Young Democrats at the University of Houston

2006-10-02T15:04:00.000-07:00

This is why the hell not.
Isaiah N. Warner

This past week, Kinky Friedman and Jesse Ventura came to campus and filled a room of a few hundred students. The level of support for the Friedman campaign has certainly been strong at UH. However, he can not, will not, and should not win this election.

First and foremost, Friedman cannot mathematically win this election. Anyone with a nickel’s worth of political science education knows that to win this year’s gubernatorial election will require a base electorate. While Rick Perry and Chris Bell have established party bases working to their advantage, Friedman has nothing of the such. His chances of reaching the 35% needed to win this election are as slim as the chances that the Texans will get a decent offensive line.

By toting around Ventura as an example of Independent success in gubernatorial elections, Friedman has misled the voters of Texas. Ventura primarily won due to the same-day registration in Minnesota. In addition, he also had the nomination of the Reform Party, which carries a high level of support in Minnesota. As neither of these conditions are present in Friedman’s campaign, parallels to Ventura’s success in 1998 are made without factual basis.

If the election was determined upon T-Shirt, bumper sticker, and action figure sales, Friedman might win. While his attempt to use the campaign for personal profit and publicity may yield successful results; the general election will prove to be a sobering reality check of failure. The 18.9% in the recent Zogby/Wall Street Journal poll will result in 0% success on November 7. Texans should not support a gimmick candidate who is merely looking to make money on a futile campaign trail, and any of the 18.9% who are considering voting for the Cowboy are wasting their votes.

Friedman would have absolutely no legitimacy with the Texas State Legislature he would be working with. After speaking with numerous colleagues who also work in the Legislature, it became evident that most of Friedman’s proposals would be treated like a prescription request for Vicodin from the Bush Twins. It is possible to criticize this logic, but it does not change the fact that Friedman will have a handicap in accomplishing goals.

To say that there are question marks about Friedman’s views on race is an understatement. In the past weeks, potential voters have questioned if Friedman is running for governor or for Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (if it were an elected office). In today’s day in age, candidates seeking the Governor’s Mansion should not have questions raised about their racial tolerance. These question marks should invalidate his candidacy.

If such a poll existed currently, it would be interesting to see the number of people who regret voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. While supporters of Nader may believe they were saving democracy, a vote for Nader was nothing less than a Trojan horse for President Bush. In Texas, we have the opportunity and the imperative to avoid allowing Rick Perry to use Kinky Friedman as a Trojan horse for his reelection. The consequences of allowing this to occur will reverberate across the state for decades.

The only choice on the ballot for a true progressive is Chris Bell. As a champion of tuition regulation and public schools, Bell will deliver more for UH students than any other candidate. With the support and nomination of the Democratic Party, Bell will win the election in November if progressives and moderates realize he is their candidate.

2006-09-29T15:14:00.000-07:00

Tuesday at 2:00 PM, the Texas House of Representatives State Affairs Committee held a public interim hearing regarding stem-cell research at the UH Law Center’s Krost Auditorium. As this issue literally came to campus, it is imperative to discuss the importance of the issue and how it will impact our future.

It is once in a lifetime when great opportunities for scientific advancement are available. It is unimaginable to think that there needs to be a debate about whether or not everything should be done to cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or ALS. When opportunities like stem-cell research come along, they must be seized.

Although President Bush proudly vetoed a bill surrounded by children “created from the embryos that stem-cell research would destroy”, he failed to mention the high number of unused embryos that go to waste each year. It only makes sense to use the embryos for research instead of throwing them away. By cherry-picking scientific research as they cherry-picked intelligence reports prior to the Iraq war, the Bush Administration has lead the United States down a slippery slope.

The War on Science that has been waged by President Bush has impeded scientific progress. Through their strangling of funding for stem-cell research, they have illustrated their opposition to improving the quality of life. When scientists finally develop an HIV vaccine, those suffering from the disease should all be thankful that the current administration will not be in power.
In Houston, the outcome of the debate over stem-cell research has long-term repercussions. A large portion of the economy is based on health care and medical research. If the government officials who control funding for research decide that it should be supported as poorly as the public school system has been, those looking for a career in medical research should move from Houston to South Korea.

Opponents of stem-cell research are painting it as a moral issue. Although their definition of morality is normally shaped by cherry-picking words from the Bible, most Democrats agree that stem-cell research truly is a moral issue. We have the moral imperative to protect our elderly from debilitating illnesses that paralyze once brilliant minds. We have the moral imperative to assure that every avenue is explored in the battle against cancer, which kills 1500 Americans every day. Most importantly, we have the moral imperative to ensure that children grow up in a world far removed from preventable disease. Challengers of this logic are far removed from being pro-life.

When John F. Kennedy said that there would be a man on the moon by the end of the decade, it happened. Stem-cell research can go far beyond the footsteps of Neil Armstrong, paving the road for the next great scientific achievement of the United States. Instead of reaching for the moon, this time we are reaching for the stars. In a quest to eradicate diseases and save human life, stem-cell research can be the Apollo mission. We have broken the restraints of what was thought to be our limitations once before. Surely, they can be broken again.

2006-09-10T23:22:00.000-07:00

5 Years Later: Where Are We?
Isaiah N. Warner

On September 11, we became aware of how vulnerable our country is to terrorism. For the first time since World War II, a foreign combatant killed thousands of Americans on US soil. While war has been waged in countries thousands of miles away from New York City, little has been done to create real homeland security. The best way to fight terrorism is by increasing security at home.

We have to take our shoes off before we get on an airplane, but are the airports as secure as they could be? The 9/11 Commission says no. We have received failing grades for protection at airports. Detailed recommendations were given to the President, yet they have not been implemented. Recently, a passenger carried a stick on dynamite onto an airplane. The mission has not been accomplished.

Only 5% of all cargo entering the country through the port system is inspected. Is the President doing anything to increase the capability to screen materials entering the US? Instead of increasing port security, he stood by a plan to outsource control of ports to a foreign company. In his campaign for Congressional District 22, Congressman Nick Lampson has been an outspoken critic of this negligence. Lampson understands that port security is inadequate; when will our leaders in Washington understand?

The Bush Administration continuously identifies Iraq as a front of the War on Terror. The American public disagrees. Iraq had no connection to the attacks that killed 3000 Americans, yet our military is in the quicksand known as Baghdad. Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror, and it is our soldiers who are paying the cost for this mistake.

For the intelligence community, 9/11 was a failure at every single level. Despite concrete recommendations from the 9/11 commission, the Bush administration has failed to implement sufficient reform. The CIA and FBI are as ill prepared to prevent terrorism as they were 5 years ago.

While there is a legitimate security problem at the US-Mexico border, it must be known that the terrorists who attacked our country on 9/11 were here with legal visiting status. Terrorists could just as easily cross the Canadian border into Montana as they could cross the Mexican border into Arizona. Highlighting the broken border is nothing less than an attempt to create a wedge issue for the 2006 midterm elections (i.e. gay marriage in 2004.)

Homeland security starts at home. The best way to fight terrorism is by improving protection domestically. By not providing real reform, we have done very little to honor the memories of those who lost their lives 5 years ago.

2006-08-20T16:39:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Official Blog of the University of Houston Young Democrats!