Showing posts with label College Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label College Democrats. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
SAFRA Press Conference Call
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
Friday, March 12, 2010
Proof Positive of Bipartisanship
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.
I understand that this doesn't really sound all that interesting nor surprising. But, I was reminded about an op-ed that Evan Bayh wrote for the New York Times to explain why he plans on leaving the U.S. Senate. The reason: the partisanship.
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.
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.
I understand that this doesn't really sound all that interesting nor surprising. But, I was reminded about an op-ed that Evan Bayh wrote for the New York Times to explain why he plans on leaving the U.S. Senate. The reason: the partisanship.
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.What does the Senator propose? Lunch.
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.
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.
Friday, February 19, 2010
A Liberal Arts Education
Just watch:
So, apparently, college makes you more liberal. Yay!
But, colleges don't teach simple U.S. Civics. Boo!
Hey Tucker, I hate to break it to you, but, last time that I checked, the GREs didn't test about proficiency in the U.S. Government. Also, neither does the (regular) SATs nor the ACTs. If only there was a place to learn about these fundamental things about our nation. If only there was a location of education where youngsters were forced to go in order to be taught these things. Wait.... It's coming to me.... Give me a second.... That's it! A penitentiary! Wait, no that's not it. Hold on... it's just about there... almost... Yes! HIGH SCHOOL!
Guess where I was taught about the Constitution (in grave detail) and forced to be able to recite the different Presidents, and name all of the states in the union? In my junior year of high school. My teacher made it a priority. In fact, when some students bombed a quiz on the Constitution, he tore them something new simply because some of my classmates and I would one day be called to defend it and, as he put it, "It may be a good idea to at least have caroused the document."
In my 2.5 years as a college student, I have not been required to list off facts about the Order of Presidential Succession. And, to be honest, based on most liberal arts core curriculums, it does not matter.
Most Liberal Art curriculums involves a combination of courses from: philosophy, history, modern languages, literature and rhetoric, mathematics, sciences, and the humanities.
When I applied to colleges and had my respective interviews with each of them, one of the questions I would always ask was if there was any particular requirements, in terms of courses taken in high school, in order to be accepted. You know what the answer I got every time I asked was? Just the requirements to graduate high school.
You see that Tucker Carlson?! It was, in essence, expected that I knew these things already. Interesting, then, how the politics, philosophy, and history courses were designed to have a modern tone and have the expectation that I knew my 1st Amendments rights.
Watching some of the CPAC coverage today, I heard an reverberating theme of insulting education. At one point, there was a criticism about various feminism-studying classes at different colleges; however, any educated person could tell you that in any social scientific study, researches CANNOT pass moral judgment on the subjects and must study the group personally (least, at a minimum, skew the data). I heard a criticisms of "socialized" education.
Okay, the Conservatives of the nation hate the Education Department and think that education should be left to a local level. Yeah, that has been great so far based on the said research. What do we have as a nation-wide academic achievement test? Well, de-facto, the SAT. I would like the people who want an end to DOE to look me in the eye and say that the SAT is an accurate test of knowing what is expected to be known after 12 (or so) years of education.
You want to solve this lack of civics education problem? Have a nationalized standardized test that measures the bare minimum of what is expected to be known after high school (i.e. what is the smallest Pythagorean triple?, How does a bill become a law?, What is the powerhouse of a biological cell? What sparked World War I? What two things are needed to make a complete sentence?). If a student fails to pass it, no degree for them. It is simple: make a high school degree something that is not given, but earned!
As for the liberal thing, please go here.
So, apparently, college makes you more liberal. Yay!
But, colleges don't teach simple U.S. Civics. Boo!
Hey Tucker, I hate to break it to you, but, last time that I checked, the GREs didn't test about proficiency in the U.S. Government. Also, neither does the (regular) SATs nor the ACTs. If only there was a place to learn about these fundamental things about our nation. If only there was a location of education where youngsters were forced to go in order to be taught these things. Wait.... It's coming to me.... Give me a second.... That's it! A penitentiary! Wait, no that's not it. Hold on... it's just about there... almost... Yes! HIGH SCHOOL!
Guess where I was taught about the Constitution (in grave detail) and forced to be able to recite the different Presidents, and name all of the states in the union? In my junior year of high school. My teacher made it a priority. In fact, when some students bombed a quiz on the Constitution, he tore them something new simply because some of my classmates and I would one day be called to defend it and, as he put it, "It may be a good idea to at least have caroused the document."
In my 2.5 years as a college student, I have not been required to list off facts about the Order of Presidential Succession. And, to be honest, based on most liberal arts core curriculums, it does not matter.
Most Liberal Art curriculums involves a combination of courses from: philosophy, history, modern languages, literature and rhetoric, mathematics, sciences, and the humanities.
When I applied to colleges and had my respective interviews with each of them, one of the questions I would always ask was if there was any particular requirements, in terms of courses taken in high school, in order to be accepted. You know what the answer I got every time I asked was? Just the requirements to graduate high school.
You see that Tucker Carlson?! It was, in essence, expected that I knew these things already. Interesting, then, how the politics, philosophy, and history courses were designed to have a modern tone and have the expectation that I knew my 1st Amendments rights.
Watching some of the CPAC coverage today, I heard an reverberating theme of insulting education. At one point, there was a criticism about various feminism-studying classes at different colleges; however, any educated person could tell you that in any social scientific study, researches CANNOT pass moral judgment on the subjects and must study the group personally (least, at a minimum, skew the data). I heard a criticisms of "socialized" education.
Okay, the Conservatives of the nation hate the Education Department and think that education should be left to a local level. Yeah, that has been great so far based on the said research. What do we have as a nation-wide academic achievement test? Well, de-facto, the SAT. I would like the people who want an end to DOE to look me in the eye and say that the SAT is an accurate test of knowing what is expected to be known after 12 (or so) years of education.
You want to solve this lack of civics education problem? Have a nationalized standardized test that measures the bare minimum of what is expected to be known after high school (i.e. what is the smallest Pythagorean triple?, How does a bill become a law?, What is the powerhouse of a biological cell? What sparked World War I? What two things are needed to make a complete sentence?). If a student fails to pass it, no degree for them. It is simple: make a high school degree something that is not given, but earned!
As for the liberal thing, please go here.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
I'm Not Complaining, Why Are You?
Right now, I am watching what may be my all-time favorite West Wing episode: Isaac and Ishmael. The story is simple: the White House is on lock-down and a group of high school students are taught about the origins of fundamental Islam by the various characters. The episode was made in response to anti-Muslim sentiments following 9/11.
One of the first stories I heard on the news this morning that Attorney General Holder is thinking of holding some of the Al Quaeda terrorists on trial in Brooklyn. The court house for United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is mere blocks from my apartment. If you exited my building on the Cadman Plaza West side, crossed the street, and walked through Cadman Plaza Park (which is roughly the width of Eddie's) and you would be at the court house. Heck, I can see the court house from my bedroom (I would have a better view if the trees were chopped down, but whatever).
My mother works mere blocks from the Southern District court house, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks- will be tried.
Protectors across the country are protesting these people being put on trial in American courts. One of their fears is that the people in the area will be put in harm's way. Guess what? Me and my family will be in harms way. And I have no problem with it. From the get-go, I have been for putting these terrorists on trial.
A few weeks ago, I asked my conservative Republican father what his thoughts were about the trials. He responded, "we are Americans. That's what we do." I tweeted this line and it was retweeted by the University of New Mexico's College Democrats chapter.
The night of the 9/11 Attacks, President Bush said "America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." How can we keep that light aglow if we don't give even our enemies due process? Hell, we did so for the Nuremberg Trials.
What makes the Holocaust truly different from what happened on that summer day in September 2001? Both were systematic. The only difference were the races/religions of the majority of the victims and their nationality. Suddenly, are we saying "if you kill millions of Jews, you get a trial; but, if you kill thousands of our people, you get a military tribunal"?
What are these protectors truly protesting? I will be in harm's way, but I'm not complaining. There goes public safety. They don't deserve a trial? Denounce the Nuremberg Trials and then we'll talk. They could get off? A jury of New Yorkers, really?
I know this card has been played once too many, but I think it is just another reason to oppose the Obama Administration.
I want to leave you all with this: (warning: if you are not a Star Wars fan, just stop here) Negelecting any love stories, Anakin Skywalker learns that Emperor Palpatine is the Sith Lord. Anakin says that Palpatine deserves a trial for his betrayal of the Republic. Mace Windu says that Palpatine is too dangerous to be left alive. Would you kill Palpatine because he betrayed the public and openly admits it or would you let him stand trial?
Here's another one: from Thank You For Smoking
I have yet to have heard a philosophical argument about 9/11 (minus Acts of War versus Crimes), but I think this explains the true underlying argument within our hearts.
One of the first stories I heard on the news this morning that Attorney General Holder is thinking of holding some of the Al Quaeda terrorists on trial in Brooklyn. The court house for United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is mere blocks from my apartment. If you exited my building on the Cadman Plaza West side, crossed the street, and walked through Cadman Plaza Park (which is roughly the width of Eddie's) and you would be at the court house. Heck, I can see the court house from my bedroom (I would have a better view if the trees were chopped down, but whatever).
My mother works mere blocks from the Southern District court house, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks- will be tried.
Protectors across the country are protesting these people being put on trial in American courts. One of their fears is that the people in the area will be put in harm's way. Guess what? Me and my family will be in harms way. And I have no problem with it. From the get-go, I have been for putting these terrorists on trial.
A few weeks ago, I asked my conservative Republican father what his thoughts were about the trials. He responded, "we are Americans. That's what we do." I tweeted this line and it was retweeted by the University of New Mexico's College Democrats chapter.
The night of the 9/11 Attacks, President Bush said "America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." How can we keep that light aglow if we don't give even our enemies due process? Hell, we did so for the Nuremberg Trials.
What makes the Holocaust truly different from what happened on that summer day in September 2001? Both were systematic. The only difference were the races/religions of the majority of the victims and their nationality. Suddenly, are we saying "if you kill millions of Jews, you get a trial; but, if you kill thousands of our people, you get a military tribunal"?
What are these protectors truly protesting? I will be in harm's way, but I'm not complaining. There goes public safety. They don't deserve a trial? Denounce the Nuremberg Trials and then we'll talk. They could get off? A jury of New Yorkers, really?
I know this card has been played once too many, but I think it is just another reason to oppose the Obama Administration.
I want to leave you all with this: (warning: if you are not a Star Wars fan, just stop here) Negelecting any love stories, Anakin Skywalker learns that Emperor Palpatine is the Sith Lord. Anakin says that Palpatine deserves a trial for his betrayal of the Republic. Mace Windu says that Palpatine is too dangerous to be left alive. Would you kill Palpatine because he betrayed the public and openly admits it or would you let him stand trial?
Here's another one: from Thank You For Smoking
I have yet to have heard a philosophical argument about 9/11 (minus Acts of War versus Crimes), but I think this explains the true underlying argument within our hearts.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
An Open Question
A few days ago, Katie Naranjo and Jamarr Brown launched their campaign website for President and Vice President, respectively, of College Democrats of America. The CDA Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be of opposite sexes?. My question is: what happens if one of the two is transgendered/transsexual? The Democratic Party is supposed to support people of any sexuality, but how do we as a party determine a person's sex?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
