Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think anything will change. President Bush has a plan, according to his website, “to ensure that every high school student graduates and is ready for the workplace or college” by earmarking hundreds of millions to education for the next fiscal year. Pell Grants, of which I am a recipient, will increase a whopping $400 by 2005. His plan would like to see an increase in overall financial aid for all students, including loans.

According to the New York Times, Pell Grants 25 years ago covered 80 percent of public school aid. Today it covers 40 percent. For me at UM it covers a little over 10 percent. Another part of his plan is to make college more affordable by reducing interest rates, increasing loan limits and expanding repayment options. This does not sound right to me. If you extend the life of your loan with a lower interest rate and pay less in monthly installments, doesn’t that come out to be about the same as it was before?

If you think Kerry is better, think again. He wants to “offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down,” according to his website. How about just giving me that money in the form of a grant? What if the state has to increase the costs to take care of a system that may need to be upgraded which can lead to a tuition increase? What would Kerry do then?

These “improvements” all sound good to those that want to hear it, but where is the money going to come from to pay for all of this “goodwill” for students? In case you haven’t heard, there is a little country called Iraq we need to take care of, and it is siphoning money from taxpayers like a baby sucking on a bottle. We also experienced a few hurricanes over the past few months, and you know it costs a pretty penny to cover those damages.

In other words, when it comes to education, be prepared for absolutely no change in the next four years.

Vontilla Steven can be contacted at v.steven@umiami.edu.

Election years are undoubtedly stressful. As potential voters, we are bombarded with conflicting information and are expected to make a sound decision. How can we dig through the massive biases to find truth and be informed enough to make a decision? How do we figure out truly what we agree with or not? How do we know that we have not been presented with only half of the issues?

One issue, of the many that particularly disturbs me is the way that religion has become a political issue.

Morality is important and valuable in any society, but religion is not an official part of our government, as established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I wonder, then, why have Jesus Christ’s beliefs become something for everyone to consider when choosing our next president?

I went to church on Sunday and directly in front me someone’s shirt read, “Is Christ ‘OK’ with abortion?” Please understand that I am not criticizing religious people and those who pray for guidance when making decisions – I am one of them.

My concern is with bringing Jesus in as a vital perspective and how we should be guilt-ridden if we do not think of his words. I am also troubled with how we only think of Jesus and consider what he has to say only when it seems convenient. If we are talking about his opinion on abortion, then what he says about any form of murder should also be considered, whether it is punitive, the act of war, or capital punishment.

Religious fundamentalism prevalent in this election does not make sense to me even when viewed through my faith. Many issues in this election have been tied to religious thought such as abortion, the war and gay and lesbian marriages. I’m shocked that those considering themselves faithful and vehemently against the murder of unborn children are turning their backs sharply on what their faith has to say about loving, accepting, respecting and forgiving all human beings and human life.

So, I say we stray from discussing these issues in a religious light and instead focus on the society at large and how it should be improved for the people, by the people.

Beni Yunis can be contacted at b.yunis@umiami.edu.

How gullible does President Bush think the American people are when he insists that his foreign policy has succeeded in accomplishing our goals? In a kindergarten type of way, Bush has handled foreign relations with other countries while destroying our surplus, not fixing healthcare, attempting to implement a discriminatory amendment, butchering the English language, not finding Osama, hiding Saddam from the media, and managing to fit in enough days to play a few rounds of golf before he takes in his daily reading of My Pet Goat.

I hate to get off on a rant here, but how exactly are Britain, Italy, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Holland, South Korea, Japan, Spain and some other tiny, non-existent countries the main participating countries that supported the ousting of Saddam? I can respect Great Britain, Australia and Japan for their ability to develop truly sophisticated militaries. But it was only Britain that gave a significantly large enough effort to participate in this war. All the other countries gave token amounts of military support to appease Bush so he wouldn’t impose any economic sanctions against them. Who has ever asked Poland, Holland or Denmark about their opinion in military affairs? The only other time you’ll find those three countries in the same conversation is when comparing whose chocolate tastes better.

The countries whose support we did need did not want to support us because the Bush administration refused to give more time to the weapons inspectors. Would it have hurt to wait another month and see what they could have found? Certainly not, and if anybody says it costs money to keep a military idle for a month, try funding it for over a year without finding the main objective as to why it went to Iraq in the first place.

Tell over 1,000 mothers that their children died because we couldn’t wait a little bit longer. Better yet, tell them their child died a hero trying to find something that was never there.

It’s true that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan are now our huggable buddies against the war on terror. But almost all the terrorists still come from those countries, including Osama “Waldo” Laden who appears to hide out in our friend Pakistan’s backyard. But then again, Bush doesn’t consider bin Laden America’s biggest problem anymore; he’s got more oil to catch – I mean, more countries to liberate – like Iran and Syria.

If we give four more years to Bush, what can we really expect from a man that has bankrupted every business he has ever owned? He managed to run down a baseball team! Our country should not be a business at the hands of an incompetent CEO, and by all means, we should not let Bush run us down more then he already has.

Slava Borshchukov can be contacted at v.borshchukov@umiami.edu.

The Dalai Lama addressed the issue of Iraq during his speech at UM last week. What he told the predominately anti-war audience gained no applause; in fact, many left after his statement. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate said the U.S.-led coalition has the right intent in Iraq but only the war’s outcome will determine its justness. Tibet’s leader-in-exile explained that World War II and Korea were just wars, Vietnam was a total failure and Iraq is “too soon to tell.” The central question for the U.S. presidency should ask which candidate would do whatever it takes to achieve a peaceful and democratic government for Iraq.

Whether or not the coalition accomplishes its goals in Saddam’s former graveyard will largely determine whether our world continues its steady march towards democratic freedoms or yields to those who use terror as a tool to advance their ideologies of hate and oppression. Battle lines drawn in Iraq pit the coalition fighting for democracy versus fascist terrorists and former Baathists trying to break the coalition’s will by blowing up soldiers and civilians alike. An American retreat before the emergence of a stable democratic government in Iraqi would surely embolden Al-Qaeda, as it did after our exit from Somalia, and encourage the pursuit of WMD by rogue nations such as Iran, Syria and North Korea. A democratic and prosperous Iraq and Middle East represent our best long-term solution to Islamic fundamentalism. It would deal a major defeat to terrorists.

The U.S. has bet the house on Iraq. Which candidate will take the Dalai Lama’s advice and hold our cards until the job is done, and which one will fold them?

Statements by Sen. John Kerry indicate he’ll fold the first chance he gets. The senator has demoralized our troops in battle and emboldened the terrorist enemy by declaring Iraq “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Kerry claims he will bring more foreign allies to Iraq but simultaneously refers to our brave partners as a “coalition of the bribed.” He claims he will work with the new Iraqi government but questions Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi’s credibility. Will this quintessential liberal dove that made his career by declaring himself and all Vietnam soldiers “war criminals” stick it out in Iraq? Will this senator that voted against the Gulf War and numerous defense-spending initiatives keep America’s commitments in Iraq?

Kerry’s words and actions are not that of a man committed to democracy in Iraq but of one suffering from Vietnam syndrome. The choice this November between defeat and victory in Iraq is clear.

Pete Trombadore can be contacted at p.trombadore@umiami.edu.

As the 2004 presidential debates begin, I’m reminded of more substantive times. Debates are no longer simply a meeting of two or more candidates for the purpose of discussing the issues. Now they’re seen as a defining moment in one’s quest for office. They’re deemed to be of such great importance that some candidates view them as essential to even having any impact in the election. Yet with the exception of the presidential debates, very few people think to consider debates that happen between candidates for other offices. Can you recall the last time there was significant media attention given to a County Commission candidate’s debate? Or for a State House of Representatives campaign? Or City Council? And yet, all of those offices have more immediate and direct impact on our lives than almost anything the president does.

In 1858, U.S. Sen. Stephen Douglas, who was running for reelection, received a letter from his challenger asking if it “…will be agreeable to you to make an arrangement for you and myself to divide time, and address the same audience during the present canvass?” Douglas reluctantly agreed and subsequently met his opponent, Abraham Lincoln, seven times over the course of the next four months. If Kerry and Bush had made such an arrangement, most Americans would probably lose interest after the first two or three debates, complaining in the end that it cut into their favorite TV show, like when reruns of I Love Lucy were cancelled in order to cover the first manned landing on the moon and people called the network to complain.

This phenomenon corresponds to the rise of television. In the first debate of the 1960 election, those people who only heard the debate on the radio felt that Richard Nixon won, while those that saw the Don Hewitt-coached performance of John Kennedy on TV thought he won. The same issues, but the image made for television won out over the actual discussion. Unfortunately, today’s debates have become nothing more than a media spectacle unlikely to present anything we haven’t heard a million times already. Now we get to watch everything get packaged into sound bites for the evening news.

Do I blame the media for this? No. I blame Americans for wanting everything in five-second intervals so they can spend more time on really important things…like reality TV.

Scott Wacholtz can be contacted at s.wacholtz@umiami.edu.

As a freshman, I was nervous to go through the recruitment process, but our Rho Gammas continued to emphasize that we shouldn’t be upset if we didn’t get a bid to one of the six sororities on campus because we could always go through Alpha Delta Pi’s (ADPi’s) recruitment.

Despite what The Hurricane stated in its editorial, I believe recruitment was very clear. We had three options: go for one of the six existing sororities and get a bid; go for one, not get a bid and go for ADPi, or just go for ADPi. They gave us the option to drop out and go for ADPi if we felt it was the one for us. Anyone who didn’t grasp that concept just wasn’t paying attention.

Rather than put down Greek recruitment, The Hurricane should be commending the six UM sororities for their outstanding support in welcoming a new group to campus. Multiple Greek women have willingly volunteered to help with ADPi’s recruitment and even offered to take a Little Sister under their wing just like they do with other sororities.

Maybe The Hurricane should try not to reinforce the already negative reputation that sororities have. They all have embraced ADPi and soon-to-be members with open arms.

Ashley Davidson

RE: “Debate brings inconveniences to parking and Wellness Center,” 9/28

I’m overjoyed to be having the first presidential debate on our campus. At least, I would be if I could see President Bush or Senator Kerry at any point during the week. Unfortunately, this charade is an attempt to enhance the political agenda of Donna Shalala via the resources of our University. The students are merely going to be the backdrop of many a television reporter during this week.

The Wellness Center is closed for four days for a bunch of reporters, the commuter parking garage is changed into a lot for resident students, the largest resident lot on campus is closed, the grass is torn up by “Green Space lots” (100 dollars says that UNICCO will spend a month making our university “beautiful” afterwards), and fences are erected all around campus. The U.S. Postal Service delivers through rain, sleet, ice, hail, but not when there’s a presidential debate on campus.

It’s reassuring to note, however, that we will be allowed to carry backpacks during the week of the debate. I doubt the Secret Service would enjoy carrying my books to class. Also, it’s refreshing to note that security will be so tight that the preschoolers won’t be able to go to school on Thursday. Way to keep campus safe.

From UM’s debate website: “Students also are playing a key role, volunteering at debate-related events, organizing rallies, and taking part in the voting process-some for the first time in their young lives.” Volunteering at debate-related events and organizing rallies and not getting to see any benefits for their hard work, that’s how the students are being treated. We are young, but not all of us are na

All the parking lot closings, ‘Cane card hole-punching and lanyard-wearing has come down to a 90-minute showdown tonight at the Convocation Center.

Only time will tell whether the skyrocketing costs and undeniable hassles will be worth it. For now, we can only ask one thing: Dazzle us, gentlemen.

Impress us with honest, straightforward answers. Amaze us with innovative responses. Be witty. Make us laugh. And, above all, say what we need hear.

We need you to tell us what will happen in Iraq in the future. We’re uncertain as to what will change and what will stay the same, and this is the time to tell us. Furthermore, we need to know whether what happened in Iraq will be repeated elsewhere. Are other countries targeted or considered hot spots? If so, which ones and why? How will the U.S. mend its diplomatic relations with other countries?

Your points at the Debate, however, shouldn’t focus entirely on Iraq. Latin America has been largely ignored in the past few years. Address the issues concerning this unstable, neighboring region.

In the 2000 presidential election, before 9/11, we may have overlooked the importance of the American president’s foreign policy. Now, we know what’s at stake.

Most importantly, we want concrete details. You often underestimate your audience, thinking we don’t have the attention span to understand what you’re saying. This, along with the format of the event, turns the Debate into a tedious press conference instead of a discussion on the election issues. Give us a little credit, and explain your points thoroughly so that your message gets through.

Don’t bore us by rehashing bland campaign slogans that we’ve heard for the past six months. Most of what we’ve retained from your ads has been “I’m [insert name here], and I approved this message.” Gentlemen, this is not enough. Surprise us by making your statements real and relevant, and steer clear of the National Guard, Vietnam and the Swift Boat Veterans. We’ve had enough of that.

And, although the topic of the Debate is foreign policy, hook us with issues that concern us. Remind us why we should care about what have you say and why we ought to be interested in politics. Much too often, college-age students are indifferent to candidates and their positions, because we find that politicians are too similar or, frankly, disconnected with the world outside of Washington, D.C. Show us that you know what our concerns are, and speak directly to us.

If nothing else, you will have a keen university audience watching the Debate at our Rathskeller, and we will all be listening.