The other election night speech
Through the sea of news highlighting the landslide victory of President-elect Barack Obama on election night, I couldn’t help but wonder to myself what was going on with all of the Republicans throughout the country, and Sen. John McCain himself. It’s like when that big victory comes in a sports game — be it the Olympics, the playoffs or the Super Bowl — and you see the winning team and its fans celebrating ecstatically, while in the background there is the losing team and its fans with long and disappointed faces looking sullen and defeated. But you only see them for a brief moment; then it’s back to the glee and celebration. The other half of the competition is quickly pushed to the back of the mind.
I would have to say that the most memorable moment of that night, aside from figuring out Obama won, was McCain’s congratulatory speech. When I discussed it afterward with several of my friends and acquaintances, I was legitimately surprised by what I now take to be the default answer of most on the victorious side: He said what he was supposed to.
I dare all who feel that way to go back and take a look at what he said and rethink that dismissive stance you might have.
He did express a feeling of, I’m sure, underrepresented disappointment for the outcome of the election, and sounded at one point as if he were on the verge of tears, yet reinforced to everyone that, “This campaign was, and will remain, the greatest honor of my life.” He went on to thank the American people for giving him “a fair hearing” before determining the election. He said that he has no regrets about what could have happened, but knows now that he must support Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who he added was his “old friend.”
McCain went on to acknowledge the history of the “past injustices” of the country, commended Obama “for inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had … little influence in the election of an American president.”
“I urge all Americans who supported me,” McCain said, “to join me in not just congratulating him, but to offer our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences … and leave our grandchildren a better country than we inherited.”
In cases such as this, one of those “you had to have been there” situations, words really can’t capture the brevity of a situation, the power of a speech. Words do not allow for body language and inflection, atmosphere and as much emotion. So don’t just read what I’ve written here; go onto YouTube, look up “John McCain Congratulates Sen. Obama” and watch for yourself.
I think we can expect good things from McCain in the future and his support for the new president. He’s not a sore loser, nor is he even close to current President George W. Bush. So we can anticipate the past being the past and the future actually being the future that we are all hoping for.
—Nico Stevens,
English literature senior
Who is A.S. really representing?
As some know, Associated Students has been put in charge of holding “alternative consultations” that are allegedly designed to present the facts surrounding the proposal to increase the Instructionally Related Activities Fee that every student will be forced to pay if it is approved. However, there is a problem. Instead of taking the time to get student input and then acting as our voice as it should have done as our representative, A.S. took a vote amongst its members to determine which way it was going to lean. The result, by a narrow margin, was in favor of the proposal. Well, when someone is in favor of something, it becomes difficult for them to present the matter objectively and in an unbiased manner, which is their job at these forums. It is A.S.’s job to represent us, as opposed to convincing us one way or another. Sure, it presented some facts, but only the ones that presented the proposal in a favorable light.
How about these facts? A similar measure was rejected by students in 2004, but put into effect by President Stephen L. Weber anyway. Despite the trampling of the democratic process, A.S. never censured Weber. Much like this proposal, it was bundled with other fee allocations that seemed legitimately beneficial. In 2004, it was money for new course offerings, now it is gender equity, even though only $12 of the $80 would go to that. Lately, about 42 percent of San Diego State’s athletics budget comes from the university general fund, student fees and other university sources. According to a September 2007 article in The Union Tribune, NCAA research released in May said that’s roughly double the 21.6 percent average for a Division I-A school’s allocations to athletics.
How convenient that they forgot to educate the students about these facts during the presentations. They even had the audacity to state that the passage of this fee would free up the Presidential Discretionary Fund for other things such as academics, as though athletics had exclusive rights to this money all along. Who is to say that as soon as athletics starts foundering again, this discretionary money doesn’t go back to subsidize athletics? There is no guarantee. There are no checks or balances. There is no accountability or financial transparency.
It was stated that the football team is profitable, but not to the point of being able to float the losses of other sports. However, according to USA Today in 2006, the report from James Isch, the NCAA’s senior vice president of administration and chief financial officer, showed only 19 of the 118 schools in the NCAA’s Bowl Subdivision generated revenue that exceed their expenses. The 99 schools with expenses that exceed their revenues lost an average of $8.9 million. Is SDSU saying that it is one of those 19 profitable programs in the country, with a record of one win, eight losses?
To get an insider’s perspective, Inside Higher Ed’s January 2005 issue contained the following quote from John V. Lombardi: “Maybe five (Division IA college football teams) in the country make money, (if you could get them to report their income and expenses honestly and fully). The other 112 or so lose money; some lose a great deal of money.” The NCAA wants schools to use standardized, legitimate accounting practices so that schools can be compared and there can be some accountability. The athletic programs however ... well, wouldn’t you want the chance to gloss over a big mess, too?
So who came up with the proposal? None other than head football coach Chuck Long. I too would go well out of my way to protect my job if I were being paid $725,000 to lose eight out of nine times. To be fair, as sickening as it may be, he is nowhere near being the top paid coach in college football ... but he just may be the highest paid on a per-win basis.
Student support is supposed to be gauged at these forums. But the student composition at these forums is hardly representative of the general student body. Students come to them at will and, given that it is an athletic issue, they are attended predominantly by athletes. Near the end of the forums, a very informal vote is taken. There is no use of identification or even student ID numbers. People could easily vote more than once or not even be a student for that matter. If the results of these forums are not outright worthless, they will be sloppy and ambiguous at best. This ambiguity leaves room for interpretation and gives leeway to President Weber to choose as he pleases without having to disregard a clear student voice because these forums effectively smother it. It is clear how opinion should be gauged: a random sample of athletes and non-athletes. They should be presented with all the facts, hearing arguments for and against, like in a voter’s guide, then surveyed. Finally, these results can be multiplied by the number of students they represent. If this were carried out credibly, I would go along with the results, whether for or against, without reservation because I believe then it would truly reflect the student’s opinion.
I don’t hate sports. Sure, I’m not a big fan of watching them, but I do love to play them and I respect those who dedicate themselves to something and excel. I don’t want football or any sport to go away or vanish into obscurity. What I want is a solution that works for us all and can be sustained in the long run. Sure, throwing money at the program is definitely the easiest way to deal with the problem, but is it the best? To me, it looks like tossing fish to the hungry instead of teaching them how to fish. There are creative solutions to the ailments of athletics just waiting to be implemented. An example is this: Until the other day, I had no idea that Aztec football games were free to students, nor did I know that student attendance, despite it being free, helps raise money by attracting sponsors. I am a senior and this is news to me. Clearly marketing is one aspect that could be improved, but I’m sure there are plenty of others. The students need to be directly involved in the process of saving their football team or it will continue to be taken for granted. I have never been to a game, but if it will save the athletic department and help students dodge fee increases, I’ll be there, with friends.
—James Castañeda,
international business senior
Give the security fence a fair shake
I was reading The Daily Aztec on Monday, Nov. 10, when I came across Hafiza Aimaq’s column titled “Bring down the apartheid wall,” obviously preaching to an uninformed crowd, but curiosity compelled me to read on. What I proceeded to read disturbed me tremendously.
The discussion surrounding the Israel West Bank barrier is extremely controversial, but must be debated in order to properly inform countries around the world of the happenings in the Middle East. Even its name is controversial, as the wall is given many names by different groups: “apartheid wall” by the Palestinians and “anti-terrorist fence” by the Israelis and those who support the idea of the separation.
In September 2000, the second intifada, intensified by Palestinian-Israeli violence, began in Israel. After numerous suicide bombings and daily terror attacks against Israeli civilians that have killed more than 850 people and wounded thousands more since, Israel’s government decided to design a security fence between Israel and the West Bank to prevent Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating into highly populated cities. The project has had the overwhelming support of the Israeli public as well as the vote of the United States in the United Nations, that it should not be torn down, as it is seen as vital to Israelis’ security.
Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, emphasizes that “the fence is not political (and) is not a border” but is for protection purposes only. There is nothing new about the construction of a security fence. Many other nations have fences to protect their borders. In San Diego, many probably are aware that the United States is building a barrier now to keep out illegal immigrants, which is also highly controversial. Israel too has similar barriers along its borders with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Ironically, after condemning Israel’s barrier, the U.N. announced plans to build its own fence to improve security around its headquarters in New York.
From the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, Samaria-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and nearly 2,000 were wounded. Between the beginning of 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003. Since construction of the barrier, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90 percent, significantly decreasing the number of innocent civilians murdered and wounded.
Even Palestinian terrorists have admitted the fence is a successful deterrent. Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdullah Shalah said the terrorist organizations had every intention of continuing suicide bombing attacks, but that their timing and the possibility of implementing them from the West Bank depended on other factors. “For example,” Shalah said, “there is the separation fence, which is an obstacle to the resistance, and if it were not there the situation would be different.”
The security fence does create some inconvenience to Palestinians as Aimaq stated, but it also saves lives. There are pros and cons to every proposal, but the deaths of hundreds of Israelis because of terror are irreversible, outweighing the temporary hardships faced by Palestinians as we struggle to build peace in the Middle East.
—Alli Urguby,
pre-physical therapy junior
The Daily Aztec > State of Mind > Letters to the Editor
LETTERS: 11-19-08
Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Updated: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
1 comments
awaki
I liked McCain's speech too. Thanks for your thoughtful article.
