pageviews“New York has no national monuments or icons.”
…
The above statement would leave most Americans scratching their heads in confusion, wondering what manner of ignorant soul could possibly have come up with that brilliant proclamation. But that’s the gospel truth. At least, if you listen to the Department of Homeland Security, it is. Apparently, nobody down at DHS headquarters has ever been to the Empire State Building, Times Square, Central Park, Yankee Stadium, or the Statue of Liberty. Because if they had, they probably wouldn’t have been so quick to make the above statement, a direct quote from a May DHS report justifying massive cuts in security funding for cities most likely to be the victims of a terror attack. According to ABC News, the Big Apple’s absence of national icons or places of symbolic significance was a main reason the federal government slashed NYC’s security funding by 40%.
And don’t think you’re safe, either, my fellow Hoyas. “What?” you ask with indignation. “But Washington, D.C., is our nation’s capital, home to dozens of monuments, museums, and historical landmarks! What kind of idiot couldn’t see that that would make it a target Osama probably salivates over?” Our old friends over at DHS, that’s who. Washington also suffered huge cuts this year, from $77 million from Uncle Sam down to about $46 million, reports this morning’s Washington Post.
DHS’s announcement immediately led to denunciations from lawmakers of both parties, and even most security experts were surprised, expecting this year’s review of national security funding to lead to more money for these prime terrorist targets, not less.
So how are New Yorkers and Washingtonians supposed to feel secure knowing that their city governments have unexpectedly been left in lurch? Officials wouldn’t say, but certain DHS employees have been spotted at the Tenleytown Home Depot stocking up on duct tape.
Are you sitting down? If not, you might want to, because I have some very disturbing news for you: you’re going to hell. Yes, you, you Godlesscommieterrorist-lovingfreedom-hatingtofu-eatingliberal, you.
Well, according to Ann Coulter, anyway. Her latest book, Godless (due to come out next week), aims to “expose” the startling fact that liberals hate God. Yes, all of them. And religion. And they hate Jesus, too. And cotton candy and sunshine and flowers…
Amazon.com offers the following description of Godless:
GODLESS is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’ ”
GODLESS throws open the doors of the “Church of Liberalism.”
Darn it, Ann, you caught me. And everyone knows that if Ann Coulter tells me going to hell, well then, goshdarnit, it must be true!
The rabid West Wing fans among us (okay, fine, this is the GUCD blog… let’s face it, that’s probably all of us) probably remember a sub-plotline of the Season 4 midterm elections wherein the Democratic campaign for the California 47th, Horton Wilde, actually lacks a pulse. While this is obviously a made-for-TV scenario, if we take a look at the upcoming midterms, a Democratic congressional candidate who is actually dead suddenly doesn’t seem too far-fetched.
Anyone who follows Democratic politics closely has probably picked up by now on the schism between DNC Chairman Howard Dean and DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel. For more a detailed report on the Dean-Emanuel smackdown, check out Tom Edsall’s May 11th Washington Post article on the subject, which reports on a month-long inside the Beltway rumor of a conflict between Rep. Emanuel and Gov. Dean over campaign strategy for the midterms.
Dean has long since championed what he dubs a Democratic “50 states” strategy, arguing that Democrats can and should contest races in all 50 states, even those that polling and demographics suggest are near-unwinnable. The idea behind this philosophy is that Democrats can’t strengthen themselves in the long run unless they compete everywhere. Emanuel (a former ballerina and Clinton strategist from Illinois upon whom, rumor has it, the West Wing character Josh Lyman was largely based), on the other hand, has been very vocal with concerns that the DNC is spending too much money, too fast, on races that are uncompetitive for the Democrats, with the fear that it will leave the Democrats with empty pockets come the October election crunch. Emanuel has argued for spending DNC money where it can do the most good—in races that look competitive for November.
This debate is more than just about how or where to spend money. Dean’s 50 state strategy raises some interesting issues for the Democrats—mainly, how to make the party competitive in blood red states. This includes spending money on races that will most likely go Republican, yes, but it’s also about more than just money; it’s about recruiting qualified candidates to challenge GOP incumbents.
So far, the national Democratic mood seems to be treading Emanuel’s way, if we take a look at a few November House races. Many races in strongly Republican districts have literally no declared Democratic candidate, robbing voters of these districts of a chance to vote on their officeholders. (Some states, like Louisiana, have no Democrats running in in more than half of their congressional districts.) This smacks of un-democratic government. (“Saddam Hussein for President of the Republic of Iraq, vote yes or no,” anyone?) Democrats are letting legitimate chances to make their voices heard go unanswered, like in the CA-44, where Republican incumbent Ken Calvert has been strongly implicated in some of the schemes that downed his ethically-challenged colleague Duke Cunningham in the CA-50. It's strange that no Democrat has stepped forward to challenge Rep. Calvert on his, ahem, little ethics problem. (All of this is to say nothing of districts where the Democrat is on the ticket merely as a formality, with little in the way of a campaign and no support from the National Committee.)
I agree with Governor Dean. It saddens and angers me that in 2004, we didn’t even try in the South. Had Sen. Kerry won Ohio, he would have been elected president without a single Southern state. The last time that happened, the South seceded from the Union. Now, I’m not saying that the situation is quite as dire as 1860, but it’s embarrassing that we claim to be a national party and yet aren’t even bothering to really campaign in more than half of the country.
I’m also not saying that it will be easy. Yes, we have limited funds, and yes, it is difficult to get qualified Democratic candidates to act as sacrificial lambs on behalf of the party. But it shouldn’t be impossible. I’m not proposing a complete solution here, but it’s a start. There are lots of proud Democrats out there who would run given the promise of even an iota of support from the national party. Yeah, they’d probably lose, and nobody likes to be a loser, but I like to think that there are a few patriotic Americans in red states like Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indiana that could step up to the plate and get the debate started. Heck, I’ll even do it, just give me a few years to work on my southern drawl. Politics is about more than just winning; it’s about the ideas. Gov. Dean’s 50 State Plan is a step in the right direction. But as long as large parts of the US are de facto one-party states, we’ve already lost.
Though the session is drawing to a close, and every senator, congressman, and congressional staffer is itching to get out the door for the upcoming holiday, there are still tons of issues left on Congress’ agenda before anybody can pack up and hightail it to the Hamptons for Memorial Day weekend. Immigration, tax reform, drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge… lots of high-profile topics are still left on the table for this session. Yet as last week drew to a close, what was the Senate doing with their time and your money? Addressing these vital issues with full and careful debate, perhaps? Or maybe our senators were busy, carefully weighing both sides of these problems and coming to reasonable and effective solutions for America’s problems? Or perchance were they examining the roots of each issue carefully and attempting to come to a practical, bipartisan agreement that both parties could get behind?
If you answered yes to any of those questions, you’re either A) inspiringly optimistic or B) you haven’t been in Washington very much.
Despite the fact that lots of key issues were still unresolved at the end of last week, the Senate was busy spending its time protecting… English?
Yes. To many of our US Senators, it seems, the second-most spoken language in the world is under grave threat. This, of course, comes as a great shock to the more than half a billion people worldwide who speak it, including the vast majority of Americans. Yet for some reason Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla) saw it necessary to offer an amendment (which passed 63-34) to the Senate immigration bill that would require the government to “preserve and enhance the role of English.”
Now, this isn’t entirely unprecedented. Other nations do similar things with their native languages. The French government, in its goal to zealously preserve all things smelly, has gone so far as to ban the use of certain English expressions in official correspondence. But these are the French. I mean, come on. We should be embarrassed about this amendment, if for no other reason than it brings us dangerously close to agreeing with something the French do. (That reminds me. I heard a good French joke the other day—Q: Why don’t they have fireworks at Euro Disney? A: Because every time they shoot them off, the French try to surrender. But anyway…)
But this amendment is more than just disgustingly European and totally uncalled for. It’s racist. This is a political move, made by the Republicans in an election year debate about an extremely contentious issue about which many Americans feel very passionately. It’s designed to play to the basest fears of many Americans—that they will “lose” control over a country overrun with foreigners—and it’s despicable. This amendment does nothing to preserve any sort of genuine American heritage, but rather undermines it.
Since our country’s birth, and especially in the 20th century, Americans have always seen themselves as a melting pot of cultures. Citizens and nationals of every religion, race, and language have taken their individual cultures and histories and banded together as one nation indivisible. Sure, we all have our different traditions and practices, but that’s the beauty of America. Immigrants have always been able to preserve their personal identities while at the same time embracing the national one. That's what makes us America, and this law threatens the very foundations of our freedoms.
What’s more, this law is doomed to failure from the start. Let’s take a look at Miami-Dade County, which is more than a little familiar with the English-versus-Spanish debate. In 1980, amid a virtual torrent of Spanish-speaking Hispanic immigrants, county commissioners passed an English-only law virtually identical to the one the Senate passed last week, requiring almost all business in the county to be conducted in English. The mandate’s supporters used arguments similar to the ones we’re hearing today, arguing that the law would help preserve the American character of Miami. The law faced the same arguments last week’s amendment does: that it’s offensive and pointless. But Miami’s failure can serve as a harbinger to the nation as a whole if we let it. The law was a total botch. Instead of encouraging immigrants to learn English, it instead simply frustrated them, denying Hispanic and Cuban Miami residents government materials and information in a language that they could understand. By 1993, it had become clear that the law did little more than divide the community (rather than uniting it) and the city commissioners repealed it unanimously. Let Miami serve as a warning to us all regarding the dangers of declaring English the official national language.
Nobody is saying that English isn’t important. It’s the native language of the vast majority of Americans, and virtually all business and community activity takes place in English. That alone is incentive enough for new immigrants to learn English; we shouldn’t have to pass unnecessary laws that are little more than pretense.
It’s time to tell Congress: Stop wasting our time, and just stick to making the laws we actually need.
The Washington Post has recently informed me that according to the government, I should be thinking of myself as pre-pregnant. And I shouldn't stop until 2035.
New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon. Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control. ...[I]t's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed.
I can barely express how disturbed I am.
I am not a vessel.
And no one has any business telling me how to regard myself. Yes, it is better to be healthy than unhealthy (and it's clear that incredible numbers of Americans are unhealthy), and I am always chuffed whenever people are reminded that McDonald's diets and walking only between the desk and the bathroom will adversely affect their health. I could even accept someone going so far as to make the value judgment that we "should" exercise more often and smoke and drink less. In my view as well, it would be best if pregnant women avoided any sort of harm to their foetuses or to themselves.
But when someone tells me how to think of myself, that is out of line.
The implication is that women should define themselves by pregnancy. (Ha! The Handmaid's Tale, anyone?)
It leaves me asking how long we will spend slipping down the slope between "should" and "must", and my teensy little inner libertarian quakes.
And it leaves me asking where the federal guideline is that instructs men to regard themselves as in a persistent state of "pre-fatherhood". Where is the demand that all pre-fathers between the ages of 13 and 93 should never use cell phones, regardless of whether they plan to be fathers anytime soon? What about even the simple order to take Vitamin C/zinc supplements and stop smoking?
Double standards? Denigration of individuality in reproductive issues? -- This government? Pfft.
read more...For months now, adminstration officials, neoconservative ideologues, and partisan Republican apologists have rolled out a conventional wisdom on Iraq that permeates the debate in the media and in casual conversation. But this conventional wisdom doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
First, these proponents of the American presence in Iraq claim that a precipitous American withdrawal would surely lead to civil war. What these proponents ignore is that Iraq is already heavily embroiled in civil war. Over the last year, an average 903 Iraqis died every month from sectarian violence. In th Lebanese civil war that lasted 15 years, an average 555 Lebanese died a month. Iraq is clearly embroiled in a civil war, as reports of death squads, sectarian militias, and neighborhood segregation abound. Further, these supporters seem to think that America is somehow holding Iraq together, and that a withdrawal of American forces would break the glue binding the Iraqi nation together. There is nothing that American troops are currently doing to keep sectarian violence at bay, since American combat activities are restricted to fighting insurgents and foreign terrorists, not disarming death squads and sectarian militias. And American troops won't disarm those rapidly growing groups because it would only wident he rift among Iraqi groups and provoke a greater anti-American backlash. Withdrawing American forces would have no effect on the intersectarian violence already underway.
Second, proponents argue that an American withdrawal would lead to a Sunni-insurgent terrorist takeover of the Iraqi government, with Musab al-Zarqawi coming to power in Iraq. This is an absolutely ridiculous charge, especially considering that if the administration is to be believed, there are only a few thousand foreign terrorists and Iraqi jihadists fighting, hardly enough to take over a country, where the majority Shi'a have a firm grip on power. In fact, American forces leaving would encourage the Iraqi government to get its act together and would take the wind out of the sails of the Jihadist insurgency.
What American policymakers fail to understand is that American combat operations in Iraq are unnecessary and therefore, an American military presence in Iraq is unnecessary. In fact, it is counterproductive. Our presence inspire jihadist terrorism around the world, provides a recruitment pitch for al-Qaeda, divides Americans, and destroys our international reputation. The President is right that we can still succeed in Iraq; it is not an inevitable failure. But we must leave Iraq in order to have it succeed. Our diplomats and our financial commitment can remain and we should continue to train Iraqi troops out of country, but the cost in American blood is not worth our combat presence if it means that nothing is being accomplished. We must move to strategic redeployment. To learn more about this rational and important policy for Iraq, go here. We should be encouraging every 2008 Presidential candidate and the leaders of our party to adopt this plan.
“If elected President, I will oppose and veto any increase in individual or corporate marginal income tax rates or individual or corporate income tax hikes.” -Candidate George W. Bush, June 1999
Candidate Bush was clear as crystal back then. As clear as his father even. If he was elected President, Bush promised over and over, there would be no new taxes in America. Last week, however, President Bush went back on that pledge, and once again, the victims of his lies are American teenagers. The victim of his actions is America's future.
The tax increase in question was wrapped in a $69 million tax cut bill that President Bush signed into law this week. The provision triples tax rates for teenagers with their own college savings funds, and effectively raises their taxes to the same rate as their parents'. According to the NY Times, "long term capital gains and dividends that were previously taxed at 5 percent for teenagers will now be taxed at 15 percent. Interest that had been taxed at 10 percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent." The increases are retroactive to the first day of 2006, and are expected to raise $2.2 billion in revenue over the next decade.
When questioned about Bush's early campaign promise and the new tax increase, the White House released a statement that highlighted the significant tax cuts in the bill, and claimed the President had "reduced taxes on all people who pay income taxes," but did not address the increase on teenagers. When their statement was challenged, the White House amended it, and said that the President had relieved the tax burden for "virtually all people who pay income taxes."
While the broken promise-- and the administration's attempt to hide or ignore it-- seem to be symptomatic of a broader disrespect for truth and accountability in the White House, that's nothing new. What I'm more concerned about is the choice the Republican Congress and President Bush made to pay for their massive new tax cuts by further burdening America's youth. The attitude that problems can be put off until tomorrow-- that we can pay for new tax cuts or today's social programs by bogging our nation further down in debt or asking our children to pay more than their fair share-- is a dangerous one.
America's policies, foreign and domestic, ought always to reflect one truth: our children are our future. We must encourage excellence in them, and by doing so, we ensure the continued exellence of our nation. Education has been proven the key to reducing crime and eliminating poverty. It is an imperative investment toward our future economic prosperity.
I'm not going to try to claim that the Bush administration is pro-crime, or anti-prosperity. I wouldn't be able to prove it, and I don't believe it's true. What I do believe is that the White House understands America's youth isn't a vocal minority. They can raise our taxes, cut our student aid, and send our friends overseas to fight in their wars and we will not respond, we will not protest. Most won't even notice.
So last week, when they needed to find a source of revenue to counterbalance some of their tax cuts, we were an easy target.
My proposal? Let's not make it easy for President Bush to burden our generation with his mistakes. I didn't comment when Rachel wrote earlier in the month about youth participation in politics, but it's essential, and if you're reading this blog you already know that. Our priorities are different than the Presidents', and he (unfortunately) makes all the decisions. Let's do our best to influence them. read more...
I'll keep this short; the news speaks for itself. This morning, USA Today reported that the NSA has been building a database of American phone calls. So far, they've collected information about tens of millions of US citizens. Their ultimate aim?
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
Every. Single. Call. Did you pick up the cell to wish your friend good luck before a final? The government has a record of that. Call your parents asking for advice? The NSA knows. Phone your girlfriend to tell her good night? General Hayden is well aware.
The Patriot Act was nothing compared to this; who cares if a few library records are compromised? Even the NSA wiretapping scandal pales in comparison; after all, very few people actually had their phoned tapped. But today, we know that the government is keeping records on the private conversations of every single American. Me, you, your parents, my friends-- the government has a list of every phone call they've made for the past five years. The largest database ever created is being used to collect private information from you, your friends, and your neighbors.
This is the end. The Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping were complicated, and the Republicans managed to squeek by thanks to their complexity. They painted Democrats as against all wiretapping, not just warantless wiretapping, and they made it seem as if the courts were an impediment to stopping terrorists. They were wrong, of course, but they managed to squirm out of facing the music. This is utterly inexcusable; spying on every single American is impossible to defend. Spying on every single Russian was the job of the KGB; spying on every single person was the job of Orwell's Big Brother. We live in the land of freedom, liberty, and democracy. Here in America, there is simply no excuse.
read more...
It’s not hard to see that President Bush’s presidency is irreversibly stuck in the mud. Even a cursory glance at the front pages will tell you what Democrats already know-- Bush has failed in leading this country. Growing budget deficits, a pointless and costly war in Iraq, stalled bills in Congress and a growing anti-American sentiment abroad confirm what we’ve been saying for years: Bush is an incompetent leader who has left America worse off than we were six years ago.
But now we’re adding a new component to the mix: the Washington Post reports today that Bush and the GOP are losing the backing of even their most diehard supporters. The latest AP poll reports that Bush has a 52% approval rating among self-described “conservatives,” and that number goes even lower when discussing the Republican-controlled Congress, to 33%. Most conservatives attribute this loss to the failures of Bush and the Republicans in Congress to succeed in advancing key conservative issues, like banning gay marriage and cutting government spending. In fact, since Bush took office in 2001, government spending has increased by more than 25%, the largest increase under any president since Lyndon Johnson. (It’s worth pointing out, too, that under Johnson, American taxpayers saw at least some bang for their buck in the form of important government welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. What has Bush’s increased spending brought us? Nothing but more pork barrel projects and handouts to overly cozy lobbyists.)
Now, what does this all mean? Nothing, if Democrats drop the ball. This poll only reflects short-term phenomena, and the eventual results can only be predicted after examining polling data over an extended period of time. But it still bodes well for November crystal ball predictions. History shows us that the president’s party almost always lose seats in Congress during midyear elections; this trend is ever stronger when the president has low satisfaction numbers. (The most recent Gallup poll puts Bush’s overall approval rating at 31%; also interesting are approval numbers of Bush’s key administration members, with approval numbers hitting new lows for Vice President Cheney [34%, with a 62% unfavorable] and Secretary Rumsfeld [37% approval with 57% disapproval]. These numbers probably don’t have any bearing on election results or Bush’s overall approval rating, since most Americans tend not to pay that much attention to Cabinet members or vice presidents, but they’re interesting numbers for us political geeks, and also reflect a growing dissatisfaction with Bush overall that has trickled down to affect his key advisers and strategists.)
All of this portends well for Democrats in the fall, but these numbers must be taken with a grain of salt. Most conservatives aren’t likely to jump to the Democratic ticket unless they’re offered something in return. More likely than not, they’ll just stay home. Now, y’all know me, and I’m never one to advocate that voters stay home come Election Day (see below entry), but even that could work out well for Democrats, particularly in key districts with close races like in Minnesota and Missouri.
But just because Bush’s loss of base support is a win-win situation for Democrats doesn’t mean we should just ignore the potential bounty to be reaped here. Despite the doom-and-gloom attitude of many Democratic strategists, I still think that these self-described “conservatives” could be turned to a Democratic tide if we play our cards right. Strategists like James Carville and Paul Begala and moderate Democratic strategy groups like the DLC have paved the road for this type of campaigning; victories of moderate Democrats for both federal and local office in Republican-leaning Southern states like Georgia and Louisiana are just an example of how the Democrats can turn traditionally Republican supporters into swing votes. In the upcoming election, Democrats cannot concede the moral high ground to the Republicans. We need to show that we can “bring it,” if you will, on Republican turf just as well as we can in liberal enclaves like the streets of New York City and the wilds of Massachusetts.
Republicans do not have a monopoly on God. Did Jesus not say “But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:13-14)? Now, which party is the party of equality and social justice? The Republicans, who have tried to cut every welfare program under the sun, or the Democrats, who want to help the unemployed by giving them a leg up until they can get back on their feet? Along this same train of thought, we also need to show the voters that Republicans’ efforts to ban gay marriage are just a empty gesture designed to throw a bone at the religious vote. Democrats are just as pro-family as the Republicans. Actually, we’re more: unlike the Republicans, we’re not trying to ban families, whatever form of love they might take.
Nor is the GOP the party of “fiscal responsibility.” President Clinton reduced the deficit during each year of his presidency. In fact, he even ran surpluses in his last four budgets as president. In contrast, the Progressive Policy Institute says,
“The Republican-led Congress is passing pork projects at a rate three times as great as the last time Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and it is spending at levels not seen since World War II. Add billions of dollars in debt-financed tax cuts to that mix, and you have a recipe for fiscal disaster. Clearly, this is not your father's GOP.”
Exactly. The Democrats’ challenge now is articulating a clear and realistic vision of federal spending. The National Democratic Party’s website says, “The Democratic Party believes in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt, while Republicans continue to put huge burdens on future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations.” This is a good start, but come November, the Democrats need a more clearly defined plan for cutting federal spending and paying down the national debt. We should start by reversing Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the richest of the rich, and instead cut taxes for the lower income brackets, those who are most likely to go out and spend the extra money, thus stimulating the economy and generating increased tax revenue. Additionally, any Democrat running for federal office must promise to cut pork barrel spending, and stick to that promise when Congress is called into session in January. We need to look at federal spending programs and cut the fat.
Conservative voters were Bush’s to lose, and he has. But if Democrats truly want to reap the benefits of Bush’s loss of key constituencies, we need to demonstrate that we can really play ball, even outside what is traditionally considered “our home turf.” The Democratic Party is truly the party of the moral (see: Republican ethical lapses), of fiscal responsibility (see: Clinton surpluses), of security (has Iraq really made us safer?). When the Democrats can truly put up a fight on what are traditionally “Republican” issues is when we will become the majority party once again, as it should be. read more...
"Personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard. Otherwise you will be left out."
-Mari-Luci Jaramillo, Educator, Diplomat
We are the sleeping giant, 30 million strong. We are the young voters of America, aged 18-24. We make up 10% of the US population (source: US Census Bureau). Yet despite making up over 13% of the eligible voting population in this country, voters aged 18-24 cast less than 9% of all ballots in 2004 (source: The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement).
Why is that? It’s no secret that college-age students have a reputation for apathy and ignorance when it comes to American politics. The excuses offered up are innumerable. “I’m too busy to vote.” “Politicians don’t care about me.” “These issues don’t affect me.” “Sure, I’ll vote… when I’m 30.” We’ve all been guilty of it at one time or another. We’re all busy, yes, and these excuses are easy, yes, and maybe you missed that day in 8th grade government class when your teacher lectured at you about “your civic duty as an American” and “how lucky you are to live in this country” and blah, blah, blah…
"The Greek word for idiot, literally translated, means one who does not participate in politics. That sums up my conviction on the subject."
-Gladys Pyle, former US Senator
Well, if you can still offer up these excuses with bravado and still brandish that apathy like a badge after all that’s happened in the last six years, then you’re not paying attention. Anybody who can claim that political issues don’t affect them is either ignorant, or just plain stupid. Since Bush’s first election in 2000, the White House and the Republicans have…
-Restricted a woman’s right to choose: On Bush’s first day in office, he reinstituted the global gag rule as part of the Republicans' war on family planning. Since then, he has signed an unconstitutional bill restricting abortion as early as 12 weeks into the pregnancy and women everywhere are still waiting for the FDA to make the Plan B morning-after pill available over-the-counter.
-Started a pointless war that detracts from the real war on terror: It is now abundantly clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the Bush administration stretched the intelligence to reach an already forgone decision to go to war. Since then, there have been 2,412 confirmed deaths of US soldiers in Iraq. Yet despite their senseless deaths, Osama bin Laden is still at large and we are no safer than we were 5 years ago.
-Divided this country, instead of uniting it: Issues and allegations regarding race have plagued this country ever since Bush took office almost six years ago. Given the opportunity to re-shape the US Supreme Court, Bush nominated two judges with extremely questionable records regarding civil rights. (The nominations of both Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts were staunchly opposed by the NAACP.) A president who nominates for consideration a Supreme Court justice who has disagreed in writing with the concept of “one man, one vote” and who botches the handling of a natural disaster so badly that many African-American leaders accused him of outright racism hasn’t brought this country together, he’s alienated it even further.
These issues not relevant enough for you? Let’s talk about the costs of higher education. By the time you graduate from Georgetown, chances are you’ll have spent around a whopping $180,000 on your four-year degree. And if you’re anything like the typical college student, a large chunk of that will eventually have to be repaid in the form of student loans. Under President Bush, the average national cost of tuition has gone up about 40%, even taking inflation into account (source: the College Board). Yet he has done little to allay the costs of higher education in this country. In fact, Bush and the Republican Congress have succeeded only in making it more difficult for the average American teenager to go to college.
In 2000, Bush campaigned on a promise to make college more affordable and accessible for the average American. He vowed to increase the maximum Pell Grant for college freshmen to $5,100. Yet in his latest budget proposal, President Bush only increases funding for Pell Grants by $100, to $4,150, nearly $1000 short of his promise. The latest budget also completely eliminates the Perkins Loan program. If Bush’s proposal is enacted, more than 670,000 students borrowers would no longer be able to take advantage of loan forgiveness if they serve in the military, or become teachers or law enforcement officers. Outside of the fact that the Perkins Loans encourage students to fill desperate shortages in essential career fields, this proposal just plain bites if you’re a college student. Still think that what the President and Congress do in Washington doesn’t affect you?
College students can and will change the direction of our country come November 2006. The young people of America have done it before (see: Vietnam, War in), and we will do it again. So get informed on the issues. If you’re not already, get registered to vote. Make sure you’re up to date on all the deadlines in your home state for registering as an absentee voter. Make sure your roommate, your siblings, even all your Facebook friends are registered to vote, too. (For more information on registering to vote and on obtaining an absentee ballot, contact your local Board of Elections, or check out Rock the Vote’s homepage.)
"Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."
-Charles de Gaulle, former President of France
Come November 2006, we will awaken the giant. Because if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. read more...
