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.
