Written: 10/08/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 15, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008 the Edinboro University Student Government Association held an “important” meeting in which all clubs and SGA funded organizations had to attend. Arriving at the Pouge Student Center’s Multi-purpose room around 5:00pm, a crowd of students shuffled about trying their designated seats. However empty binders and poorly organized rows seemed to stifle the process.
After a 15-minute delay, the meeting finally got underway. Observing the students sitting in the “house” area, most seemed to be distance and catatonic. It is unlikely that any of the students truly wanted to attend the “mandatory” meeting or even understood their purpose there. Following a 30-minute lecture on the progress of SGA, the budget, and the acquisition of new organizations, it finally came time to discuss the reason all the clubs had been called to attend.
Kristen Zelechowski, the SGA president and campus sorority leader, spoke to the crowd of students in an attempt to explain new voting procedures and allocations. She also mentioned SGA was now requiring 140 representatives from campus groups at the first and third SGA meetings every month with only fourteen of these allowed to vote. The president danced around the real issue time and again, however, until one of the house members popped the proverbial bubble. “Do we have to come to every meeting?”
Unfortunately for the Clubs and Organizations on campus, SGA deemed that every club and organization must have a representative at the first and third meeting of every month. This presented some major problems to the majority of the house. One representative asked “was their any student oversight when this decision was cast?” This question was not answered. Winston Alozie of the congress stated to the house that he disagreed with the legislation and voted against the decision.
There are many reasons why this legislation is fated to fail; the first of reasons being the issue of representation. The house will only be allotted 14 votes in congress. Fourteen votes which are supposed to reflect the opinions of nearly 140 clubs and organizations. This number will not and truly cannot represent the constituency of the greater student body. The second reason why legislation such as this will fail is due to the ridiculous attendance policy. Granted clubs and organizations can cycle through members of their individual groups to attend the SGA meetings, but most clubs and organizations on campus cannot even get students to show up to one meeting a week!
SGA should not be trying to create more bureaucracy, but rather refine the process for clubs and organizations. E-mail, facebook, and online postings are all viable solutions to any communication issues. If this legislation lives, over time student clubs and organizations will begin to see a systematic break down of the “core” members who are involved in just about every other club on campus. These students will grow tired of the excessive meetings and mandates required by the SGA executive board. The small nucleus of students on campus who really care was at the meeting last Monday and most of them did not even want to be there. We need to work on bringing attendance numbers up in our clubs rather than committing our executive board members to more mundane meetings.
The “show up or shut up” mentality of SGA needs to change. They must no longer slap the wrists of clubs and organizations for simply not attending meetings. SGA funds are taken from the activity fees of all students and are destined for redistribution into clubs and organizations. SGA cannot withhold these funds from the very people that gave money to them. SGA will find out fast that student run organizations do not need the crutch of SGA funding if they are not treated with respect. Lastly, The SGA executive board needs to open their eyes and present quantitative evidence supporting a decision supporting the actions they have taken. Just because “they do this at Cal U” doesn’t mean we have to do this here.
With the Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
Mr. Jackson
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Letter to The SGA President
Written: 10/07/2008
Publication: n/a
Publish Date: n/a
Madam President,
I've been doing some research regarding the California University Student Government Constitution. I've noticed that the House of Representatives is required to be at every meeting, but each member gets a vote equal to that of a congressman. I've also noticed that their constitution has a student cabinet, with two representatives (voting) from the House. Do we have one of these? And if so, will it have the same representation?
I tried to cross reference our constitution with Cal U's to see if there were any parallels between the two documents, but the Edinboro University constitution is not available for referencing. I believe that it is quite irresponsible for the Student Government to be making rash decisions without documenting any changes made to the constitution. Or for that matter informing the student body. The last time I checked, SGA is a "student organization."
Lastly, I want you to know I am sorry for any disturbance I may have caused yesterday during the meeting. However please be aware; if I and other students are required to attend these meetings with almost zero votes in congress, I WILL rock the boat till the sides go under. I will be patiently awaiting your response.
Regards,
Mr. Madison
Her Response: 10/07/2008
Hey,
I understand your concern. We are working diligently on this issue.
-Kristen
Publication: n/a
Publish Date: n/a
Madam President,
I've been doing some research regarding the California University Student Government Constitution. I've noticed that the House of Representatives is required to be at every meeting, but each member gets a vote equal to that of a congressman. I've also noticed that their constitution has a student cabinet, with two representatives (voting) from the House. Do we have one of these? And if so, will it have the same representation?
I tried to cross reference our constitution with Cal U's to see if there were any parallels between the two documents, but the Edinboro University constitution is not available for referencing. I believe that it is quite irresponsible for the Student Government to be making rash decisions without documenting any changes made to the constitution. Or for that matter informing the student body. The last time I checked, SGA is a "student organization."
Lastly, I want you to know I am sorry for any disturbance I may have caused yesterday during the meeting. However please be aware; if I and other students are required to attend these meetings with almost zero votes in congress, I WILL rock the boat till the sides go under. I will be patiently awaiting your response.
Regards,
Mr. Madison
Her Response: 10/07/2008
Hey,
I understand your concern. We are working diligently on this issue.
-Kristen
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sarah Palin: Worst Political Blunder or Best One-Two Punch?
Written: 09/10/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 1, 2008
Just as the world seems to be falling into a routine and Americans grow more predictable than ever before, the blinding light of change encompasses us! However this is not just any change, but rather the kind wrapped in a bow and stamped with political seal of approval. Who started all this talk of change anyway I ask? Perhaps it began years ago when Americans began to realize that the neo-conservative big wigs in Washington where no longer listening to their cries. Or maybe it started when Al Gore made a pathetic attempt to inform the public about global warming, while squeezing out some sympathy for his failed white house jaunt. Perhaps the “change” mentality came from one of these other reasons: American’s uncertainty about the war in Iraq, the shaky economy, the failing housing market, or maybe it was just the Chupacabra…
Whatever the reason, change is occurring all around us. In fact, the United States is in a constant state of volatile change. Though many of America’s youth will vehemently argue this notion, it is true. Simply look at the current presidential candidates and their running mates. Announcing his run for the presidency back in February 2007, senator Barack Obama, became the first black man to win the democratic nomination for president. If not historic enough, a political first was borne of the Republican camp with the assignment of governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate. Shocking many conservatives and liberals alike, Palin’s nomination seemed almost surreal.
To fully understand why governor Sarah Palin had been chosen as John McCain’s running mate, one must look at the circumstance to which the governor was hurled into the presidential limelight. Forgoing the normal absent-minded statements that have cluttered the news channels and opinion pages alike; statements such as “she has no experience” and “she is a bible-thumper,” let us attempt to analyze the motive behind her nomination.
So what is the real problem with vice presidential pick Governor Palin? As traditional American political logic dictates, a vice president must fulfill two tasks. First, they must not create turbulence and second, they must be vetted. So far Sarah Palin (or “barracuda” as she is more affectionately know) has come into this race with guns blazing. She has badgered Barack Obama’s track record and stirred up debate among the conservative base. Some may say her exuberance has been a good thing, creating a new excitement within the party. I disagree.
With the exception of vice presidential hit men like Richard Nixon; the vice president should not “rock the boat.” Sarah Palin seems to be vainly lashing out against the democrats in order to show some sort of dominance or strength. The only thing that has grown out of her argumentative nature is a separation between herself and pro-Hillary voting Americans which she may had wanted to gain. At least “tricky dick” was quiet about his dirty work.
The second criterion for a vice presidential candidate, logically, is to be vetted. Governor Palin has had very little national media coverage prior to McCain’s “great revelation” that she would be his running mate. This can have dire implications for any politician seeking a seat in the white house. Simply put, the media have not exploited her yet and her “dirty laundry” has not been aired to the public. Also, by simply throwing in a candidate that no one has ever heard before, many citizens will think she was selected more for her gender than her actual intelligence.
Will the choice of Sarah Palin go down as the worst political blunder in history or the best one-two punch to the Democratic Party? Only time will tell. Nevertheless, certain questions must be asked of the Republican Party. Was Sarah Palin picked as the vice presidential running mate simply to “shock and aw” the public? Or is she really the “great reformer” we are being promised will change Washington? Whatever the answer, Sarah Palin defies traditional politics. However in this age of rapid change, politics in 2008 defy most “normal” conventions.
Respectfully,
Mr. Madison
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 1, 2008
Just as the world seems to be falling into a routine and Americans grow more predictable than ever before, the blinding light of change encompasses us! However this is not just any change, but rather the kind wrapped in a bow and stamped with political seal of approval. Who started all this talk of change anyway I ask? Perhaps it began years ago when Americans began to realize that the neo-conservative big wigs in Washington where no longer listening to their cries. Or maybe it started when Al Gore made a pathetic attempt to inform the public about global warming, while squeezing out some sympathy for his failed white house jaunt. Perhaps the “change” mentality came from one of these other reasons: American’s uncertainty about the war in Iraq, the shaky economy, the failing housing market, or maybe it was just the Chupacabra…
Whatever the reason, change is occurring all around us. In fact, the United States is in a constant state of volatile change. Though many of America’s youth will vehemently argue this notion, it is true. Simply look at the current presidential candidates and their running mates. Announcing his run for the presidency back in February 2007, senator Barack Obama, became the first black man to win the democratic nomination for president. If not historic enough, a political first was borne of the Republican camp with the assignment of governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate. Shocking many conservatives and liberals alike, Palin’s nomination seemed almost surreal.
To fully understand why governor Sarah Palin had been chosen as John McCain’s running mate, one must look at the circumstance to which the governor was hurled into the presidential limelight. Forgoing the normal absent-minded statements that have cluttered the news channels and opinion pages alike; statements such as “she has no experience” and “she is a bible-thumper,” let us attempt to analyze the motive behind her nomination.
So what is the real problem with vice presidential pick Governor Palin? As traditional American political logic dictates, a vice president must fulfill two tasks. First, they must not create turbulence and second, they must be vetted. So far Sarah Palin (or “barracuda” as she is more affectionately know) has come into this race with guns blazing. She has badgered Barack Obama’s track record and stirred up debate among the conservative base. Some may say her exuberance has been a good thing, creating a new excitement within the party. I disagree.
With the exception of vice presidential hit men like Richard Nixon; the vice president should not “rock the boat.” Sarah Palin seems to be vainly lashing out against the democrats in order to show some sort of dominance or strength. The only thing that has grown out of her argumentative nature is a separation between herself and pro-Hillary voting Americans which she may had wanted to gain. At least “tricky dick” was quiet about his dirty work.
The second criterion for a vice presidential candidate, logically, is to be vetted. Governor Palin has had very little national media coverage prior to McCain’s “great revelation” that she would be his running mate. This can have dire implications for any politician seeking a seat in the white house. Simply put, the media have not exploited her yet and her “dirty laundry” has not been aired to the public. Also, by simply throwing in a candidate that no one has ever heard before, many citizens will think she was selected more for her gender than her actual intelligence.
Will the choice of Sarah Palin go down as the worst political blunder in history or the best one-two punch to the Democratic Party? Only time will tell. Nevertheless, certain questions must be asked of the Republican Party. Was Sarah Palin picked as the vice presidential running mate simply to “shock and aw” the public? Or is she really the “great reformer” we are being promised will change Washington? Whatever the answer, Sarah Palin defies traditional politics. However in this age of rapid change, politics in 2008 defy most “normal” conventions.
Respectfully,
Mr. Madison
Olympic Politics
Written: 04/18/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 25, 2008
After leafing through the previous issue of the Spectator, I became worried about America's mindset. Perhaps it is ignorant for me to think that the Olympics have always been fueled by political rhetoric or that Americans gloss over international problems concerning human rights. Human rights, which I might add, that have a direct impact over international unity. Looking back, I began to think about the first Olympic boycott. It happened in 1956, when the Olympic Games were held Melbourne. The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, supported the boycott, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union. In a nutshell, the uprising in Hungary involved a spur-of-the-moment national revolt against their Soviet-imposed government policies. If Soviet repression of a nations uprising will cause an acceptable Olympic boycott, why is the Tibetan protest any different?
Let's take a look at another example. The 1980 Moscow Olympic Games were protested by 65 nations, due to cold war tensions and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Though Afghani freedom may be hard concept for many Americans to swallow, America and many other countries were angered by the Soviet Union and their blatant disregard for human rights. This boycott lowered the number of competing nations to 81, lower than that of the 1956 games. My last example shows how politics is directly involved with the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games did not become a mega event until 1932 when they were hosted in Los Angeles California. The games, believe it or not were politically driven and intended to bring the economically hard pressed Los Angeles area out of depression. The 1932 games were witnessed by German ambassadors, who in turn brought the games to Berlin in 1936. It is hard not to associate the 1936 Olympics with a runner named Jesse Owens. However the 1936 games were more than just an American underdog and a tale of patriotism. The games brought economic prosperity and credibility to Berlin. Hitler even sought to create the largest Olympic stadium in the world, but as we all know World War II put a stop to that.
Sure the Olympics call for a "fun" evening, where people can sit inside and watch athletes play tennis for hours. Heck, I myself am a huge fan of the Modern Pentathlon, but please America open your eyes. Stop living in some ethnocentric fantasy and learn more about what is going on in the world. Human rights are being taken from people and all we do is sit on our hands and wonder what time the table tennis event will start. I am not a liberal person and I am not a conservative person - I am a practical person. People should be allowed to protest for something they believe in, even if it is during a torch run. As Malcolm X once said: "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."
With The Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
And by the way the cartoon captioned above the article on page 10 was a total contradiction to the ethos of the editorial. It obviously showed Chinese Olympiad killing a Tibetan monk. Why would anyone use that picture and expect people not to protest? Perhaps next time a picture of an American flag wrapped around a baby, wearing a cowboy hat and eating a hotdog would be more suitable. However that is just a suggestion.
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 25, 2008
After leafing through the previous issue of the Spectator, I became worried about America's mindset. Perhaps it is ignorant for me to think that the Olympics have always been fueled by political rhetoric or that Americans gloss over international problems concerning human rights. Human rights, which I might add, that have a direct impact over international unity. Looking back, I began to think about the first Olympic boycott. It happened in 1956, when the Olympic Games were held Melbourne. The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, supported the boycott, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union. In a nutshell, the uprising in Hungary involved a spur-of-the-moment national revolt against their Soviet-imposed government policies. If Soviet repression of a nations uprising will cause an acceptable Olympic boycott, why is the Tibetan protest any different?
Let's take a look at another example. The 1980 Moscow Olympic Games were protested by 65 nations, due to cold war tensions and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Though Afghani freedom may be hard concept for many Americans to swallow, America and many other countries were angered by the Soviet Union and their blatant disregard for human rights. This boycott lowered the number of competing nations to 81, lower than that of the 1956 games. My last example shows how politics is directly involved with the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games did not become a mega event until 1932 when they were hosted in Los Angeles California. The games, believe it or not were politically driven and intended to bring the economically hard pressed Los Angeles area out of depression. The 1932 games were witnessed by German ambassadors, who in turn brought the games to Berlin in 1936. It is hard not to associate the 1936 Olympics with a runner named Jesse Owens. However the 1936 games were more than just an American underdog and a tale of patriotism. The games brought economic prosperity and credibility to Berlin. Hitler even sought to create the largest Olympic stadium in the world, but as we all know World War II put a stop to that.
Sure the Olympics call for a "fun" evening, where people can sit inside and watch athletes play tennis for hours. Heck, I myself am a huge fan of the Modern Pentathlon, but please America open your eyes. Stop living in some ethnocentric fantasy and learn more about what is going on in the world. Human rights are being taken from people and all we do is sit on our hands and wonder what time the table tennis event will start. I am not a liberal person and I am not a conservative person - I am a practical person. People should be allowed to protest for something they believe in, even if it is during a torch run. As Malcolm X once said: "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."
With The Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
And by the way the cartoon captioned above the article on page 10 was a total contradiction to the ethos of the editorial. It obviously showed Chinese Olympiad killing a Tibetan monk. Why would anyone use that picture and expect people not to protest? Perhaps next time a picture of an American flag wrapped around a baby, wearing a cowboy hat and eating a hotdog would be more suitable. However that is just a suggestion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
