar article on the Huffington Post. Douglas Hughes, a Republican candidate for California Governor, proposed the creation of a "Pedophile Island." It is exactly what you think it is. Hughes wants to ship all people convicted of pedophilia to an island -Santa Rosa Island- for the rest of their lives. This is legitimate. He really believes this is a good idea. Don't believe me? It's on his campaign website. (I particularly love the use of capitalization mid-sentence; it's very reminiscent of hate group websites.)
To give the abridged version of the plan, he wants to get out a handful of pedophiles from prison and have them set up the essential services (government, police, firefighters, sanitation, roads, medicine, etc.) -assuming they know how to do those things- and they would lead the society for all of the people to come in as time progresses.
Here's the flaw with the plan: it does not differentiate between male and female pedophiles. If a male pedophile on the island and a female pedophile meet, one thing leads to another, add nine months (plus a few years), the situation that lead them to the island loops right back around (but, this time, in a controlled environment).
Editor's note: the author of this post has been a long-time Specter supporter
Tomorrow is the Democratic Primary race between Congressman Joe Sestak and Sen. Arlen Specter. For those of you that do not know, Sestak is a retired Navy Vice Admiral and Specter was a long-time Republican senator and used to be Senate Judiciary Committee (the ones who approve Supreme Court nominees to go to the Senate floor for a vote) Chair.
Rep. Sestak has been attacking Sen. Specter for switching parties in order to keep his job and saying how he (Sestak) has been a life-long Democrat, like in this add:
However, the clip is cut short:
For as long as I knew of Senator Specter, I have been a fan of his. I find myself to be an independent thinker and I have the ability to discern wolves in sheep's clothing. I knew for a long time that Senator Arlen Specter was a Democrat at heart.
I was in the audience when this video was taken (it was cut due to time purposes). The senator explained his reason for being a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and the story he gave. He grew up as the son of European Jews that escaped after the Nazis came to power. This was also during the midst of the Great Depression. The Senator's parents were both Democrats due to support of FDR's New Deal. Specter was raised in that same sort of mindset. Later in life, he decided to be a local district attorney with the promise that he would be a strong prosecutor. However, the local Democratic Party did not want a bulldog prosecutor to run with them. So, the Republicans took him with open arms. The rest was history.
Until, he voted for the Stimulus Package. He explained that being the son of poor immigrants, he saw the economic downturn the United States could have faced and knew how essential the Stimulus Package was to ensure there would never be another Great Depression.
This blog post has no real message except for that people should not look at a candidate based on party affiliation, but more on the experience, plans, and personal vision the person has for the position. Speaking as a New York City resident D and R are simply characters. If someone looked at Mayor Michael Bloomberg's stances on the issues, one would see that the only difference is merely a letter after his name
Earlier this evening, I was watching Anderson Cooper 360. They were doing a special on the medical impact of obesity. While I was watching it, I was reminded of when I was in high school. The State of New York requires school children to be physically active by requiring some type of physical education course (dance is allowed, if offered). My school extended it to if a student was on a sports team, he was exempt from gym classes for the season.
The Phys Ed teacher I had for 3 years was and a great guy, but he had a very narrow-minded view of sports that should qualify; if he had it his way, the list would consist of football, basketball, and baseball. He thought that track shouldn't be allowed since anyone can run; swimming was running through a thicker medium. He never seemed to make a position a position on wrestling, rugby, tennis, hockey, or soccer; it went without saying that he did not like the bowling or golf teams.
He is the problem that I had: none of those sports were really ever my thing. My gym classes would typically consist of either playing touch football or basketball (neither of which were that appealing so I ended up looking "active" by shooting free-throws). My school had a weight room and I would frankly have preferred to spend my gym class there, but that option was rarely available.
Here is what I think should happen: make it a legal requirement to provide for independent physical education studies. What do I mean by this? When Tony Hawk was in his senior year of high school, he and his classmates had the option of independent study for their physical education requirements. The typical list items were offered as well as surfing. There was an asterisk at the end of the list which allowed for writing one's own course of study to be approved by the school board. Take a wild guess what Tony Hawk got approved.
The reason I feel that our youth is so inactive is that they fall into a donut hole if they are forced into two things they dislike so the school can continue to be accredited. I am an avid skier. I would have loved to get school credit to do something I enjoyed. And if my teacher wanted to say that skiing is not a sport, I would have liked him to see how much ones legs could hurt from the muscle tonnage of the sharp turns required to speed down a run roughly three-fourths mile in length in about 3 minutes (I once timed and measured the route on a map and that's what it came to) about eight times in one day and then say that skiing should not qualify.
If Tony Hawk could get proper credit to prove that he was skateboarding, why couldn't I do something to say that I was out skiing? It is not that young adults are inactive, but that they have been put into a mindset of apathy towards exercise and activity.
Before I say anything, I do apologize for how many of my remarks were incendiary. It was meant to be an equitable response to what I found to be complete absurdity.
With that said, after returning from Spring Break, my family received our census form. It was literally 10 questions that would take 10 minutes to fill out - NOT 28 pages as the Representative said.
Yesterday was "Census Day," which is the day that census forms were due (however, census forms will be still accepted until the later part of this month). Politico had an interesting story relating to Bachmann's belief that the census was an invasion of privacy. 1,030 adults were polled to ask if the census, in their respective opinions, was an invasion of privacy; a mere 13% believed that it was. I think those numbers speak for themselves.
For the sake of fairness, it was also asked about how accurate census numbers are in terms of actual population; 33% of respondents said it was either somewhat or very inaccurate. But, as we all know, the better the populating sample, the more accurate the data that will be used. That data then correlated to Congressional representation and funding for local projects - proof of why the census is essential.
Yesterday, the College Democrats of America (CDA) hosted a Press Conference Call regarding the passing of the health care reform reconciliation bill, more specifically about the provisions regarding the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA). The call was lead by DNC Chairman Governor Tim Kaine and CDA President Katie Naranjo. If you were unable to make the call, you can listen to what was said at http://my.democrats.org/page/-/audio/calls/ConfCall033010.mp3
Welcome back, I hope you all had a nice and restful spring break. We will be having our regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow, 8pm in Dealy 115. We will be discussing the budget, eboard elections, the College Democrats of NY convention and potential speakers we can bring to campus this year. Of course we will be talking about the historic passage of health care reform, what it means and a sneak peak into some of the 2010 elections. In addition there are some great events planned this week that we will be reminding you about such as the USG Inaugural Lecture on Leadership and Government Service lecture that will feature the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency's National Clandestine Service, Michael Sulick, Ph.D. Thursday, March 25th at 7 PM in the Keating 1st. If anything else interesting should come up I will let you know asap, please feel free to contact us as well if you have any questions, otherwise I look forward to seeing you all tomorrow night. Thanks very much, the minutes from the previous meeting are attached.
Best wishes,
Andy Laub
Executive Secretary -- College Democrats of Fordham University
I saw something interesting this evening, something that I would not expect. Bipartisanship.
Following the debate we had with the Fordham University College Republicans, a few of our members decided to go out for a bite. As luck would have it, we were walking alongside the CRs. Of course, conversation ensued. We all ended up having some late night pizza together.
Yes, we spoke some politics. But, we also spoke about our plans for after college, classes, the usual stuff. But, regardless, it was all very lighthearted.
While romanticizing the Senate of yore would be a mistake, it was certainly better in my father’s time. My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats.
One incident from his career vividly demonstrates how times have changed. In 1968, when my father was running for re-election, Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, approached him on the Senate floor, put his arm around my dad’s shoulder, and asked what he could do to help. This is unimaginable today.
When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays. This type of social interaction hardly ever happens today and we are the poorer for it. It is much harder to demonize someone when you know his family or have visited his home. Today, members routinely campaign against each other, raise donations against each other and force votes on trivial amendments written solely to provide fodder for the next negative attack ad. It’s difficult to work with members actively plotting your demise.
Any improvement must begin by changing the personal chemistry among senators. More interaction in a non-adversarial atmosphere would help.
What does the Senator propose? Lunch.
Let's start with a simple proposal: why not have a monthly lunch of all 100 senators? Every week, the parties already meet for a caucus lunch. Democrats gather in one room, Republicans in another, and no bipartisan interaction takes place. With a monthly lunch of all senators, we could pick a topic and have each side make a brief presentation followed by questions and answers. Listening to one another, absent the posturing and public talking points, could only promote greater understanding, which is necessary to real progress.
At last week's meeting, this very topic was discussed. In fact, it was suggested that we have a dinner together. I personally was pleased that the suggestion came over so positively.
When we brough Howard Dean to speak back in October, one CR came up to me and we spoke briefly. The CR said, nonshalantly, that neither the CDs nor the CRs hated each other. I feel that that is the case. I'm not saying that the College Republicans and the College Democrats will be having a bon fire and singing "Kumbya" together. What I am saying that the fact that many of the CDs and CRs are friends with one-another let's the other group have a better understanding of the person and not the party.
I have one College Republican friend who one told me how she is constantly taunted for being a Republican. She isn't known by her first name, but simply "Republican." The fact she has disposable cups with stars and stripes on them is proof of her partisanship. When she told me this, I just told her to forget what they have to say and be proud to be a Republican.
Political ideology is a value. What do I mean by that? We all have values. Our friends, family, interests, and religion -they're all values. Of course, our values change: our friends have changed, our interests have changed, and our religious beliefs can change. Change in ourselves, of course, isn't bad; it's just a fact of life. By all that we learn and experience, our values change. There can be this one book we read that changes our stance on a political issue or we see some injustice that makes us second-guess our choices in friends. It's just life.
We all have to see the person and not the party. If we learn the person, we can learn how and why they are how they are today. Furthermore, we can find a common ground. I had a professor that told a real-life parable about how differences lead to fear (and, sometimes, hate): My professor, for whatever reason, had to go buy some peanut butter. He goes to the nearest gas station store and buys some. When he went to the register, the cashier was on a cell phone, speaking Spanish. He felt a little hesitant around the cashier. But, then, he realized a way to 'extend an olive branch.' He asked the cashier what the Spanish word for 'peanut butter' was. He realized that if people see some commonality, the fear (or hatred) they may have diminishes.
If people from both sides of the aisle start to get to know each other, imagine all of the good that could be done. We see how the person became that way and why he or she wishes to achieve a certain goal. Chances are, there would be some commonality between the speaker and the hearer, whether it be schooling, religion, mutual friends, or even a preference in music. One similarity that is learned is one more than there was before.
Why do I think this is significant? I watched the health care summit online a few weeks ago. Any viewer could see that with many of the topics, the two sides agreed. The Democrats, however, extended an olive branch by adding Republican-proposed provisions to the bill like buying insurance from other states. It seemed obvious that the Democrats were hoping that the Republicans would meet them half-way. That never happened. The Republicans, even with the provisions they liked, folded.
If we can have two politician friends (one from each aisle) say Hey, I'll support your bill for x if you'll support my bill for y, we'll have what the framers hoped for: compromise.
In a way, I already see it happening. On Tuesday, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) announced that he would vote for cloture on a jobs bill that he actually opposed. He felt the bill would be harmful to the deficit. So, why did he vote for it? Simply put, he thought that the Senate needs to start getting s*** done. For that, I applaud him. I know that his reasons aren't really bipartisan, but he has been known to be very independent and I predict that this will cause a snowballing effect with future bipartisan legislation.
Maybe it is just me glorifying a situation, but I feel that if College Democrats and College Republicans can have a meal together without getting at each other's throats, we're headed in the right direction.
Macon Phillips (EOP)
Seamus Campbell
Robert Gibbs (EOP)
