Interesting article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today. Apparently contracting costs for the state government have decreased dramatically since Governor Doyle took office, from around $747 million to $419 million in the latest fiscal year.

Apparently the state government has been paying contractors to provide a lot of government services that could actually be provided more cheaply if state employees did the jobs directly. This makes sense, anytime you go through a middle man the cost will tend to increase because they need to take a cut for profit. Doyle wisely signed a bill last year requiring "cost benefit analyses for any service that would cost more than $25,000." Hopefully this will continue to bring down costs. Lord knows Wisconsin state government needs to find savings anywhere it can.

I guess my broader point is just because the private sector can do a job, it doesn't mean that it will get done better or more cheaply than the government can do it. This is the problem in Iraq where we're so dependent on private contractors because there were never enough troops on the ground to achieve our objectives. Needless to say this hasn't led to very good results especially in terms of reconstruction. This is all a symptom of the "private sector knows best" mentality that has dominated American public policy for decades.

I am spending my Thanksgiving in New Jersey with my family. And when I say "family," I mean not just my parents and siblings but also my aunts, uncles, cousins, their cousins, their aunts/uncles, etc. It's a big crowd and a lot of personalities. Conversations can result in everyone ganging up on one person for some good-natured ribbing or just because of groupthink disagreement.

It's easy for that one person to back down from his/her fight or be intimidated by the ridicule. But there are just some times when it's worth it to not give in. For me, my cousins' derogatory comments helped me discover my spine.

"That's so gay."

How many times do you hear that phrase (or a similar one) on any given day? Do people around you say it? Do you yourself use it?

My cousins toss around that phrase as if "gay" were a synonym for "stupid." It's a part of their colloquial vocabulary, as common a phrase as "That's so cool" or "That's what she said." They - and so many people - think nothing of it. Every time they say it (I'm not counting but it has been at least 15 times in the past 2 days...though a few were probably just to get a rise out of me), I stop and question them. They don't understand how that epithet could possibly be insulting - or they just don't seem to care. One of them, who is in the National Guard and just recently returned from Basic Training, even justified it by claiming, "It's how military people talk." (I don't buy that.)

The response I receive from people when I stop them and let them know that I don't appreciate the use of that term in that way has ranged from "You can't say that in front of Suchita" and "Such would be angry if she heard that" to "Yeah whatever, I'll say what I want" and "We don't have time for your personal vendetta."

This may be just my "personal vendetta" right now. And I may be failing at getting my cousins to rethink their statements and realize the derogatory nature of that phrase. But I like to think that I'm not the only one out there who has this same vendetta. Hopefully more of us are discovering our spines, as I did today.

Now that's a thought as you break that wishbone.... Happy Thanksgiving.

Labels: LGBT

As I was driving home with my dad for this short break, I brought up the news item that oil prices today started at $99 per barrel, and gas is going to be more expensive (yes...more than now). My dad replied how it's amazing that none of the Democratic candidates have brought up this issue so far. When I said that all the candidates have said something about alternative energy, my father told me he meant the fact that for the past eight years, oil companies have been experiencing record profits, while the cost of living is growing in this oil-dependent society.

Once I got home, I began to explore this idea a little more. Sure enough, there are thousands of news stories about Exxon and BP and all the other oil corporations pulling record profits, and Democratic response has been minimal, at best. Now, I'm not one to directly accuse the Bush administration of playing a major role in this, but Dubya was a Texas oilman before entering politics, and people typically make friends in the workplace...

But I digress. Democrats need to bring up this point more often: during the Bush Administration, oil companies have experienced record profits, and the American people are paying more and more at the pump. The Democratic Party should make it a point to discuss this discrepancy, and present solutions. I hate to be crude, but people vote with their wallets. While there are those who vote for candidates based on their stance on the issues, or even through party loyalty, most voters want to make sure that the candidate they put into office will do what it takes to allow the average American to live comfortably.

Now, an oil company is a private entity. It exists to make profit, and I respect that. But is their such a thing as making too much profit? If gas prices reach a point where the majority of consumers are unable to pay, does that not defeat the purpose of a profit-making organization? Are private companies answerable to the public? Since the public is the consumer, I think so. We, the people, and our candidates have to take a stand, and say we won't tolerate this quasi-gouging (real gouging?) anymore, and if the oil companies can't/won't find a solution, then we will, and the candidate that rises up and presents the best solution will almost certainly be our next President.

Anyway, that's enough of my ranting. I wish everyone a safe, happy, and gluttonous Thanksgiving.

Yesterday, I read an article on cnn.com titled, "Youth make noise in campaigns but not at polls."
Just from reading the title, I already felt discouraged.

As College Democrats, during an election we make it our temporary life goal to get students to vote, whether it is at a presidential election or a Dane County Board election. So, naturally, I pretty much felt as if we were failing at life. But I guess I still felt alright about that.
I can even look past the intimidating statistics:

"In 2006 there were 50 million people between the ages of 18 and 29 but only about 7 million actually cast a ballot."

Yes. That is bad. But that is what we are working to fix, right? But then it gets worse:

"A recent poll by New York University's journalism department found that a majority of students said they would give up their right to vote if they could get their tuition paid."

At first read, this poll seems a bit ridiculous and even comical. But again, it gets worse:

"I would absolutely give up my right to vote," one young man said. Another said, "It's my education and I feel that's a little more important."

Wow.

Education is one of the most important things in your life. Agreed.
But would you give up your vote to pay for it?
Education is expensive. Tuition fees have been sky-rocketing. But what has gone wrong in the system that has provoked this sort of thinking? What has made the need for money so desperate that students are eager and willing to give up their right to democracy?
Of course, we could pass this off as an ignorant voice from students who just don't care.
But I think this goes far beyond apathy.

And we of course see this sort of attitude on our very own campus. We even see this attitude among students who may be considered more "politically aware" than the rest of the student population.
For example:
Over 75 people attended our showing of "Sicko." A great event with a packed house.
Only 4 days later, the College Democrats hosted a State Government Forum meeting...maybe 30 people showed up?

"Sicko" begs for change, and I think students walked out of the room that night thinking about that change. Even at the door on the way out, students were talking and getting heated up about the movie and what America should be like. I was very excited.
So you would think, then, that those same students who were "fired up" about health care and politics would be the first ones at a forum with the people that help put those changes into motion; but they weren't.

How can a movie pull in more than twice the amount of people than a chance to talk to the people who work to bring about actual change?
How can paying expensive tuition fees become more important than the right to vote?

Suchita always brings up the question: "Why are we democrats?"
I am going to ask: "Why are we College Democrats?"

Maybe because we enjoy our right to vote? Maybe because we are better than everyone else?
Or maybe just because we have a voice and know how to use it.

So let's make sure our voices are louder than NYU, okay?

Well, I guess there is no point to holding an election next fall. Now that Chuck Norris has endorsed... I mean, "told America how it's gonna be."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/thank-you-chuck-norris/

To be honest it is one of the better political advertisements I've seen.......

By now, many of us are beginning to feel the effects of the Writers Guild of America strike. My beloved Office aired its final produced episode last week, and we might be missing out on quite a bit of Lost come February. Faced with the specter of ongoing reruns, an abundance of reality television, or even a last resort of social interaction during prime time, I (and I'm sure we would all) hope that studios agree to give writers their due, and soon. For those of you not intimately familiar with the nature of this dispute, the writers from The Daily Show have put together a great summary of the issues at hand:


Of course, it's funnier when Jon Stewart does it, but the point here is still pretty clear.