Bright Hall

Iowa Clears Way for Gay Marriage (Really? Iowa?)

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-03T22:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Breaking News, Local, Notre Dame

The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday that a 1998 law which limited marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional, stating that same-sex marriages may begin in Iowa in as soon as three weeks.

Tonight I happened to attend a dinner with a professor from the University of Iowa. He told me that when he heard about the decision on CNN, he was more surprised that his state was making national news than to hear that gay marriages would soon be legalized.

A lot of people, he said, misjudge Iowa. So it's not a rural state with a lot of corn, wondered one of my dinner mates. Yes, it is, he said. But it's also the state that helped propel Barack Obama to the presidency. In January 2008, Obama won Iowa's Democratic caucus, and many political commentators saw his win in Iowa as a sign he could win the country. Obama won the state of Iowa 10 months later in the general election.

In this context, it's not as surprising that this state smack dab in the middle of the Midwest will become only the third state in the country, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to permit gay marriage. (Of course, California's decision to allow gay marriage was overturned in November.) The full text of the Supreme Court's decision can be read here.

Lambda Legal, an organization that works to gain civil rights for lesbians, gay men and people with HIV/AIDS, filed a lawsuit in 2005 with Iowa's Polk County Court on behalf of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa, with the argument that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates liberty and equality guarantees in the state's constitution.The Iowa Supreme Court opinion states that the legislature enacted a law that excluded gay and lesbian people from marriage, the executive branch of the state enforced the law by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and the judicial branch had the responsibility to determine if the law violates the Iowa Constitution. The Court decided that it did.

"A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated beliefs and popular opinion," the court's opinion read.

A poll taken in February 2008 showed that 62 percent of Iowans believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, while 32 percent said they believed same-sex marriage should be allowed, the Des Moines Register reported. Six percent were unsure.

Once gay marriages are allowed, 21 days following the Supreme Court's April 3 decision, it seems likely that gay marriage will remain a right in Iowa for several years, since a constitutional amendment banning it would require the state legislature to approve the ban during two consecutive sessions, and then the voters would be asked to weigh in, the New York Times reported. A CNN report stated that the earliest the issue could get on a ballot would be 2012.

Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, so people from other parts of the country might be making their way to the Hawkeye State to get hitched.

In other Midwestern news this week, the University of Notre Dame rejected students' petition to add sexual orientation to the school's nondiscrimination clause.

Who knew there was so much diversity in the Heartland?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Commencement Coverage Focuses on Protesters

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-26T02:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Religion, News, Local, Media, Notre Dame

Kaitlynn Riely, a student at the University of Notre Dame, is delivering the latest news and opinions on the growing Obama Commencement controversy from South Bend. See her coverage on the progression of this media event here, here and here.

I'm starting to feel like I'm living in an abortion debate-themed production of West Side Story.

Ever since Notre Dame announced that President Barack Obama would deliver the May 17 Commencement address, those against hosting Obama because of his pro-choice beliefs and actions have been rumbling, mostly on the Internet and in print, with those who want him to speak here.

I can almost hear the snapping.

The argument is taking place in the opinion pages of Notre Dame's student newspaper, The Observer. The national media has picked up the story. Catholic and pro-life blogs and Web sites are condemning the University for asking a pro-choice politician to speak at Notre Dame and deciding to give him an honorary doctor of laws degree.

But for all the Obama drama, I've only spoken to a few students who are against him speaking here in May. And back in October, Notre Dame's student government conducted a mock election and the results were 52.6 percent for Obama, 41.1 percent for McCain.

The reason it seems, from media coverage, like popular Notre Dame community sentiment is against having Obama speak is because the people opposed to Obama speaking are doing a very good job of organizing and getting their opinion out.

Case in point: Today, a coalition of Notre Dame student groups launched a Web site and issued a press release denouncing the University's choice of Obama as Commencement speaker, an objection, they said, that was not based on "political partisanship" but due to Obama's "hostility to the Catholic Church's teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages."

The coalition, made up of 11 Notre Dame student groups, asked that only members of the Notre Dame community lead protests against the University's decision.

"Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community," the statement said. It was signed by the 11 student clubs, which include the Notre Dame chapters of Right to Life and the College Republicans.

A Notre Dame alum started an online petition for people who support having Obama on campus, but that petition has gotten little notice. Scan the Internet, and it would seem most Notre Dame people oppose Obama speaking and receiving an honorary degree. It is true that there are many, many people who are against him speaking, and their position has merit. But the media is ignoring the large numbers who are thrilled to have Obama speak at Commencement.

The White House responded to the controversy late Tuesday, reported ABC's Political Punch blog. Deputy White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Obama was "honored" to address the graduation class, but said he understands there are students, parents and alums who don't want him there.

"While he is honored to have the support of millions of people of all faiths, including Catholics with their rich tradition of recognizing the dignity of people, he does not govern with the expectation that everyone sees eye to eye with him on every position and the spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues is part of what he loves about this country," Psaki said.

But the negative reaction has been so loud, and so widely covered, that there's been less coverage of the "healthy disagreement" and more coverage of the outrage by some about the choice. I cannot foresee Obama deciding not to come, or Notre Dame rescinding his invitation. When May 17 has passed, will the story of this controversy be that most Notre Dame people were against his coming? Or will it be clear that many students supported Obama speaking at graduation?

As I did yesterday, I'll end again with my favorite Obama Drama moment of the day. Two Notre Dame students were interviewed on Fox's Greta Van Susteren Wednesday night about their opposition to Obama. At the end of the interview, Van Susteren congratulated the girls on their upcoming graduation.

Her congrats came about a year too early. Both girls are juniors, so they cannot go to Commencement anyway. Greta ended the segment before they could make the correction.

Everyone has the right to have an opinion on Obama speaking at Commencement, but let's see the media seek the opinions of Notre Dame seniors, for whom this decision primarily affects.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech at Notre Dame

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-25T00:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Culture, Religion, News, Local, Media, Notre Dame

Bishop John M. D'Arcy, who presides over Indiana's Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, which includes Notre Dame, announced Tuesday he will not be attending Notre Dame's May 17 Commencement, since President Barack Obama will be speaking.

"Can I have the Bishop's ticket?" my friend posted on the Web site Twitter.com.

D'Arcy has clashed with Notre Dame in the past, most significantly when University President Fr. John Jenkins issued a statement in 2006 allowing The Vagina Monologues to be performed on campus. Now it's Obama's pro-choice stances and decisions, rather than vaginas, that have gotten D'Arcy's Irish up.

Notre Dame and the White House announced Friday that Obama would be speaking at Notre Dame's May 17 Commencement ceremony, with Jenkins following up Monday clarifying that asking Obama to speak, and awarding him with an honorary doctor of laws degree, does not signify support of his policies. Most students, from my observations on campus, seem to be supportive of and excited about hearing Obama speak. But a vocal student minority, as well as alumni and unaffiliated pro-life groups, have protested the decision vehemently.

In his statement Tuesday, D'Arcy said Jenkins informed him of Obama's acceptance shortly before the announcement was made. D'Arcy said it was the first time he'd been told about the invitation. This May is the 25th Notre Dame graduation since D'Arcy became bishop, and for the first time, he said, he will not attend.

"After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation," he said. "I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith 'in season and out of season,' and he teaches not only by his words -- but by his actions."

He added: "My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life."

I understand that D'Arcy has major disagreements with Obama over abortion and stem cell issues. But isn't he giving up a unique opportunity to pull the president aside for a moment and voice his concerns? It may not make a difference in Obama's stances, but when else will D'Arcy have the ear of the president?

I'm unimpressed with D'Arcy's leadership. The pro-life movement's sign-carrying, march-making approach hasn't worked so far, and I doubt the Bishop's boycott will make any difference in abortion policy in the United States. It just distances the Catholic Church from the decision-making process.

Too bad. I wish D'Arcy had been a bit braver and seen the opportunity, rather than ask whether Notre Dame has "chosen prestige over truth."

D'Arcy's ticket won't go to waste. Notre Dame seniors, who are only guaranteed 3 tickets each for graduation, have been posting on Facebook asking those who don't want Obama to speak at Notre Dame to give away their tickets.

Security itself on graduation day promises to be intense. But already, with two months to go, life in the Notre Dame bubble is becoming surreal. Leaving the gym this afternoon, I stopped by a television because a woman from a local television station was delivering a report from my campus.

When I got back to my room, a friend told me Notre Dame was on CNN.

Does this controversy have the momentum to last two months? Pro-life groups will certainly try their best. Everyone here has a viewpoint on the Obama drama.

My favorite opinion of the day came in a letter to the editor published in Notre Dame's student newspaper, The Observer. The author of the letter is a student at Saint Mary's, the all-women college across the street from Notre Dame, who asked whether the Notre Dame "administration considered the impact such an important political figurehead will have on the travel plans of the other schools graduating that weekend."

I imagine potential traffic congestion is the last thing Jenkins is thinking about this week.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Debate Over Obama Notre Dame Commencement Address Heats Up

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-24T01:03:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Culture, Religion, Breaking News, News, Local, Notre Dame

The White House and Notre Dame announced last Friday that President Barack Obama would be the main speaker at the May 17 Commencement ceremony and would be awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree, a decision that has caused controversy among many in the Catholic community.

Though many students and alums of the University are pleased to have the president speak at Commencement, those opposed to the decision have been far more vocal, as students, alumni and people not affiliated with Notre Dame voiced their protestations loudly throughout the Internet and in Notre Dame's student newspaper.

Fr. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, gave an interview to The Observer, the student newspaper, Sunday in which he responded to the criticism and said he did not "foresee" circumstances in which Notre Dame would rescind the invitation to the president. (Full disclosure: I work for The Observer.)

"We have invited the president and he's honored us by accepting," he told The Observer.

There's been an uproar about the decision, judging by letters to the editor, blog posts and petitions, due to Obama's pro-abortion stances. Jenkins defended his choice, saying the invitation to Obama does not signify an endorsement.

"The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins told The Observer.

The protestations against the choice of Obama have been very loud, especially in the opinion section of The Observer, but it should be noted that in a mock election held by Notre Dame's student government last October, Obama won 52.6 percent of the vote compared to McCain's 41.1 percent.

Not everyone is protesting Obama coming to campus; many are thrilled. A Facebook group titled "We Will Be Honored To Have President Obama at Notre Dame" has 1,389 members. Several Facebook groups, however, have been created to protest Obama as Commencement speaker.

All I wanted was a nice, quiet, peaceful graduation day, a time to celebrate with my family and friends, without posters of aborted fetuses. Such a simple request. But it won't be so.

Already, pro-life activists are making plans to come to South Bend to protest.

A Web site called notredamescandal.com has set up an online petition to ask Jenkins to rescind the invitation, saying it is in violation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2004 document called "Catholics in Political Life," which states that "those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions" by Catholic institutions.

The Web site, launched by the Cardinal Newman Society, claims it has nearly 48,000 signatures. The Cardinal Newman Society, established in 1993, is "dedicated to renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America's 224 Catholic colleges and universities," according to its Web site.

National Review Online, the Web site of the conservative magazine, asked various commentators to give their views on Notre Dame's speaker choice.

It's become popular in American discourse to invoke Hitler when making a point about something one views as egregious. On National Review's Web site, Fr. George W. Rutler, a Catholic priest in New York, skipped that tiresome cliche and brought back an oldie:

"If a Midwestern school seeks attention by granting Obama an honorary doctorate in law, the next logical step would be to grant Judas Iscariot posthumously an honorary doctorate in business administration," he wrote.

This is only day three of the Great Obama Debate; there is no end in sight. Outside the Notre Dame bubble, I'm sure, no one is talking about the Obama Commencement speaker choice. But it's hard to see reality beyond the bubble while on campus. Here, it is the primary topic of conversation.

Anecdotally, I'd say most seniors I've talked to are excited about Obama coming to speak at graduation. But those who are against Obama speaking are making a lot more noise in the student paper and on the Internet.

My advice to Fr. Jenkins is to fire Charlie Weis and re-hire Ty Willingham. There's nothing like breaking football news to change the topic of conversation at Notre Dame.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama To Give Commencement Address at Three Colleges

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-20T17:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, National News, News, Local, Notre Dame

I thought the biggest thing that was going to happen at Notre Dame this week was St. Patrick's Day. I was wrong.

According to an Associated Press report, President Barack Obama will deliver the commencement address at Notre Dame's graduation May 17. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made the announcement Friday that Obama will speak at my school, as well as at the Arizona State University and the U.S. Naval Academy graduation ceremonies. Notre Dame's media office issued a news release saying Obama will also be the recipient of an honorary doctor of laws degree.

The Facebook statuses of many Notre Dame students were all about the news Friday afternoon. There hasn't been this much buzz since freshmen year when rumors swirled that U2 was coming in for the ND-USC game.

I think Obama's gotten bigger than Bono.

Many people seem excited, but undoubtedly, there will be protests, especially by those who see Obama's stance on abortion as contrary to Catholic teachings. This is Notre Dame. We protest for weeks on end when students put on productions of The Vagina Monologues.

Obama will be the ninth U.S. president to be awarded an honorary degree by Notre Dame and the sixth to be Commencement speaker, according to the news release.

And don't forget, Notre Dame also graduated the nation's best fake president, West Wing's Josiah Bartlett.

President George W. Bush delivered his first presidential commencement address at Notre Dame in 2001, four years before I was a student here.

It's not a bad way to graduate, with the president stopping by to send us out into the collapsing job market with some soaring rhetoric. I'm guessing that he'll tell us "we are the ones we've been waiting for," that "hope is the bedrock" of our future, and that "yes, we can."

While we have him on campus, the University administration should convince Obama to swing by South Bend in the fall to give some pep talks to our football team.

We'll have the teleprompters ready and waiting in the locker room.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Jon Stewart Brawls with Contrite Jim Cramer

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-13T14:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Local, Media, The Economy, Notre Dame

Last night, the "weeklong feud of the century" climaxed when the host of CNBC's "Mad Money with Jim Cramer" appeared on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

Atlantic writer James Fallows declared, in a blog post headline, that "Jon Stewart has become Edward R. Murrow," the famed father of broadcast journalism. I think the comparison is apt. In a 1958 speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, Murrow lectured listeners on the possibilities for the future of journalism:

"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire," he said. "But it can only do so to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful."

Cramer came on Stewart's show to argue that his network, CNBC, was not merely "wires and lights in a box." The "Mad Money" commentator was brave to come on Stewart's show, but the charge to defend his network and his show was a tall order. Stewart, well-prepared as always, came out far ahead.

Cramer, before his CNBC days, ran a hedge fund and also co-founded TheStreet.com. Stewart said he felt like Cramer, and other financial reporters on CNBC, were acting as though the ethically dubious, short-game market didn't exist. Stewart accused Cramer and CNBC of knowing what the top Wall Street CEOs were doing but not acknowledging it to their viewers.

"I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a f***ing game," Stewart said.He questioned the role CNBC played leading up the collapse of Wall Street.

"Nobody's asking them to be a regulatory agency. But whose side are they on?" Stewart asked.

CNBC's reporters work very hard, Cramer said. But they were lied to by CEOs. Cramer said he never thought investment bank Bear Stearns would "evaporate overnight."

Stewart didn't buy Cramer's contrite answers to his questions. He played clips of Cramer from 2006 in which he admitted to taking part in some of the same techniques that he later criticized.

He criticized the "In Cramer We Trust" promo for "Mad Money" and told him that he and all the reporters at CNBC should go back to reporting fundamentals. Saying that CEOs lied to them in interviews is not an excuse, Stewart said.

"I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value, that you actually go around and try to figure it out," Stewart said.

The interview was incredibly uncomfortable; Cramer was a brave man to accept Stewart's challenge, and Stewart was brave to ask the questions he asked. Will CNBC adopt a more skeptical approach to big Wall Street figures in the future?

And has an entertainer, a man who calls his program a fake news show, become the Edward R. Murrow of the 21st century? If nothing else, he's embarrassed CNBC and made a statement about what responsibility financial journalists have to their viewers.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Does Your Hometown Paper Have Six Months to Live?

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-03-12T08:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Local, Media, Notre Dame

Newspapers are known for their love of naval gazing, and especially for predicting their own demise. They've made it through the competition posed by radio and television. The Internet and the slow economy, however, has newspapers nervous that the day the presses die could be imminent.

The Rocky Mountain News closed down at the end of February this year, leaving Denver a one-newspaper town. Earlier this week, Time magazine published a list of the 10 major daily newspapers that they think are most likely to fold or start publishing only online.

The 10 newspapers listed were chosen based on their parent companies' financial strength, the amount of direct competition they face in their market and estimates on how much money they are losing.

The list included the Philadelphia Daily News, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Miami Herald, the Detroit News, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the New York Daily News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Most other newspapers in the country are facing financial struggles and being forced to take severe steps to keep publishing.

The New York Times, which said it has managed to avoid serious newsroom cuts thus far, published an article Wednesday describing the impending probability that many major American cities will go from having two newspapers to just one.

The Times quoted Mike Simonton, a senior director at Fitch Ratings, who analyzes the newspaper industry, as saying the situation for American newspapers is more dire now than ever before.

"In 2009 and 2010, all the two-newspaper markets will become one-newspaper markets, and you will start to see one-newspaper markets became no-newspaper markets," he told the Times.

What will a city without a newspaper look like? Who will hold the government accountable, and how will the city record its history? The demise of a major newspaper in one American city is a problem for all Americans. And I'm not just saying this because I want to go into a career in newspaper writing.

An old newspaper adage says "if it bleeds, it leads." As American newspapers continue on to their slow death, the story will continue to appear on the front page, until there is no front page left.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Plouffe: Off The Record, Under Scrutiny

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-12T17:56:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Local, Media, Notre Dame

David Plouffe, the chief campaign manager for Barack Obama's presidential campaign, filled my e-mail inbox for months with news about his candidate. Now that the campaign is over, he still wants to keep our relationship confined to e-mailing.

Plouffe made a speech Thursday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., but requested that it be off the record.

He was speaking as part of the Transitions 2009 event, sponsored by Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies. Other than Plouffe's speech, the rest of the event is on the record.

Politico was originally a sponsor of the conference, but backed out because they didn't want to be involved in "an off the record talk with a newsworthy person."

A letter sent by Donna Leinwand, the National Press Club president, to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which reprsents Plouffe, was posted on the Club's Web site. Leinwand said she was troubled by Plouffe's request that the speech be off the record, saying it reduces the "free flow of information" and "would run contrary to the spirit of President Obama's recent executive order and statements in support of a more open government."

Whether you voted for Obama or not, you cannot deny that he ran a brilliant campaign, which Plouffe orchestrated. It's a campaign many want to learn more about, that's probably what Plouffe talked about at the Press Club. By requesting the speech go off the record, he made it a bigger story than it would have been.

Maybe Plouffe was planning all along on e-mailing us the transcripts of his remarks so he could bypass the media. If so, I'm still waiting for that e-mail to arrive.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Facebook Users Wasting Time

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-09T00:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, News, Local, Media, Notre Dame

If you are on the popular social networking site Facebook.com, you probably know 25 more things about dozens of your friends than you did two weeks ago.

Recently, the trend on the site has been to post 25 facts about one's self in a note, then tag the friends you want to notice the information.

Unfortunately, due to the news feed feature, it's not just close friends that see the 25 things. It's practically everyone you are friends with on Facebook, from close buddies to coworkers to distant acquaintances.

It's narcissism on the net, and every time I see someone new has posted a "25 things" note, I cringe.

A few days ago, I was happy to find I'm not the only one who doesn't like being showered with new, often very personal and embarrassing, knowledge about Facebook friends.

Claire Suddath at Time magazine wrote a funny article titled "25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You," a list of facts she wishes people hadn't revealed to her over the Internet.

My favorite was No. 15: "I like to tape my thumbs to my hands to see what it would be like to be a dinosaur."

Over at the Washington Post, they had a very similar story.

Suddath wrote that an estimated 5 million of the notes have appeared on the Web site in the past week. Assuming each note takes about ten minutes to compose, she said, that's 800,000 hours of work time productivity lost.

Instead of a stimulus, maybe we should all stop talking about ourselves, in numbered form, on Facebook.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hope Sold Here

Adam Kirchner — 2009-01-17T19:16:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, National News, Local, Towson University

President-elect Barack Obama addressed a crowd of 40,000 assembled outside of Baltimore's City Hall Saturday afternoon on his train trip from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. In anticipation of his inauguration on Tuesday, Obama is following the same path that Abraham Lincoln took by train to his inauguration, seven score and eight years ago in 1861.

Although Obama's speech lasted only 15 minutes, the crowd of Baltimoreans had waited at the plaza for over three hours for the opportunity to see him in person, and to take digital photographs and videos. During the speech that so many had waited to hear, a woman in the crowd to the left of the president-elect shouted "We love you, Obama." Without hesitancy, the 44th President of the United States interrupted his speech, turned to her direction and said in earnest "I love you back." 40,000 Baltimoreans gushed, all at once.

Obama was joined onstage by First Lady Michelle Obama, Vice President-elect Joe Biden and Second Lady Jill Biden.

During the three-hour wait in 20-degree weather the crowd of Baltimoreans was entertained twice by a personal trainer who tried to lead them in exercises. The curiosity that is the Baltimore sports fan base booed the Orioles' mascot off the stage, but later in the afternoon shouted "O" during the singing of the National Anthem, as they do at Camden Yards.

In the last hour before Obama made his way from Baltimore's Penn Station down to City Hall, the Morgan State University Choir sang gospel songs to the crowd for 30 minutes, twice as long as the awaited speech, beginning with "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing", which was adopted in 1919 by the NAACP as the "Negro National Anthem."

Representative Elijah Cummings and Governor Martin O'Malley, both prominent Democratic Maryland politicians, followed the choir appearing onstage together, each giving brief speeches to the crowd while additional snipers became visible on the surrounding rooftops. Police helicopters circled in the air around the plaza and a conspicuous black Chinook flew across the East Baltimore skyline. The only known incident of the afternoon was a call through the PA system to reunite a lost child with her parents.

Before the crowd was allowed to enter through street-side metal detectors into the secured plaza, the tens of thousands of onlookers snaked in a dense line along the sidewalk around six blocks of closed streets, down toward the Inner Harbor, where jumbo screens displayed the events for the thousands who could not enter. Many had been waiting since before noon to hear the speech scheduled for 4:15 p.m.

Although the speech was formally announced only days ago, dozens of vendors paraded from one end of the line to the other, selling Obama-themed hats, buttons, posters, calendars, and T-shirts. One man made his way through the crowd, hawking "Obama Oil," which was met with laughter on the chilly sidewalk. Hand warmers were five dollars for a pair.

The most telling hawker stopped and posed for a pedestrian photographer, beaming with impromptu popularity yet seemingly unaware of how apropos he was at the moment. He was selling posters with the simple promise used often during Obama's campaign: Hope, designed by Obey's Shepard Fairey. As the vendor posed in the middle of East Redwood Street, the display in his hand read "Hope Sold Here."Representative Elijah Cummings and Governor Martin O'Malley, both prominent Democratic Maryland politicians, followed the choir appearing onstage together, each giving brief speeches to the crowd while additional snipers became visible on the surrounding rooftops. Police helicopters circled in the air around the plaza and a conspicuous black Chinook flew across the East Baltimore skyline. The only known incident of the afternoon was a call through the PA system to reunite a lost child with her parents.

Before the crowd was allowed to enter through street-side metal detectors into the secured plaza, the tens of thousands of onlookers snaked in a dense line along the sidewalk around six blocks of closed streets, down toward the Inner Harbor, where jumbo screens displayed the events for the thousands who could not enter. Many had been waiting since before noon to hear the speech scheduled for 4:15 p.m.

Although the speech was formally announced only days ago, dozens of vendors paraded from one end of the line to the other, selling Obama-themed hats, buttons, posters, calendars, and T-shirts. One man made his way through the crowd, hawking "Obama Oil," which was met with laughter on the chilly sidewalk. Hand warmers were five dollars for a pair.

The most telling hawker stopped and posed for a pedestrian photographer, beaming with impromptu popularity yet seemingly unaware of how apropos he was at the moment. He was selling posters with the simple promise used often during Obama's campaign: Hope, designed by Obey's Shepard Fairey. As the vendor posed in the middle of East Redwood Street, the display in his hand read "Hope Sold Here."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

University Stops Accepting Applications... Three Weeks Early

Joshua Sharp — 2009-01-17T04:08:00+00:00

Filed under: Small Campus, Big Story, USC, News, Local, Recession on Campus

Budget constraints in California have caused Fresno State University to close its freshman application period -- three weeks earlier than the posted deadline. Per the NYT:

"The first I heard of it was an e-mail yesterday morning, when we got back from vacation," said Ron Howard, a college counselor at Redwood High School in Visalia, Calif., where about a quarter of the senior class applies to Fresno State. ...

"... [W]e hustled, hustled, hustled to get kids to file," said Diana Rodriguez, a counselor at Sunnyside High School in Fresno. "I really feel that if we'd known this Jan. 9 thing was coming, we could have saved more souls of kids who are falling through the cracks, but our district was on break until the 12th, and we had no idea this final slam-bang deadline was coming."

Vivian Franco, director of admissions at Fresno State, defends the unwelcome surprise by citing a disclaimer on the university's website that the application date was subject to change. She says most applicants submit by the priority deadline of Nov. 30.

But Franco's casual and dismissive comments completely disregard what her university means for thousands of young adults in California's Central Valley, where I lived for all of my life before attending college.

Fresno State is the most popular four-year university in the socioeconomically depressed valley, which relies on migrant labor to harvest a wide variety of crops. Overwhelmed guidance counselors in struggling public schools are limited in how much support they can offer individual students. Many high school students in the Valley don't consider a four-year university within their reach, and most don't apply to any type of college outside the region.

Those who do apply to a four-year school, usually apply to Fresno State. For many, the university is a real shot at "making it" in the world.

Fresno State just slammed the door in their faces.

I understand the California State University system is under pressure to help close a colossal budget deficit. I understand that those applicants who ignored the early deadline might not all be top-tier candidates.

But some of the would-be applicants may have been qualified students with real potential, and to cut them off without more reasonable advance notice is to deny thousands of students a chance at higher education. Many students are often intimidated, due to a lack of money and lack of support, to apply to colleges outside their region. If Fresno State doesn't take their application, some students just won't apply to a four-year school this year. It is not easy to move away, and minimum-wage jobs are tempting in today's economy.

I know why Fresno State did what it did. But they are sending the worst possible message to underprivileged graduating seniors: "Don't even apply."

Give those kids a chance.

See also:
- Fresno State's Cinderella run brings hope to local youth

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Calif. Voters to Review Gay Marriage Ruling

Joshua Sharp — 2008-11-03T15:15:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC, Local

UPDATE: Election Results | Analysis

California voters tomorrow could potentially overrule a state Supreme Court ruling made earlier this year which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 is one of the most contentious ballot measures in recent state history, with both sides pouring in tens of millions of dollars from outside contributors and engaging in vigorous ad wars. Complicating matters, a "Yes" vote means the voter intends to ban gay marriage, while a "No" vote supports allowing gay marriages to continue.

With polling places set to open in less than 24 hours, the "No" vote leads by a slim margin, 44 to 49 percent, and supporters of the ban face an uphill battle to close the gap. With the economy on everyone's mind, swing voters are hardly anxious to continue the divisive "culture wars" of 2004 and earlier, on hot-button social issues like gay marriage. And in a year when Democrats already have a huge edge in fundraising, voter registration, and volunteer activism, there is a lot more grassroots momentum behind the "No on 8" campaign in these final days. Opponents of Prop 8 are simply more motivated.

"Yes on 8" has had some galvanizing moments. Earlier this year, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom took an premature victory lap and proclaimed that gay marriage is here to stay, "whether you like it or not." That video clip became a prominent feature of a "Yes on 8" ad.

"Yes on Prop 8" Ad

A heterosexual couple also successfully fought to be legally recognized as "bride" and "groom," rather than Party A and Party B. And last month, a class of first-graders in San Francisco took a field trip to watch and celebrate their teacher's lesbian wedding. Both stories gained widespread media coverage and started some voters thinking about the basic practical implications of permitting gay marriage. It's a whole new world.

Both sides acknowledge that Tuesday's decision will have a far-reaching and potentially lasting impact. Sixty-one percent of California voters supported a proposition in 2000 defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but the state Supreme Court's decision this year reversed the electorate's decision. Some conservatives see Prop 8 as a referendum on so-called "liberal activist judges."

While conservative groups market the proposition as a judicial matter and classroom issue, supporters of gay marriage are also using different tact. They have been careful to warn against "flamboyant" weddings, and ads against Prop 8 simply ask voters to "not eliminate marriage for anyone."

With party enthusiasm and record turnout on their side, opponents of Prop 8 tomorrow have the inside track.

"No on Prop 8" Ad

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Calif. Couples Now "Bride" and "Groom" Once More

Joshua Sharp — 2008-10-06T23:48:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, USC, News, Local

None of this "Party A, Party B" nonsense.

Following a lawsuit filing last week, California officials are changing state marriage licenses once more to bring such 'antiquated' terms as Bride and Groom back into legal documents. After the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage in a 4-3 decision earlier this year, officials were ordered to institute gender-neutral language on state marriage documents. The result was a rather ambiguous -- and strangely hierarchical -- classification: Party A and Party B.

That didn't sit well with Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding of Roseville, California, who made headlines last week by suing to be legally recognized as bride and groom. According to the Sacramento Bee: "Because the couple have refused to sign and file the new marriage license form, their union isn't recognized by the state. Without a state license, Bird has been unable to use Codding's medical benefits or change her name."

"These gender-neutral terms violate the rights of the majority," said Doug Bird, Rachel's father and pastor of Abundant Life Fellowship church in Roseville.

The Bee reports that couples will soon be able to choose between being bride and groom, bride and bride, or groom and groom on their marriage licenses. Inevitably, though, some couple will sue to be Party A and Party B, arguing that "bride" and "groom" is sexist language forced upon society by religious zealots and old-fashioned prudes. This is California, after all.

Amusingly, a state spokeswoman told The Bee that Monday's announcement had nothing to do with the lawsuit filed Friday. Most of us are smarter than that, I dare to presume.

But these complaints, raised by couples across the state, are symptomatic of a larger issue: the new, uncharted territory in which California officials find themselves. As thousands of same-sex couples marry for the first time in state history (or the second, if you count the annulled '04 weddings), the legal, political, and cultural battle continues.

Complicating things: In November, voters will take up Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to re-ban gay marriage.

Update: A reader correctly points out that the Roseville couple's marriage license was indeed submitted and signed, but rejected because the couple had altered the license by writing in "Bride" and "Groom." The Sacramento Bee story has been updated to include this, and we appreciate the heads-up.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Fisher Reacts

Megan Baker — 2008-10-03T00:02:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, St. John Fisher College, Local

So, it's over. Now's the time to see what people think.

I watched the debate with a group of 15 or so communications/journalism students and everyone was on the same page. Biden is the man.

Under the circumstances, Palin didn't do too badly. It was easy to feel sorry for her knowing that everyone was just sitting around to dissect every word she said, which they did. A few of the statements that caught attention were:

"I'm an outsider." In reaction, senior Kyle Hayes said, "Wow, she basically just admitted she is inexperienced. Way to go, babe."

Palin talking about her "diverse" family and friends (apparently she has one lesbian friend...who knew?) Junior Amanda Nasso said, " I wouldn't consider Palin a friend. What kind of friend openly says they don't want you to have the same rights granted to you? And she is using that friend as an example, it's not right."

The debate drew quite a bit of laughter from the group, especially at the beginning when the mediator said, quite bluntly, that Palin was not answering the questions.

"She just kind of talked around everything," junior Sarah Jones said. "I'm not sure if she actually answered any of the questions."

It will be interesting to see what the general American public thinks of the debate. From what has been on the news so far, it was a victory for both ends. Palin didn't completely embarrass herself and Biden didn't come off as a bully. Students were concerned that all they seemed to talk about was voting records, however.

"All they talked about was what they had voted for in the past. That stuff doesn't matter much anymore. I wanted to know what they plan on doing for the future, and it didn't really come across," senior Susan Pedrotti said.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Termed-Out Democrat Endorses Republican Replacement

Joshua Sharp — 2008-09-20T18:49:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Breaking News, USC, Local

California Democrat Nicole Parra said yesterday she will endorse her former Republican rival, former California Highway Patrol officer Danny Gilmore, to replace her in the State Assembly, infuriating her party colleagues once again as they try to increase the Democratic Party's stranglehold on the state legislature (which just passed the state budget a record 81 days overdue after months of partisan gridlock). Gilmore was Parra's opponent in her 2006 re-election campaign. Term limits prevent Parra from running for re-election again.

Parra was previously profiled on this page for standing up to her party's Speaker of the Assembly. She abstained on a budget vote to highlight the need for a long-term water supply solution in her agriculture-dependent district, and Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, responded by moving Parra's office out of the State Capitol. (Disclosure: I interned in Parra's district office in summer 2006, having lived in the area for 18 years.)

It's safe to say Parra has never been securely in the Democratic Party's pocket. But she attracted Democratic and Republican voters to win three terms, and so the party kept supporting -- through money and volunteers -- her re-election bids. One can only imagine how happy they were with yesterday's announcement.

"After her Democratic colleagues worked year after year to get her re-elected, spent millions of dollars, walked hundreds of miles for her, at the end of her legislative career to poke them in the eye like this, I think, is an insult," Bass said.

Gilmore is a good candidate, but the move is also a slap in the face to his Democratic challenger Fran Florez, the mother of a State Senator with whom Parra has had an ongoing fued. Florez is a city councilwoman running on the strength of her son's name recognition, and Gilmore is well-positioned to win.

Still, the idea of a legislator endorsing her previous general election rival and helping to put the seat in the opposite party's control is pretty remarkable. While it doesn't have quite the impact that it would if, say, a U.S. Senator did the same thing, the practice is no doubt rare at almost every level, and a Republican takeover of the seat will impact California politics for years.

Bravo, Nicole.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Muslim Student Site Edited by University Admin

Joshua Sharp — 2008-09-08T21:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, USC, News, Local

From the Daily Trojan, student newspaper at the University of Southern California: "Provost C. L. Max Nikias has approved the deletion of part of a Muslim student group website that hosted religious documents urging Muslims to kill Jewish people. The material was removed from a collection of scriptures known as hadiths, historical sayings of the Prophet Muhammad not included in the Quran."

So apparently, my university hosts a massive online collection of hadiths. Who knew? Stowed away in this endless collection of reading material, in Book 041, Numbers 6981-6985, were various iterations of: "You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him."

Full text after the jump.

In a letter to USC trustee Alan Casden, Nikias called the passage "truly despicable" and said it violates the university's Principles of Community.

The Muslim Student Union, the largest Muslim student group on campus, said the university had ruined a classic: "We are outraged at the censorship of a complete religious and classic text without consulting us or any religious authority first," the group said in the statement. "The 'compendium' is now incomplete. There are verses in many religious texts (be it the Torah or the New Testament) that when taken out of context can be taken as offensive."

Classic texts or not, the University ultimately has the right to decide what rests on its servers. The MSU says Nikias should have consulted religious authorities first -- and perhaps he did -- but you can't fault the university for deleting that specific text. It does not appear alongside any contradicting or explanatory statements, and so readers could reasonably interpret the text literally. (Whether that hadith is meant literally or not, I cannot say; I am not a theologian.)

Regardless, I was amused to find that identical text is still being hosted by USC, in a different part of the same site:

Killing the Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: (from USC's website) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"

Deleted hadiths:
Book 041, Number 6981: Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.

Number 6982: Ubaidullah has reported this hadith with this chain of transmitters (and the Words are): "There is a Jew behind me."

Number 6983: Abdullah b. 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You and the Jews would fight against one another until a stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.

Number 6984: Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The Jews will fight against you and you will gain victory over them until the stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.

Number 6985: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
(Source: muslimaccess.com)

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

CA Democrat Kicked Out of Capitol

Joshua Sharp — 2008-08-19T03:16:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics, Local News, USC, Local

California State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has a mess on her hands, and she's taking it out on Nicole Parra.

Parra, a moderate Democrat in the left-leaning Assembly, told Speaker Bass in July she wouldn't support the state budget until the Assembly passed water bond legislation, ensuring water supplies for the agriculture-dependent Central Valley. (Full disclosure: I interned in Parra's district office in summer 2006, having lived in the area for 18 years.)

The state budget is now 50 days late, as legislators argue over how to close a $15.2 billion deficit. As is the norm, Republicans want to cut spending, and Democrats want to raise taxes. Nobody wants to compromise.

But when Parra followed through Sunday on her threat, abstaining on a state budget vote which failed by nine votes (a two-thirds majority is required), Bass flexed her own political muscle: She evicted Parra from the State Capitol, to an office across the street. She gave Parra's office a few hours to pack.

Parra said she had expected some retribution for bucking her party. But typically, an unruly lawmaker is sent to a smaller, cramped office space, not kicked out of the building entirely. Parra is now the only state legislator without an office in the Capitol.

Because she isn't running for re-election in November, having served the maximum three terms in the Assembly, Parra's punishment can't last for too long.

But Parra has always put the needs of her district and the Central Valley ahead of her own political interests. Water supply is a serious concern for farming communities (and the world they feed), and it always takes political muscle to get the job done. Parra's principled stand was clearly one of those moments when she decided to stand up and fight on the issue.

I can't say I agree with her ultimatum. We need a budget passed, and we need it now. But it makes me proud to see her courage in the face of immense political pressure. (Parra has previously all but endorsed a worthy Republican to take her seat, also infuriating party colleagues.)

The larger issue is about the principle of party discipline. Party leaders want legislators to do their bidding on almost every vote, but legislators need some freedom to vote according to their own integrity and their own district. The sad fact is, this is enforced successfully by restricting party funds and leadership positions to those who "follow the rules." Voters deserve better.

See also:
In a fantastic op-ed, the Fresno Bee recommends Bass spend more time trying to get the other party to agree on a budget. "Bass should toss the entire Assembly out of the Capitol if she wants to punish people who have failed Californians," the Bee writes.

"But if Republicans can vote against the budget because of their opposition to tax increases, Parra surely can abstain on the budget because she thinks her constituents deserve a solution to the water crisis.

"Bass' reaction to Parra revealed more about her weaknesses as speaker than it did about the Hanford Democrat not being a team player."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Peace' Protesters Get Violent Outside McCain-Obama Forum

Joshua Sharp — 2008-08-17T00:22:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Local News, USC, Local

Disclaimer: This author is a volunteer supporter of John McCain for President. Views expressed here are his own and do not speak for any candidate or candidate group.

What a day.

I caught a ride down to Lake Forest, California, today to join a pro-McCain rally outside Saddleback Church's Joint Forum with John McCain and Barack Obama.

I've never joined a rally or protest before, so I was a little overwhelmed by the hundreds of people gathered on the sidewalks outside the church -- not just the large delegation of McCain supporters, but others holding signs for Barack Obama, Bob Barr, and Ron Paul; anti-abortion activists holding graphic pictures of small fetuses; and advocacy groups ranging from anti-illegal immigrant groups to peace groups like Code Pink and A.N.S.W.E.R.

We had spent some of our early time establishing a presence on the intersection where McCain's motorcade was going to enter, on the side of the church. Only a few Ron Paul people were there, and I just ignored their loud rants about the Federal Reserve and the Iraq War. I came in knowing there would be a few crazies around.

But I didn't expect the "peace" groups to get violent...

We went to the front of the church, where most of the protesters had assembled. It was largely peaceful, as groups lobbed chants back and forth and waved signs. Bob Barr's people were insulted he wasn't invited, Ron Paul's people said they support the Constitution, and Barack Obama's people just kinda stood there.

It was definitely a mix. Some were just everyday folk supporting their candidate; others were wild-eyed nutcases I wouldn't trust with a toothbrush.

When we crossed the intersection toward the least-populated spot, where A.N.S.W.E.R. and other peacenik groups were gathered, the protesters locked arms and tried to block us from stepping onto the sidewalk. When police yelled for everybody to get off the street and onto the sidewalk, and we filed into the open spaces of concrete we could find, the peaceniks went ballistic.

"This is our sidewalk!" yelled a lady behind me, pushing people out of the way.

"What do you mean, 'this is our sidewalk'?" somebody asked. "I pay taxes, too."

The lady and a few other peaceniks started ripping our signs, pushing more and yelling about the war. Some older guy was yelling in my face, and as many times as I tried to ask him to calm down and let us stand there, he wouldn't have any of it. I then looked over and saw one of the more aggressive pacifists shove our smallest supporter, so I stepped between them. All I got was a hard shove into the street.

Nice to know they support First Amendment rights.

Eventually the police said they couldn't guarantee our safety, and escorted us back across the street, where we loaded onto a bus and waved signs from there, on our way back to the side entrance, where McCain's motorcade was soon expected to arrive.

And then, waving signs and chanting, we saw McCain's motorcade pass by as he entered Saddleback Church. One of the other supporters saw him waving through the glass, and Cindy, too.

What a day. Two observations:

(1) I'm glad I went.
(2) I worry that some of the crazy, unstable people actually vote while cooler heads stay at home on Election Day. I'd like to think the people voting for the other guy are at least rational.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

5.4 Quake Rocks Los Angeles

Joshua Sharp — 2008-07-29T14:47:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News, USC, Local

A huge earthquake hit just a few moments ago, while I was at work today at the University of Southern California (near downtown L.A.). Epicenter was only about 30 miles away, preliminary estimate is 5.8! Biggest earthquake I've ever felt...

The rumbling was loud and long, lasting about 10 seconds -- much longer than I expected, having felt a few earthquakes before. No damage seen yet. Nothing fell off shelves, though I was afraid enough to duck and cover under my desk. Most people stayed in their chairs, asking, "Is that an earthquake?" then sounding a little more concerned.

I feel slightly dizzy, everybody's still a little shaken up. I don't think any of us were really afraid the building was going to come down -- we didn't think it was that serious -- but that's partly due to trust in the local regulations ensuring earthquake-proof buildings. If this had hit in Turkey, it would have been a lot different.

Updates posted after the jump:

[ UDPATE 12:20pm: ] The USC campus is proceeding semi-normally, still a lot of chatter as I was biking across campus to take my lunch break. Admissions tour guides are still starting tours, interestingly enough, though a few large groups of visiting elementary-age schoolkids are waiting on the grass outside one of the main buildings. Not sure if they were indoors before.

No damage seen around the USC campus, again, and certainly no injuries. My apartment has nothing displaced -- it looked like a mess before.

[ UPDATE 12:33pm: ] Quake now measured as 5.4, not too surprising considering there was no damage or injuries. Most Angelenos (translation: LA folk) seem to be going on with their day; even though this is the biggest quake most of us have felt, the worst seems to be over. Just a little excitement, earned a couple of worried text messages from parents.

[ UPDATE 12:43pm: ] Consistent with other reports, the earthquake seemed to last forever. My initial estimate of 10 seconds is a conservative figure -- co-workers couldn't believe how long the rumbling went on, and felt some aftershocks. USC has sent a text message alert through their emergency notification system:

"5.8 earthquake USC buildings being inspected. Report damage to 213-740-[omitted]. Refer to USC website for more info."

[ UPDATE 12:56pm: ] If you haven't felt an earthquake before, it feels like you're laying in a bed and an older brother comes along and shakes it violently -- your whole world and foundation shakes. With an earthquake, the entire building and ground moves, and your body wobbles back and forth beyond your control. It's surreal and puts everybody in a slight state of shock.

Stay tuned...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

USC College Republicans Respond on CNN

Joshua Sharp — 2008-07-29T14:32:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC, Local

Author's Note: I am a volunteer co-chairperson for USC Students for McCain, a student organization independent of USC College Republicans. My views, posted here, are my own.

Update to a previous story: USC College Republicans President Ben Myers appeared Monday on CNN's "American Morning" following an embarrassing flare-up last week involving a CNN report about John McCain's appeal among college students. As this blog and others noted, CNN's primary source was a purported USC "College Republican" who was later found to be a fake. Contrary to the story's suggestions, Myers says students on campus are "very energized" for McCain (interview below, full transcript after the jump):

Surprisingly, CNN didn't mention their mistake in any part of Myers' interview -- that's the whole reason he was there! Considering the national coverage of the initial story, and its appearance on CNN.com and CNN's "American Morning," it seems that a brief note (or at least mentioning their own apology) would qualify as basic context.

But not in the world of CNN.com, which has a Corrections page for CNNmoney.com but not its parent site. Sometimes it confesses, sometimes it sweeps its mistakes under the rug. Disappointing.

ROBERTS: A young conservatives pumped about having John McCain as their candidate for president? College Republican tells us how McCain is reaching young voters. You're watching the "Most News in the Morning."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROBERTS: We have been talking a lot about how important the youth vote is turning out to be in this year's presidential election. It seems that Senator Barack Obama is attracting lots of young voters. How is Senator John McCain doing when it comes to bringing in the youth vote?

Joining us now to talk more about this is the president of USC College Republicans, Ben Myers. So, Ben, what are you hearing from young people there on campus in regards to John McCain?

BEN MYERS, PRESIDENT, USC COLLEGE REPUBLICANS: Well, people are very energized about John McCain as far as young conservatives on campus go. We're on summer break right now, but many of our students are, you know, going to events and volunteering across the state. We have people working at a victory headquarters openings. We have people doing precinct walking and phone banking and stuffing envelopes.

ROBERTS: When you see Barack Obama attracting so many young voters, bringing so many in the tent, do you ever get concerned and say, wow, can we match that?

MYERS: Well, we don't necessarily need to match it. We just need to be able to get our message across. We just need to be able to have people listen to us and say, you know, take a second look at John McCain because, you know, young conservatives like myself, you know, really admire John McCain, his character, his service to our country. And, you know, we want to share that with young people across the campus.

ROBERTS: Do you connect with him in the same way that young voters connect with Barack Obama? You know, John McCain recently said that he's illiterate when it comes to computers. He doesn't use e- mail. You know, when you hear things like that, do you say to yourself, hey, this is my guy?

MYERS: Absolutely. I've always been a fan of John McCain. I was a fan of him in 2000. I'm a fan of him today.

ROBERTS: What about the Republican Party, because even many, you know, rock-rib Republicans are saying they're not really happy with the direction of the party. They don't think that it reflects the Republican values that they believe that it should. How are young Republican voters feeling about the direction of the party? And how are they feeling about the future of the party itself under John McCain?

MYERS: I think that young Republicans are feeling very good about the future of the party under John McCain. I think young conservatives are more likely to appreciate a maverick.

ROBERTS: Is he as much of a maverick as he was back in 2000? You know, you look at his voting record. In 2007, he voted an awful with President Bush. He voted 100 percent with President Bush in 2008.

MYERS: I think that at the end of the day, whether he's a maverick or he's a conservative, you know, he's a Republican. And you know, that's going to be better than a liberal Democrat.

ROBERTS: Even John McCain has acknowledged that he's got a bit of a challenge when it comes to young voters. Let's listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I understand the challenge I have, and I understand that this election is really all about people of your generation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: When we look, Ben, at a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, voters 18-29 years old, 40 percent of them identify as Democrat, only 25 percent identify as Republicans. Is it difficult to recruit support for the Republican Party these days?

MYERS: I don't believe so. Certainly not seeing that on the college level. We have get out the vote weekends. We have over 500 students there, you know, walking precincts, you know, volunteering their time.

I have seen more and more people, you know, ask me, you know, hey, how can I get involved. You know, how I can help Senator McCain become president. And so, you know, we're seeing a lot of enthusiasm and it's very encouraging.

ROBERTS: It's going to be interesting to see, particularly coming up in the convention as well. Ben Myers is the president of the College Republicans at USC. Thanks for being with us this morning.

MYERS: Thank you, John.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments