THE RIGHT ANGLE: Student division addressed at SGA debate - Opinions
As I sat in the Cone Ballroom last week during SGA's Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, my column practically wrote itself. The usual generic questions were asked of the candidates: "What are your main campus issues?", "What kind of experience do you have?", "What do you want to change about SGA?" Then the candidates yielded to questions from the audience. Senator Larry Watson stood and asked how each candidate viewed campus race relations, and how they could be improved.
By the reaction of some of the candidates, you would have thought Kanye West had just personally asked them why they hated black people. Jonae Wartel responded that what UNCG needed was for students and organizations to increase their knowledge of different cultures. She pointed out that an African-American student might be more likely to only join the Neo-Black Society, while there are other organizations that could be helpful in helping expand his or her view of different cultures. All in all, a perfect answer.
Stefan McMorris-Santoro spoke next, and after giving the usual generic answer of "working together," he overshadowed his entire statement by informing the audience that his girlfriend was African-American. I suppose that was to make sure everyone knew that he personally was not a racist. The spotlight then shifted to candidate Kemp Allen, who nervously pointed out that he had no problem working with all groups on campus, and then, addressing Senator Watson (who happens to be African-American), responded, "Your name's Larry, right?"
Now, I'm not sure if Kemp's goal was to show that he knows the name of some African-American students, but that's certainly how it was taken by the audience, who erupted in laughter. The laughter eventually died down and Kemp finished answering the question.
I hope everyone there realized that Kemp only had good intentions, and that he actually did a good job under all the pressure. The truth is, race is a very tricky issue, and talking about it is even trickier when you've never personally had the same experiences as someone else. This is why, when confronted with an issue about race, many white people tend to get defensive and start listing all their friends who are different races, or in Stefan's case, announce that they're dating someone of a different race.
When the question was directed to the VP hopefuls, candidate Matt Hill Comer pointed out that students seem to segregate themselves when it comes to their different backgrounds. He stated that when you see students in the EUC or the Caf, they tend to be sitting in different groups: African-American students, white students, Latino students, Asian students, and so on. And while I know that this is not always the case, it occurs often enough.
Jonae has the right idea. Why aren't students as individuals attempting to gain more knowledge about different cultures? I think it's a common misconception among white students that they don't "belong" in any African-American Studies courses. Why not? There have always been at least a few men in all the Women's Studies classes I've taken, yet only a few weeks ago, a teacher from the AFS Department lamented to me that there was not one single white person in her class.
For that same matter, the greater part of student organizations tend to have a very low minority membership, unless they are catering to a specific minority group (Neo-Black Society, Asian Student Association, etc). Why not have more diversity within the groups? I believe it's important to learn about and embrace our cultures, but we're not going to have true diversity until we educate ourselves about each others' cultures.
Matt Comer also made a point to tell the audience that as a Southern white male, he did not have the experiences minorities have had in their lifetimes, but that he is prepared to help race relations the only way he can: by sitting down with different students on campus and listening to their issues. That's what we all need to be doing: sharing our unique experiences with other people, and be willing to learn about theirs in return.
I've been actively following these elections, and I think it all comes down to experience and leadership ability. While there is no doubt that all three Presidential candidates and all three Vice-Presidential candidates are qualified, there's no doubt in my mind that Jonae Wartel is the right choice. She has the qualities of a born-leader and the confidence to really get things done. I also think Matt Hill Comer would be a great choice for Vice-President, as he is probably one of the most active students on campus and has a great deal of leadership experience within SGA. But don't take it from me. Go to sga.uncg.edu/candidates to learn about the candidates, and don't forget to vote by 11:59pm, February 28!
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Al Gore versus Dick Cheney
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Al Gore versus Dick Cheney - Opinions
Last week, Al Gore gave a speech to a mostly American-educated audience in Saudi Arabia. During this speech, he basically denounced the United States government as being anti-Arab, saying that Arabs have been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."
Normally, if a former Vice President were to make such anti-American remarks to a foreign audience, it would be big news. However, Gore's timing couldn't have been better: he gave his speech on the same day news broke that current Vice President Dick Cheney shot a guy.
Never mind the fact that it was a hunting accident. Never mind the risks that go along with the sport of hunting. The way this story spread, you would have thought that Dick Cheney had illegally obtained a sawed-off shotgun and gone out looking for Democrats. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an accident like this isn't news, because clearly if the Vice President of the U.S. is involved in the accident, then it's going to be news, but it did not deserve the amount of attention that it received.
Regardless of Cheney's involvement in this incident, there's only one reason the national media has made such a colossal deal out of this: they're bitter that a local station in Texas got the story before they did.
Another reason people claim it is important news is because some believe Cheney had a duty to inform the country about the accident right after it occurred. And Vice President Cheney finally went public, several days after the event, in an interview with Fox News' Brit Hume, to explain why he did not do so earlier:
"If we'd put out a report Saturday night - we could have then - one report [that] came in said, 'superficial injuries.' Had we gone with a statement of that, then we would have been wrong. And it was also important, I thought, to get the story out as accurately as possible."
And he's right. Had the White House released a report right away that said Cheney's hunting partner had "superficial injuries", can you imagine what the response would have been when it became apparent it was much more serious than that? Regardless of the fact that no one knew right away just how badly he had been hurt, the media would be accusing Cheney of attempting to cover up the seriousness of the injury.
There is absolutely no need for this story to be spamming our news stations 24/7. It happened, it can't be undone, and Cheney is even feeling remorseful about it, according to his Hume interview (that disproves everyone that's been saying he's a robot for the past few years).
The fact that it was a fairly slow news week obviously didn't help matters much. Which takes me back to my first comment: had Al Gore voiced such anti-American sentiments during such a slow news week, everyone would know about it. Instead, people who don't regularly keep up with the news are talking about Cheney's hunting accident, and probably can't even remember who Al Gore is (of course, these are also the same people who are convinced he had the 2000 election stolen from him).
On a final note, for those of you who will try to tell me that Gore is right, that Arabs in America are being "rounded up" for minor offenses, let me remind you of something: the terrorists who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001, had frequently used document fraud to move about the country freely. After the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government was criticized for being too lenient when dealing with visas and passports. Does Al Gore really think these issues are "minor"?
(Apparently, The Carolinian felt the need to post the aforementioned "retraction" twice in their online paper, so as to make sure everyone saw what a "liar" I was. That's the media for you.)
Last week, Al Gore gave a speech to a mostly American-educated audience in Saudi Arabia. During this speech, he basically denounced the United States government as being anti-Arab, saying that Arabs have been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."
Normally, if a former Vice President were to make such anti-American remarks to a foreign audience, it would be big news. However, Gore's timing couldn't have been better: he gave his speech on the same day news broke that current Vice President Dick Cheney shot a guy.
Never mind the fact that it was a hunting accident. Never mind the risks that go along with the sport of hunting. The way this story spread, you would have thought that Dick Cheney had illegally obtained a sawed-off shotgun and gone out looking for Democrats. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an accident like this isn't news, because clearly if the Vice President of the U.S. is involved in the accident, then it's going to be news, but it did not deserve the amount of attention that it received.
Regardless of Cheney's involvement in this incident, there's only one reason the national media has made such a colossal deal out of this: they're bitter that a local station in Texas got the story before they did.
Another reason people claim it is important news is because some believe Cheney had a duty to inform the country about the accident right after it occurred. And Vice President Cheney finally went public, several days after the event, in an interview with Fox News' Brit Hume, to explain why he did not do so earlier:
"If we'd put out a report Saturday night - we could have then - one report [that] came in said, 'superficial injuries.' Had we gone with a statement of that, then we would have been wrong. And it was also important, I thought, to get the story out as accurately as possible."
And he's right. Had the White House released a report right away that said Cheney's hunting partner had "superficial injuries", can you imagine what the response would have been when it became apparent it was much more serious than that? Regardless of the fact that no one knew right away just how badly he had been hurt, the media would be accusing Cheney of attempting to cover up the seriousness of the injury.
There is absolutely no need for this story to be spamming our news stations 24/7. It happened, it can't be undone, and Cheney is even feeling remorseful about it, according to his Hume interview (that disproves everyone that's been saying he's a robot for the past few years).
The fact that it was a fairly slow news week obviously didn't help matters much. Which takes me back to my first comment: had Al Gore voiced such anti-American sentiments during such a slow news week, everyone would know about it. Instead, people who don't regularly keep up with the news are talking about Cheney's hunting accident, and probably can't even remember who Al Gore is (of course, these are also the same people who are convinced he had the 2000 election stolen from him).
On a final note, for those of you who will try to tell me that Gore is right, that Arabs in America are being "rounded up" for minor offenses, let me remind you of something: the terrorists who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001, had frequently used document fraud to move about the country freely. After the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government was criticized for being too lenient when dealing with visas and passports. Does Al Gore really think these issues are "minor"?
(Apparently, The Carolinian felt the need to post the aforementioned "retraction" twice in their online paper, so as to make sure everyone saw what a "liar" I was. That's the media for you.)
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
A Final Word on the Debate
This column was written in respose to the second College Republican/College Democrat debate, which seemed to get a little out of hand. Each group was told to choose a representative to voice their side of the story. I wrote about the recent tension that had plagued the two groups; their representative chose to talk about abortion instead.
A final word on the debate - Opinions
When I became active in campus politics about two years ago, I wasn't delusional about it. I realized that labeling myself a "Republican" on this campus was not going to make me popular or well liked. And even now, although I've been called the "most hated person on campus" on more than one occasion, I wouldn't trade it for anything. As College Republican President, I have been more than willing to work with people and organizations whose views differ from mine, which is more than I can say for the College Democrats.
At the end of last year, when the College Democrats began to get organized, Jonathan Rosamond (their president at the time) made a point of contacting me. We discussed having our two groups work together in the future, to illustrate the sort of cooperation we'd like to see between the two parties within our government. This is where we first had the idea that a debate between the two groups could educate other students in issues that were important to both parties. Of course, the debates did not become a reality until this year, and by then, the CDs had chosen a much more liberal leader. Although I can't recall a single time when I was anything less than polite to him, the new CD President made it very clear that he did not like me, and had no qualms about personally attacking me, publicly.
A few weeks ago, members of both organizations met to decide on a debate topic for the first CR/CD debate of the semester. We eventually decided to debate life and death issues (abortion, stem cell research, death penalty, and assisted suicide), thanks to compromise on both sides. But that is where compromised ended. About a week later, the Carolinian printed the front page article insinuating the CRs and CDs were arguing over changes made to the Anti-Discrimination Policy.
This whole ordeal baffled myself and the other Republicans, as we had no idea we were supposedly feuding with the Democrats. But it only got worse from there. CR Ryan Radford designed different fliers for the event, and one, par the CD's request, featured a pregnant woman symbolizing the topic of abortion. CR Vice-President Daryn Iwicki and I took a break from our meeting to have the CDs approve the debate fliers. Upon entering the room where their meeting was being held, we were told to leave, cursed at, and then physically forced to exit. Considering that the CDs had claimed to have "no reservations about allowing a member of the Republicans... to join their meetings" in that week's article, we found their actions to be extremely hypocritical.
The Democrats made it clear that they would have us written up for an honor code violation if we posted the advertisements with their name on them, even though we had only put a pregnant woman on the flier because they told us to. Because we had done pretty much all the work for the debate, I told them if they wanted to change the abortion fliers, they could; the Republicans would stick with the already-approved, more generic fliers. Later, we were approach by CD Sam Bickett, who had made new posters for abortion, and when we tried to point out things we didn't like, he told us to "get over it."
This all culminated the night of the actual debate. Because the CRs had been told we were free to make our own advertisements without the CDs' name on them, we spent time and money creating copies of pink and blue baby feet to advertise the debate. We taped the footprints on the floor near the debate room, in a pattern that showed them "walking" up the stairs to the door. No sooner had we taped them on the floor, when Bickett came through and removed every one. When we protested that what he was doing was a destruction of property, he got about two inches from CR Iwicki's face and began to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs.
Whether you choose to admit it or not, it's incredibly hard to be conservative on this campus. When the three of us sat in front of that crowded room and made our views known, we knew that we were going to be criticized and ridiculed. The majority of that crowd came in agreeing with the Democrats, and nothing we could ever have said would have changed their minds. You can say what you want to about Republicans, but we stood by our views under the worst circumstances, and we were able to do so without shouting and cursing at those with differing viewpoints. So you tell me: who really won here?
I was later forced to retract the part of my statement which said we were physically forced out of the CD meeting. I will not post that retraction here, because I stand by what I said originally. I only issued a retraction to help mend ties between the two groups (and in part due to a "suggestion" from the administration), and now that I am no longer associated with that silliness, I do not feel the need to cover up their hypocrisies.
A final word on the debate - Opinions
When I became active in campus politics about two years ago, I wasn't delusional about it. I realized that labeling myself a "Republican" on this campus was not going to make me popular or well liked. And even now, although I've been called the "most hated person on campus" on more than one occasion, I wouldn't trade it for anything. As College Republican President, I have been more than willing to work with people and organizations whose views differ from mine, which is more than I can say for the College Democrats.
At the end of last year, when the College Democrats began to get organized, Jonathan Rosamond (their president at the time) made a point of contacting me. We discussed having our two groups work together in the future, to illustrate the sort of cooperation we'd like to see between the two parties within our government. This is where we first had the idea that a debate between the two groups could educate other students in issues that were important to both parties. Of course, the debates did not become a reality until this year, and by then, the CDs had chosen a much more liberal leader. Although I can't recall a single time when I was anything less than polite to him, the new CD President made it very clear that he did not like me, and had no qualms about personally attacking me, publicly.
A few weeks ago, members of both organizations met to decide on a debate topic for the first CR/CD debate of the semester. We eventually decided to debate life and death issues (abortion, stem cell research, death penalty, and assisted suicide), thanks to compromise on both sides. But that is where compromised ended. About a week later, the Carolinian printed the front page article insinuating the CRs and CDs were arguing over changes made to the Anti-Discrimination Policy.
This whole ordeal baffled myself and the other Republicans, as we had no idea we were supposedly feuding with the Democrats. But it only got worse from there. CR Ryan Radford designed different fliers for the event, and one, par the CD's request, featured a pregnant woman symbolizing the topic of abortion. CR Vice-President Daryn Iwicki and I took a break from our meeting to have the CDs approve the debate fliers. Upon entering the room where their meeting was being held, we were told to leave, cursed at, and then physically forced to exit. Considering that the CDs had claimed to have "no reservations about allowing a member of the Republicans... to join their meetings" in that week's article, we found their actions to be extremely hypocritical.
The Democrats made it clear that they would have us written up for an honor code violation if we posted the advertisements with their name on them, even though we had only put a pregnant woman on the flier because they told us to. Because we had done pretty much all the work for the debate, I told them if they wanted to change the abortion fliers, they could; the Republicans would stick with the already-approved, more generic fliers. Later, we were approach by CD Sam Bickett, who had made new posters for abortion, and when we tried to point out things we didn't like, he told us to "get over it."
This all culminated the night of the actual debate. Because the CRs had been told we were free to make our own advertisements without the CDs' name on them, we spent time and money creating copies of pink and blue baby feet to advertise the debate. We taped the footprints on the floor near the debate room, in a pattern that showed them "walking" up the stairs to the door. No sooner had we taped them on the floor, when Bickett came through and removed every one. When we protested that what he was doing was a destruction of property, he got about two inches from CR Iwicki's face and began to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs.
Whether you choose to admit it or not, it's incredibly hard to be conservative on this campus. When the three of us sat in front of that crowded room and made our views known, we knew that we were going to be criticized and ridiculed. The majority of that crowd came in agreeing with the Democrats, and nothing we could ever have said would have changed their minds. You can say what you want to about Republicans, but we stood by our views under the worst circumstances, and we were able to do so without shouting and cursing at those with differing viewpoints. So you tell me: who really won here?
I was later forced to retract the part of my statement which said we were physically forced out of the CD meeting. I will not post that retraction here, because I stand by what I said originally. I only issued a retraction to help mend ties between the two groups (and in part due to a "suggestion" from the administration), and now that I am no longer associated with that silliness, I do not feel the need to cover up their hypocrisies.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
How to Have a "Successful" Evening
THE RIGHT ANGLE: How to have a "successful" evening - Opinions
Last Tuesday, President Bush delivered his sixth State of the Union Address to the entire nation, during which he addressed many pertinent issues facing America over the next year or so. It's one of the few speeches the President gives that won't put you to sleep in less than five minutes, mostly thanks to the fact that the networks like to show the reactions of the audience members during the address. I swear I saw Ted Kennedy trying to hide his flask as the cameras panned around.
The State of the Union Address is not typically a feel-good bi-partisan love fest. The division between liberals and conservatives in the government was made quite visible every time President Bush paused for a breath (or dramatic effect) and the Republicans leapt to their feet with applause. At this time, the camera would usually pan to well-known Senator Hillary Clinton who, regardless of her recent self-claimed conversion to "Moderate-ism", seemed to have a constant sneer on her face throughout the entire hour. It seems my mother was right; your face really CAN freeze like that.
After the Address, the Democratic Party sent out Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to respond to the President's speech. Those Democrats never cease to amaze me. Time and time again, they continue to find and endorse those few politicians that make George W. Bush look good. Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and now Tim Kaine? Somehow, I don't think the Republican Party has a lot to worry about in 2008. Maybe it was that "The Rock" eyebrow thing, but I honestly thought I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit throughout Kaine's entire response.
Meanwhile, around the nation, thousands of protestors were banging drums, tambourines, and various kitchen utensils in an effort to "drown out Bush's lies." The infamous anti-Bush group "World Can't Wait" (tagline: Drive Out the Bush Regime) staged several marches and demonstrations all around the country during the State of the Union Address. Greensboro was lucky enough to have one of these marches in our very own downtown area. The group, about 300 strong (mostly teenyboppers who were VERY angry that American Idol wasn't going to be on) caused what the News and Record referred to as a "deafening sound." While I do hope they were being a bit hyperbolic about the noise level, if anyone really did lose their hearing as a result of this march, please let me know. I want a piece of that lawsuit.
What was supposed to be a peaceful protest ended up resulting in the arrests of at least seven local young adults. The problem? Apparently, a plainclothes officer was taking pictures of the license plates of protestors. Several of the protestors demanded to know what the man was doing, and whether or not he was a cop. Of course, it escalated from there, with a debate still raging over who hit whom first. The police officer was assaulted, kids were maced, and everyone is pointing fingers. The fact that interested me the most was that at least two of the suspects were found to be carrying concealed weapons. Concealed weapons at a peaceful protest? What's the reasoning there? And aren't these supposed to be the people who are against violence?
I have so much fun scanning blogs in the days after events like this occur. You can find accounts from protest attendees talking about how "those pigs broke up our peaceful protest!" Nevermind that the police officer was the one who was assaulted, and that the police had actually been very reasonable about the whole event. Interestingly enough, when the protestors began their march down Elm Street, they were already in violation of state law, which requires a parade permit for such events. Rather than try to stop the march, police blocked and redirected traffic for them. If the police had wanted to simply end the march, they could have; they wouldn't have needed to start a fistfight, as the protestors are claiming.
The WCW website claims, "The evening concluded by 11:00 pm, and was hugely successful and peaceful as well as noisy. We succeeded in drowning out Bush's lies." I would think that in order for any event to be considered "successful", some good would have had to come from it. Did the WCW march succeed in making Bush resign? Not that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, 300 people wasted their Tuesday night banging on their pots and pans. Could they really find nothing functional to do, or have the standards of "successful" just changed that drastically?
Last Tuesday, President Bush delivered his sixth State of the Union Address to the entire nation, during which he addressed many pertinent issues facing America over the next year or so. It's one of the few speeches the President gives that won't put you to sleep in less than five minutes, mostly thanks to the fact that the networks like to show the reactions of the audience members during the address. I swear I saw Ted Kennedy trying to hide his flask as the cameras panned around.
The State of the Union Address is not typically a feel-good bi-partisan love fest. The division between liberals and conservatives in the government was made quite visible every time President Bush paused for a breath (or dramatic effect) and the Republicans leapt to their feet with applause. At this time, the camera would usually pan to well-known Senator Hillary Clinton who, regardless of her recent self-claimed conversion to "Moderate-ism", seemed to have a constant sneer on her face throughout the entire hour. It seems my mother was right; your face really CAN freeze like that.
After the Address, the Democratic Party sent out Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to respond to the President's speech. Those Democrats never cease to amaze me. Time and time again, they continue to find and endorse those few politicians that make George W. Bush look good. Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and now Tim Kaine? Somehow, I don't think the Republican Party has a lot to worry about in 2008. Maybe it was that "The Rock" eyebrow thing, but I honestly thought I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit throughout Kaine's entire response.
Meanwhile, around the nation, thousands of protestors were banging drums, tambourines, and various kitchen utensils in an effort to "drown out Bush's lies." The infamous anti-Bush group "World Can't Wait" (tagline: Drive Out the Bush Regime) staged several marches and demonstrations all around the country during the State of the Union Address. Greensboro was lucky enough to have one of these marches in our very own downtown area. The group, about 300 strong (mostly teenyboppers who were VERY angry that American Idol wasn't going to be on) caused what the News and Record referred to as a "deafening sound." While I do hope they were being a bit hyperbolic about the noise level, if anyone really did lose their hearing as a result of this march, please let me know. I want a piece of that lawsuit.
What was supposed to be a peaceful protest ended up resulting in the arrests of at least seven local young adults. The problem? Apparently, a plainclothes officer was taking pictures of the license plates of protestors. Several of the protestors demanded to know what the man was doing, and whether or not he was a cop. Of course, it escalated from there, with a debate still raging over who hit whom first. The police officer was assaulted, kids were maced, and everyone is pointing fingers. The fact that interested me the most was that at least two of the suspects were found to be carrying concealed weapons. Concealed weapons at a peaceful protest? What's the reasoning there? And aren't these supposed to be the people who are against violence?
I have so much fun scanning blogs in the days after events like this occur. You can find accounts from protest attendees talking about how "those pigs broke up our peaceful protest!" Nevermind that the police officer was the one who was assaulted, and that the police had actually been very reasonable about the whole event. Interestingly enough, when the protestors began their march down Elm Street, they were already in violation of state law, which requires a parade permit for such events. Rather than try to stop the march, police blocked and redirected traffic for them. If the police had wanted to simply end the march, they could have; they wouldn't have needed to start a fistfight, as the protestors are claiming.
The WCW website claims, "The evening concluded by 11:00 pm, and was hugely successful and peaceful as well as noisy. We succeeded in drowning out Bush's lies." I would think that in order for any event to be considered "successful", some good would have had to come from it. Did the WCW march succeed in making Bush resign? Not that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, 300 people wasted their Tuesday night banging on their pots and pans. Could they really find nothing functional to do, or have the standards of "successful" just changed that drastically?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
