Ex Veritate

Take a Look Back

2006-11-06T01:25:00.000-05:00

On Monday, the election simulation will officially be over. Since September candidates and interest groups have been trying to get your votes though radio shows, television shows, news papers and other forms of media. Now it is your time to act and make a difference. I’m talking about voting. But after Monday its not over. Lets take a minute to look back at the simulation. You were introduced to the candidates, you became familiar with their views, what positions they are running for and what people in those positions do. Wasn’t it a good feeling to know that you were of such importance to all of the candidates and that you actually had the power to choose who won a certain position? Well guess what, its pretty much the same thing in real life. Once you’re of voting age, you are just as important to the real candidates for senate, governor and comptroller as you were in this simulation. The difference, though is that your vote will be more meaningful. You will be choosing a person who will really represent you and make decisions for you in real life. That’s a big responsibility. But if you decide to stay home and watch TV on election day someone may be elected who doesn’t support you, or reflect your beliefs. So instead of letting this experience just pass you buy, learn something from it. On election day, whether its in the present or the future; real, or fake; right, left, or in between (green?) vote!

Battle for a Ballot

2006-11-02T23:15:00.000-05:00

As Election Day at Townsend Harris comes near, students have been urged to register so that they may be able to obtain a ballot and vote on Monday, November 6, 2006. Much like in the real elections, all students were told that they must be registered to obtain a ballot despite the fact that they may still be able to receive a provisional ballot if they can successfully prove their status as a Townsend Harris student to protect their right to vote and themselves against disenfranchisement. However, the registration process has been extremely unorganized and practically nonexistent.

During fifth band lunch, seniors were sent to the cafeteria to sign underclassmen up to vote. Upon arriving downstairs, however, they found no registration tables set up and surprised students as they apparently did not know this had to be done. A surprised sophomore, Julie Kim, stated that she had no idea she had to register until an announcement was made at lunch, and she still didn’t register because she wasn’t sure if she had to. In order to encourage the student body to vote, technicalities such as the registration must be clear and organized. Hopefully, this Friday all will be fixed as it is the last day to register before the elections. Please remember to do so during your lunch band!

REMINDER: When leaving a comment, you must leave your full name and official class, or your comment will not be posted!

Debating Bias

2006-11-02T18:56:00.000-05:00

Tuesday's Candidate Debates were effective in giving candidates the opportunity to communicate some of their final opinions on the issues and clear up many misunderstandings that have arisen throughout the campaigns. Many even got into heated debates, giving voters a chance to gather their own final opinions before Monday's elections. However, some of the candidates were not even given the opportunity to state their names. Candidates such as Callaghan, Gonzalez, Maloney, and Velasquez, among others, were only permitted to sit on the stage, observing while the other candidates were given the chance to have a full-out debate. This situation is completely unfair. All candidates running for any office should be given an equal chance to express their opinions on the issues of their campaign. If students are expected to cast an educated vote, they must first be educated about the candidate for whom they are voting. All candidates should have been given a chance to get their ideas out one last time before the final elections.

Also, besides the fact that certain candidates were not given the opportunity to speak, did anyone notice that the candidates who benefited from this were Democratic? One of the candidates involved in a huge controversy, Democratic incumbent for state Comptroller Alan Hevesi, was not subject to any questioning whatsoever. However, Republican candidate for Attorney General Jeanine Pirro was questioned regarding her controversy. She and her husband were insulted both by the people and especially by her Democratic opponent Andrew Cuomo, who referred to Mr. Pirro as a "cockroach." If one controversial candidate must be subject to this kind of interrogation and treatment, so should the others.

REMINDER: When leaving a comment, you must leave your full name and official class, or your comment will not be posted!

Republicans Playing Dirty

2006-10-28T22:21:00.000-04:00

Monday, at 10:30 am, New York senate candidate John Spencer had this to say about his opponent, Hillary Clinton: "You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew...I don't know why Bill married her." Ouch. He went on to say how Clinton spent "millions of dollars" on "work" on herself and that "She looks good now." Once again, ouch.
Not too far away in Tennessee, a commercial financed by the Republican National Committee was aimed at Harold E. Ford Jr., a black Democratic candidate for Senate. It included a bare-shouldered white woman saying that she met Mr. Ford at a "Playboy party" and ended with the woman winking at the screen saying "Harold, call me," obviously playing with race relations.
This Thursday, my good friend and comptroller hopeful, Alan Hevesi (played by Jason Lee) was walking with me through the halls of Townsend Harris High School. On our way we noticed a group of republicans yelling "Impeach Hevesi!" Not only were they disturbing those poor students, whose only moments of freedom are between bands, but as Mr. Hevesi passed by, they ambushed him as they screamed "Impeach Hevesi" right in his face.
It is obvious that there is something common in each of these situations. Republicans are playing dirty. This is a disgraceful, yet affective way to get votes. Mudslinging takes the people's attention off the political issues and onto a candidate's personal life, which usually has no effect on their ability to serve the state. So readers, next time you see a candidate being bashed by his opponent, think about the bigger picture before making a final decision.

Photographs Are Worth Thousands of Words

2006-10-20T10:51:00.001-04:00

Photographs Are Worth Thousands of Words

2006-10-20T10:51:00.000-04:00

Media Coverage, Or Lack Thereof

2006-10-19T16:56:00.000-04:00

I don't know about you, readers, but the Election Simulation media lately seems lacking in quality and also frequency of publications. The first released video was this past Monday, over three weeks into the campaigns. I understand that sometimes technology is not on our side, but if something is taking this long to be released, there is obviously a serious problem, which should be addressed by those in charge of the publication. And I'm not just trying to pick on the video publications. Some of the print media sources have been less than timely with their publications as well. One specific newspaper, which shall remain nameless, has been extremely unorganized in all that they have done so far. Both the timeliness of publication and the quality of the articles released have been far from acceptable. Granted, this is also the fault of the journalists, but the editor should carry much of the responsibility. A responsible editor should be able to ensure that all deadlines are respected and that the articles are up to par with the other publications being released. An editor should be responsible for editing his or her own newspaper before it is released. Reporters should also make sure that their work is up to standard and that his or her information is correct. For example, the first publication of the specific paper to which I previously referred included an article which completely misinformed its readers, claiming that Attorney General candidate Jeannine Pirro was running against Hillary Clinton for her position in the Senate. These kinds of errors should not even be made in the first place, but if they are made, the editor of this paper should be reading the articles before they are printed. The responsibility of the media is to inform its audience of the news, and therefore they should be sure they are informing the public correctly. This problem needs to be taken care of immediately. The media obviously needs to take responsibility and properly inform its audience.

REMINDER: In order to leave comments, you must leave your full name and official class, or your comment will not be posted.

Widespread Ambiguity in the Polls

2006-10-17T12:40:00.000-04:00

In the latest poll taken, the overwhelming response to which candidates two hundred and twelve potential voters were going to vote for in the upcoming election was one of indecision. In all races but the statewide senatorial race, which Senator Clinton is leading, “undecided” was the dominant answer. There are many different possible suggestions as to why this may be, but many of these can be easily traced to the lack of media and participation in the Election Simulation this year.

Typically, every election simulation has three general media sources: the print media, radio show, and television program. While two newspapers and a website are published and a new radio show aired each week, only one television program has been sent out. While favored in past years, the interviews are not available for underclassmen to watch, and hence this can be a possible cause of the indecisiveness among the student body.

However, there have been other methods employed to make up for this. The classroom visits this year have been much more effective than other years, poll numbers report. There has been a new website and blog introduced to try to make the election simulation more interesting and interactive. Still, there remains uncertainty. Many point out that several of the candidates have not made their positions clear or have not appeared on the scene enough. Perhaps in the upcoming debates, the student body will have a clearer notion of who they will vote for and the positions of the candidates running.

REMINDER: When leaving comments please leave your full name and official class or your comment will not be posted.

A Spew of Broadcasted Venom

2006-10-13T23:33:00.000-04:00

On Friday, October 13th, the Radio show host - DJ Campbell something-or-other Soup - interviewed a spokesperson for the Homemakers Association. The interview started innocently enough, until the host asked the spokesperson for his opinion on immigration. He stated that "Mexicans" are bringing this country to ruins, and that every illegal immigrant here should go back to their own country. In accordance with Ahsan's entry, "Please Change the Rhetoric", the words illegal immigrant does not imply Mexicans. Excuse me, but it is utterly ridiculous to imply that all illegal immigrants are Mexicans or of the Hispanic race. Illegal immigrants are the backbone of this country - they take jobs that some are too proud to take for minimum wage, and are the unspoken heroes of our everyday lives. As the spokesperson was speaking, a curious thing came to light. He argued that immigrants, in a very Darwinian 'survival-of-the-fittest' manner, ought to migrate back to their own country. Yet, his argument against the idea of immigrants being the 'backbone' to this country was: "What about the everyday man? What if he has no job and wants to take a minimum wage job? He can't, because all the immigrants have taken all the positions." Contradiction much? Obviously, the spokesperson believes in survival of the fittest, so why does it not apply to the citizens of this country as well?

Now, to approach the most controversial aspect of this radio interview:

Q: What if your son came out of the closet and fell in love with an illegal immigrant?
A: I would shove him back in.

Do I need to say more? Perhaps you, readers, will fill in the blanks. Because at the moment, words do not suffice nor encompass my colossal astonishment at how close-minded some people can be.

P.S. (Of course, we are all just playing a role. Shamsul, you did good.)

Please leave your name when commenting or else your comment will not be posted.

Bravery in Terrorism?

2006-10-12T11:39:00.000-04:00

Last week's issue of "Point-Counterpoint" included a shocking article entitled "You Say Collateral Damage, They Say Terrorism.” The writer, Angela Davis, made the radical claim that, "Although their tactics are not accepted by 'civilized societies', Middle Eastern Jihadists and militant extremists, who choose to become suicide bombers and fight against America, are very brave." How can one argue that the very same people who bombed our own World Trade Center just five years ago are brave? Thousands of innocent people were killed then, and thousands more are still dying in countries all over the Middle East. There is no justification for these deaths. These people should not be considered brave just because they choose to sacrifice themselves for what they believe is the right thing, especially if this "sacrifice" also involves killing so many others.

However, under no circumstances am I justifying the actions of the United States either. Our country has been just as guilty of terrorism as the Middle Eastern extremists. Neither side in this war should be considered heroic or brave in their tactics. Too many innocent lives have been lost in the name of freedom and patriotism. I agree one hundred percent with Ms. Davis’ closing quotation by Bob Dylan, “How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?” However, both sides in this battle need to realize this point. This war has nothing to do with bravery, but everything to do with cowardice on the part of both the Middle Eastern extremists and the United States military.

REMINDER: When leaving comments please leave your full name and official class or your comment will not be posted.

Please Change the Rhetoric!

2006-10-11T11:30:00.001-04:00

I was reading "The War On Terror Must Be Waged" by the conservative writer Connie Right Wing, when I came upon this statement "But the threats we now face are different. They come from terrorists, in the form of Islamic extremists." Before I say anything else, I would just like to request that everyone keep the word "Islamic" as far away from "terrorist" as possible. It has nothing to do with terrorism. "Islamists", "Islamo-Fascists" and rhetoric of this manner when talking about terrorism is not only inaccurate but only serves to reinforce misconceptions held by a large portion of the public. It gives the people the impression that Islam is the motivation for the actions of terrorists. If anyone takes time to understand the situation they would realize the motivation for terrorists is not religion, but politics. In fact religion often isn't the cause of violence, but is used by people with authority to gain support for their cause. 9/11, for example didn’t happen, because the Quran tells Muslims to kill all infidels (which it doesn’t), or because the terrorists “hate our freedoms” as the president wants us to think, but because they hate our foreign policy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not supporting terrorism, but please change the rhetoric.

Illegal Sales or Illegal Evidence?

2006-10-06T00:37:00.000-04:00

Tuesday morning's hearing against the Democratic Party ended up being a disappointment for the Republicans, who expected to gain a significant financial lead against their opponents. The Democrats were brought to court for allegedly having an illegal pizza sale last week. The Republicans claimed that the Democratic Party was scheduled for a bake sale, and that selling pizza did not count as a bake sale. They expected that the Democrats would lose all the money gained during this "illegal" pizza sale.

But to their surprise, the lawsuit was dropped after the Democrats’ presentation of proof that their pizza sale was “legal.” Regarding the still controversial lawsuit, an anonymous Democrat stated, “I think they [the Republicans] were just angry because we had a pizza party before them.” The Democrats seem to feel that the Republicans are just trying anything and everything to gain a lead in the election.

However, some Republicans feel they have been cheated regarding this lawsuit. There have been suspicions that the Democrats may have forged or changed the document that allowed them to escape the suit. If there is any truth to these suspicions, the Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves. If one party makes a mistake, they should be willing to take the consequences of their actions. It is utterly unacceptable for a party to sink to such a level as to forge documents. In the real world, forging a document has extreme consequences, and during this election, the candidates should be penalized to the same degree if these rumors are at all true.

REMINDER: When leaving comments, please leave your full name and official class or your comment will not be posted!

Twisted Tongues: The Radio Show

2006-10-06T00:02:00.000-04:00

As the Election Simulation progresses, many different types of media are available to the Townsend Harris student body in order to inform students of the issues and the sides taken by the candidates running. One of these is the radio show aired each band every Friday. While the interviews with the candidates can be very informative, the open phone lines seem to have perverse effects on the campaigns of several candidates after some of the questions asked last Friday.

During the third band radio show, Jeannine Pirro was on air when a sophomore in Mr. O’Malley’s class called in with some bizarre questions and accusations. Prying a little too deep into the marital problems of Ms. and Mr. Pirro, the student then went on to ask Ms. Pirro if she was aware of the doings of her opponent, Andrew Cuomo, such as his being alone for extended periods of time with a young seventeen year old. While an angry representative for Cuomo exclaimed that the student “must be referring to his daughter,” Cuomo was not the only one who suffered from the ridiculous questions being asked. In a brief interview, Mr. Pirro stated, “The comments were low blows against my wife and her opposing candidate. I hope the election simulation remains a clean battle that demonstrates who the best candidate is.”

A similar event also occurred during the fifth band radio show while Hillary Clinton was on air. After being bombarded with questions in a very difficult interview, she too received blasphemous questions from her audience. Looking back on the show, Clinton declared, “The radio show was an interesting experience; some questions dealt with personal issues which I believe do not have anything to do with the person's political stance and are false many times.” On her flip-flopping stances on the issue when being posed a couple of multifaceted questions, she explained, “I was also at fault, because I did not state my stance on certain issues clearly enough for all students to understand. However, this week’s radio show should have nice and smooth flow.”
With a positive attitude expressed by candidates of the two parties, the radio show for this Friday will hopefully have more of a focus on the issues and stances of the candidates than the blatantly false, but amusing, rumors that the creative minds of Townsend Harris students have to offer.

REMINDER: When leaving comments, please leave your full name and official class or your comment will not be posted!

Kickoff Rally: A Kickin' Good Time?

2006-09-29T01:08:00.000-04:00

Last Thursday, September 21st, marked the beginning of the 2006 Election Simulation with the Kickoff Rally. Considering all the Seniors were packed into a small courtyard, to say that the Rally was 'exciting' would be a severe understatement. As the four very gracious—and very comical—hosts stepped up to the podium, the air was charged with emotion. Once the candidates started introducing themselves, the decibel level only continued to increase. For good reason too—the candidates, however shell-shocked they appeared minutes before the rally, were extremely impressive and charismatic. I could not help but cheer for each and every one of them.

Each role-playing senior brought their own personality to the table while simultaneously retaining their political roles as well. Sebastian Lagos, playing as David A. Paterson, aroused much applause as he grossly exaggerated the politician's disability. Aaron acting as John Spencer brought his own flair to the character by using slang and gestures, which was extremely amusing to see. Michael Morrissey as Malachy McCourt, who, even though I don't like to play favorites, was my favorite candidate, wore a kilt. There is nothing quite as appealing as seeing a man in a green-plaid skirt.

The crowd, however, is really what made the rally great. With the majority of the Senior class divided into two parties, each party attempted to outdo the other party by making more noise. Interest and campaign groups held up signs and screamed themselves hoarse, all the while doing it with a smile on their face. Their signs were colorful and large and were very attention-grabbing. If one was to view the rally from above, one would see a vivid sea of seniors and signs and balloons flowing together as one.

The Election Simulation has gotten off to an excellent start, and many have high expectations for the rest of the race. This being our last Election Simulation, to all my fellow Seniors I say: let's make the best of it.

Prevent Life, But Don't Destroy It

2006-09-28T23:46:00.000-04:00

I recently read several articles on birth control by notable writers such as Connie Right Wing, Conservative Bread and Gregorio DelaIzquierda. First of all, I just want to say that I completely agree with Ms. Right Wing who argues that "The issue of abortion is not about "a woman's right to choose", but rather about a human's right to life." Also, its not about a woman’s right to choose, but depriving the future offspring the right to choose. I believe that the reason why abortion has become so much more common and acceptable during recent times is because we have detached ourselves from the truth of what we are actually doing. In certain past societies their form of abortion would be to bury alive their unwanted new born (usually a girl), but now that we don’t have to witness the life draining from a child's body the idea of abortion doesn't seem so bad.
As for the argument on other forms of birth control, Ms. Bread doesn't make much of an argument. Believe it or not, sex is a very important part of a strong marriage. Pregnancy preventatives allow married couples to control the size of their families while having their needs satisfied. As long as no life is being destroyed its perfectly ethical. If all forms of birth control were to be banned then extramarital affairs and abortions would sky rocket since couples would never want to suppress their natural desires. This of course would contradict Ms. Bread's statements. I'm with Mr. DelaIzquierda on this one, its a private matter.

A Political Witch Hunt Against Hevesi and Pirro

2006-09-28T23:26:00.000-04:00

As Election Day nears, it seems that the Comptroller and District Attorney races of New York have become more of a “political witch hunt and smear campaign” than anything else. The Republican candidate for Attorney General, Jeanine Pirro, is currently under investigation for illegally taping her husband last year to determine if he was having an affair. However, she is not the only candidate in this circle of rumors. Alan Hevesi, the Democratic candidate for Comptroller, is also under the continuous badgering of reporters and investigators for having a worker serve as his wife’s chauffeur for the past three years and thus taking $82,688.82 from the state.

As reported in the New York Times by Patrick Healy, it is believed that in venting to Bernard Kerik, former New York City police commissioner, about her marital frustrations, Jeanine Pirro devised a plan involving the bugging the family boat with Kerik for at the time he owned a private security business. In addition, it is certain that Mrs. Pirro had her husband followed in the summer of 2005. In an interview on Thursday, September 28, 2006, Jeanine Pirro stated, “It was a time of trouble for me. I was disappointed, angry, and confused, but I certainly did not have Kerik involved in the taping of my husband, an action I did not even commit.” The entire affair has brought about much publicity, and when asked about the negative publicity brought by her husband, Mr. Pirro himself responded, “There is no such thing as negative publicity. Publicity is publicity.” However, due to the scandal, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has moved to cancel his Pirro fundraiser.

In the case of Alan Hevesi, the matters at hand are beyond personal. After opponent J. Christopher Callaghan phoned in a complaint about the incident to a hotline that Mr. Hevesi had set up for citizens to report the misuse of public money, an inquiry as to whether Hevesi’s use of the driver and irrational spending constituted the theft of public funds. Stating that the reason behind the hiring of the statesperson, whose driving Mrs. Carol Hevesi around took up forty percent of his time in the past three years, was because of a fear for her health, Hevesi has pledged to pay back the money embezzled over three years and has claimed the check is already in the mail.

It seems that the real issue here is whether or not the crimes have been committed or not, but what this means about the character of the candidate. Can the public trust Jeanine Pirro if she does not trust her own family members and is willing to use such methods against her own husband? Can the funds of the state be put in the hands of Alan Hevesi if he should use some families’ yearly income to drive his wife around under the façade of security? With the uncovering of such stories, it becomes evident that a voter must reconsider their position on the election and weigh the relevance of the scandals being brought up.

An Introduction to the Republicans

2006-09-27T11:59:00.000-04:00

Candidate for Attorney General Jeanine Pirro [R] with Candidate for Congress Kevin Brawley [R] outside Townsend Harris during the Republican Rally. [Photo courtesy of Sarah Viola.]

The Republicans had a great start to their campaign last Friday at the Republican rally. They showed their ability to publicize their campaign and get candidates' names out there. Younger voters met the candidates, who were able to make a lasting first impression on their voters. The rally was a surprise for most students as they walked off the bus, but most seemed to enjoy it. It was a very wise move on the part of the Republicans. Members of the party showed their support for the candidates with signs and chants, therefore creating a generally positive impression on the voters. They were able to see the more light-hearted side of the Republican candidates, who are almost always seen negatively by most of the younger voters. The Republicans seem to have changed quite a few minds after the rally.

Previously, voters made premature judgments on the candidates based on just their political party. However, it seems that after Friday morning’s rally, a few voters are starting to form opinions based on which candidates have put their names and faces out there. The Republicans have unquestionably been much more effective in doing so than their Democratic opponents. Candidates for the Democratic Party have barely made a public appearance at this point, while the Republicans have been persistently planning events. This very well could be the year that the Republican Party takes the lead in the Townsend Harris elections.