Goodbye, Polar Bears

by Necole Duncan

Most people have accepted by now that global warming is not a debate. However, when you Google search the term the first site you get is globalwarming.org, which deceptively promotes itself as “reasoned thinking…from cooler heads”. The videos on the page are all clips of skeptical commentary from conservative pundits on FOX and CNN. An Inconvenient Truth, for which Gore won a Nobel Prize, is referred to as the “alarmist view”. For example:

How does this happen? The majority of scientists are saying that, yes, there are natural climate fluctuations, but the changes occurring now are happening at a much faster rate than usual. The evidence is building up. In 2007 the United Nations scientific panel established to study climate change presented its final report. They concluded that there can be no doubt that there is a warming trend, and that human activity has “very likely” played a large part in that trend over the last 50 years. That “very” is a huge step. We can see the effects of global warming ourselves in weather patterns of recent years. The polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. If you speak to professor Jane Waterman on campus, she will tell you that the polar bears only have another twenty or thirty years before they are completely extinct. They are being considered for the endangered species list, though of course the Bush Administration is opposing the move

The answer lies with the environmental skeptics. Those who either refuse to see that there is a problem, because it is not in their best interests, or those who recognize the problem but have other priorities. Governing often consists of a collection of trade-offs based on values. Changes in policy to protect the world from global warming (higher factory standards, restrictions on auto emissions) would cost a great deal of money, and much of the burden would fall to private business and factories. These are collections of people with a great deal of money, powerful interest groups, and therefore disproportionate political power. They pay for negative ads, such as ’Al Gore’s Penguin Army’ (see below). Others fear the impact that such regulation would have on the economy, or don’t believe that the government has a right to place restrictions on private businesses.

One of the reasons scientists have trouble defending themselves in the face of these accusations is that it is difficult to make absolute statements about a phenomena as complicated as climate change. Measurements are imprecise and difficult to obtain, and sometimes there is no absolutely conclusive evidence. Hence the “theory” label that usually precedes the term global warming. However, there is plenty of sound research linking emissions and global warming, though it is difficult to wade through all the bias to get to it. Peer reviewed scientific journals are a good start.

So what can we do about it? 174 states, including the majority of the world’s developed nations, including the E.U., have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions. The U.S. signed it, but backed out, and it was never ratified. We can support the institution of this important measure, work to raise awareness of green alternatives such as hybrid cars and energy sources such as wind, solar and thermal energy, and make changes in our own lives. It is important to consider our ‘ecological footprint’, or the impact we have on Earth’s limited resources. Then maybe our grandchildren will get to see polar bears, too.

Necole

You Vote for the Person and Not the Issues

by Chris Chambers

Wait a minute. Suppress your contempt at my absurd statement and hear what I have to say. First off, let’s examine my assertion: “You vote for the person and not the issues.” It seems pretty clear. At least, it seems clear to me.

When voting, at least here in the United States, a candidate’s name appears on a ballot. Sometimes, as in a presidential contest, they run as a pair … George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney in 2004, for instance. Nowhere on the ballot does it list their positions on key issues or their upbringing or even their lineage. One votes for a combination of names and party identifiers. Who one votes for, in the privacy of the voting booth, is an inherently subjective matter. One doesn’t always vote for who they think will be the best fit for their constituency, who will most affect their life for the positive, or even who is the most competent. More often than not, a voter relies on their party identification as if a crutch to rationalize their choice.

“But,” the astute observer might inquire, “Isn’t the goal to elect the best leader for the constituency?” Not really. Who determines who the best is? Obviously not the voters. In any election, there is a minority of people who feel that their candidate was the best one for the job. There are no objective criteria to determine the “best possible candidate.”

“Well then, wouldn’t it be the goal to vote on the issue that most concerns us?” This is a rather quaint and simple-minded reason to vote. All candidates have their skeletons. Did you know that Barack Obama, while being vehemently against the war, supports curtailing NASA’s budget? Clinton isn’t any better. Did you know that under her healthcare plan, which mandates everyone buy into it, one would have their wages garnished if they choose their private healthcare over hers. Oh yeah, she also authorized the President to use force against Iraq. This authorization was pounced on by President Bush and is the reason why we’re still in Iraq now – almost five years later.

“Well, who should I vote for?” If you’re seriously asking this question, then you shouldn’t be voting. It’s up to every citizen to be well-informed of the process and the candidates before they vote. Their personal histories are fair game, their issue positions are fair game, their personalities are fair game, hell, if you want, even their poise and appearance are fair game. The President is not only the Commander-and-Chief of the United States but our figure-head to the entire world. A Buffoon-in-Chief isn’t respected in world affairs.

When voting for a candidate, evaluate them as a whole person. During the primary process, the primary reason to vote for someone, I feel, is their electability. Damn their particular positions. Who is the best person to beat the other guy in the general election ought to be one’s foremost concern. Are their positions mainstream enough to get them elected? Do they appear to be authentic? How eloquent are they? Do they appear to be from a good background? How have they handled their personal lives?

Case in point: There is/was an article on The Huffington Post the other month saying how Obama and Edwards were 95% alike on 73 key issues. With this in mind, why has Obama done so much better than Edwards in the primary? The answer is: everything but the issues, apparently. All of these subjective reasons – voting for “hope” and “change,” electing the first half-black and half-white person to the high position, voting for the tallest candidate, whatever – play an important role in a voter’s vote.

Now, I fully understand that a lot of people will still disagree with me. My aim is to inform and prod people into thinking about themselves. Don’t lie to yourself. Don’t be timid in who you vote for. Vote for whoever you want to after you know who they are. And if you think that researching a candidate’s background is too cumbersome then, well, maybe you should stay home on Election Day. The country will be better off with you not voting.

Some Rules for Posting Blogs and Comments

Hello all.

We’ve had some issues with some of the comments being posted on the blogs, and since we don’t want anyone to be discouraged from writing, here are some rules that you will have to follow, or your comment (or blog) will not be approved for posting.

Good Manners and Respect Dos and Don’ts

• DON’T use “um,” be snotty to another poster, or make the argument personal
• DO know the difference between differences of opinion and personal attacks
• DON’T present your opinions as facts
• DON’T post the same opinion over and over in the hopes of wearing other people down or “winning” a discussion; just move on
• DO use proper spelling, capitalization, punctuation, et cetera
• DON’T argue with our decision to not post your comment. Try modifying it, following the rules here.
• DO report an offensive comment to us and we’ll make the judgment on whether or not it should be removed.

I think these rules will go a long way in ensuring that this blog stays active and generally friendly. Thanks for your cooperation!

I’m a Pro-Life Democrat

by Samantha Sanders

Yup. I admit it. I am pro-life.

It took me a long time to come to this realization. Ever since high school, when I realized I was liberally-minded and decided to be a Democrat, I always considered myself pro-choice. I was a member of the Model United Nations team, where about 90% of our members considered themselves Democrats and almost all of my friends were of the pro-choice camp. My girlfriends and I were feminists on the rise, aspiring to attend George Washington University and be politicians on the Hill, or lobbyists for the National Organization of Women.

Even then, it always irked me when someone would refer to my pro-choice stance as “pro-abortion.” I was deeply offended that someone would assume that just because I believed in a woman’s right to choose, that I would “support” abortion. I mean, c’mon. Who actually “supports” abortion? In my opinion, I think most people would prefer an alternative and I doubt many people would enthusiastically encourage someone to have an abortion. At least, I wouldn’t. Despite that queasy feeling I got in my stomach every time someone called me a “pro-abortionist”, I continued to consider myself pro-choice… until about my sophomore year of college.

I was driving South on the Florida Turnpike, returning to UCF from a trip to Gainesville. That’s when I saw it – a billboard with a beautiful baby fetus with the words: “A baby’s heartbeat begins at 3 weeks.” A couple minutes later, another one: “A baby’s brainwaves begin at 8 weeks.” If any of you have seen Juno, my reaction was reminiscent to when Su-Chin tells Juno (who’s on her way to an adoption clinic) her baby already has fingernails. I continued driving for a few minutes and then I thought, Really? A Heartbeat? That soon? But, most women don’t even realize they’re pregnant until well after that.

And from that moment on, I knew I was pro-life. However, I don’t consider my stance to be at all conservative (and I now get offended when people assume that) – I still support a woman’s right to choose, and I believe an abortion should be definitely permitted in cases of a mother’s health, rape, or incest, and in some cases, when it comes to very young girls becoming pregnant. However, I do not support abortions based on social reason, and I believe states should enact general restrictions and guidelines that can be applied on a case-by-case basis, depending on a doctor’s or a judge’s recommendations.

But, these are *my* beliefs. My values. My choices. I have no flippin’ clue what it feels like to be pregnant. Let alone be pregnant at 14 years of age. Or be pregnant and alone. Or be pregnant and scared shitless. I wouldn’t even dare to claim that I would *never* have an abortion, because frankly, how can I be sure? I’d like to think I wouldn’t, and I’d like to think that most women wouldn’t. But, I would never want that decision to be made for me, and I certainly would never inflict that kind of demand on another woman.

So, yes. I am pro-life… personally. I am also pro-choice… politically. I think it’s possible to be both.

Hillary’s Victory in Florida: Why it Counts

by Ariel Dansky

One of Hillary’s biggest advantages in her campaign is her name recognition; even I can’t deny that. In fact, I think it is perfectly acceptable for her to emphasize the fact that she’s married to Bill Clinton in order to gain support. Understandably, after a president as incompetent as George W. Bush, it is no surprise that Americans are nostalgic of their nation as it was when Bill was president (and personally, I think Hillary will make a better president). In all, I do not find anything wrong with Bill being actively involved in Hillary’s campaign.

However, when angry, outspoken, red-faced images of Bill are plastered all over news stations on multiple channels at the same time, this is when it has gone too far. During the days leading up to South Carolina, Bill remained in South Carolina campaigning for Hillary, while Hillary was visiting several other states which would be holding their primaries on Super Tuesday. Apparently, Hillary’s advisors did not want to put too much emphasis on South Carolina because they did not expect her to win. After all, South Carolina’s voting population was fifty-percent African American, and the demographic was largely expected to support Obama. While in South Carolina, Bill capitalized on the “race” issue and implied that Obama was the favored candidate, possibly to lessen the potential fallout if Hillary did not win South Carolina. Although Bill’s intentions were to help Hillary in South Carolina, in the end, the image of Bill’s squandering for her read negatively. And in American politics, image is everything. Overall, Bill’s negative image in his campaigning may have contributed to Hillary’s loss in South Carolina.

However, in Florida, Hillary won a substantial victory with fifty percent of the vote, while Obama came in second at thirty-three percent. Although Hillary won by as much as seventeen percentage points, newscasters claimed that it was “not a significant win” for Hillary. I disagree. Although our delegates did not count, there is still a chance that they may be seated at the Democratic National Convention. After all, Florida is a swing state, and it is unfair not to include the delegates from such a large and diverse state. Further, in a way, the diversity of Florida’s population mirrors that of the nation as a whole, and Hillary’s performance in Florida may have given us a preview of how she will perform in many other states. Therefore, if Hillary’s victory in Florida told us anything, it is that despite all of the opposition she faces, she is still a front running candidate, and may very well be the front running candidate.

With Super Tuesday coming up on February 5, we may soon know who our democratic presidential candidate will be. Or we may not. In my opinion, it will be the latter. Although traditionally the presidential candidate has been fairly well decided by super Tuesday, America today is very different than it was years ago. The race between Hillary and Obama is a heated one, and it may very well may go on until the Democratic National Convention (and maybe by then our delegates will be seated).

What is change? The ability to inspire…

By John Martino

This past Sunday, Caroline Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy’s daughter, wrote a truly heartfelt and beautiful op-ed in the New York Times. “A President Like My Father” put in words what I have known since 2004, but I am excited to have the opportunity to express it now.

John F. Kennedy inspired a generation of Americans, including the likes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and my father. He asked every American to give something back, and many did their best and followed through. For a long time, I had been waiting to be inspired, and I had been waiting for my opportunity to make a contribution to the country.

In 2004 I finally found my inspiration to get involved, and I finally found my purpose. In July I watched the Democratic National Convention, expecting a truly boring experience; but as I watched, my world stood still. A young Illinois State Senator, still a few weeks shy of 43, put me on my feet. He was loud and vibrant, chilling and jarring. His rhetoric stirred me, and made me feel the same way my father felt when he first heard Kennedy. The country as I knew it couldn’t be more polarized, yet this youthful guy was talking about bringing it together. Barack Obama’s keynote address made me want to get involved in politics and continues to inspire me and countless others today.

This past Saturday night, Obama, now 46, won a historic victory in the South Carolina primary. His victory truly exemplified how far our country has come and showed us why we need him so badly. A new “change” coalition has clearly formed: whites and blacks, men and women, old and the young, Democrats and Republicans, Partisans and Independents.

A few weeks ago, Obama was criticized for saying that Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was an election of change. What about this statement is not true? Despite what Hillary’s radio ad claimed, Obama never said Reagan had good policies, nor did he say that Reagan was good for our country. Obama simply said that Reagan inspired a lot of people, which no one can argue with. Many Democrats left the party because of Ronald Reagan, and Barack is our best chance of getting them back, our best chance of healing old wounds.

This past Monday Barack Obama stood next to another member of the Kennedy family, Senator Ted Kennedy, brother of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy said Obama had taken on the Kennedy mantle, that he had taken on the ideals of hope and change. Kennedy explained how the politics of the 1990s had to end and the politics of tomorrow must begin today.

Back in 1960 my father served a cappuccino to John F. Kennedy during the height of his presidential campaign. My father at the time was in California, like so many other struggling actors, and working as a waiter. Kennedy asked my father how he made such a good cappuccino, and my father told him. Forty seven years later I volunteered at a Barack Obama private fundraiser, only being allowed to attend because I had made hundreds of phone calls for the event. Although I had seen him speak before I had yet to personally speak to the man I had idolized since 2004. That night Barack Obama offered me his hand, and asked me what got me interested in politics. I told him the truth-he did.